Myrna agonistes

I don't think "Minkoff" fits. She's a Bourbon, from follicles to feet: She learned nothing, and forgot nothing. She's going to ride this narrative to her grave.

But it becomes "my" problem if a president of the United States is either supportive of or indifferent to having staffers who hold Christians in such frothing contempt. What kind of signal would Marcotte and McEwan's continued employment on the Edwards campaign send about the kind of people a Pres. Edwards would hire? Understand me here, I'm not talking about his having on his staff feminists, abortion rights supporters, people who think the Catholic Church is wrong about most everything. I would expect that to be the case -- he is, after all, a liberal Democrat. What bothered me so much was that Marcotte's views were so extreme that she took pleasure in heaping contempt on her Christian opponents, to the point of blaspheming our God. That take-no-prisoners attitude is common on the blogosphere, both on the left and on the right, but it shouldn't have a place in mainstream politics. Let me put it like this: if, I dunno, the Rudy Giuliani campaign hired a staffer who supported the Iraq War, I wouldn't care for that choice, but it would be normal. But if that staffer had written of his support for the Iraq War in near-pornographic terms -- of what kind of pleasure he took in the misery and humiliation of the enemy, of grinding them down to dust, etc. -- I would be deeply dismayed and think it was a very bad idea to give someone so choleric and unbalanced a key spot on a campaign. Or let me go further: if a candidate hired a pro-life staffer, I'd be thrilled. But if that pro-life staffer had written hysterical, vicious rants against pro-choice people that took special efforts to denigrate the things most sacred to them, simply for the sake of shock value, I'd expect that candidate to show those people the door at once. Not too long ago I left an e-mail group of friends I'd been with for over a decade in large part because I couldn't take the constant ranting about the evil godforsaken Democrats from one of our number. Other than the war, I more or less agreed with this friend on the issues, but he was, in my view, becoming intoxicated by his hatred of the Other, and it was awful to see, and to hear. He held his opponents in such enraged contempt that discussion with him about the complexities and ironies of this or that aspect of our politics was impossible. I hate that. It poisons everything, and drives out grace.

What self-serving twaddle. It's not their feminism that got them in trouble, it's their filthy mouths and extreme anti-Christian spite. Explain then, if it's possible, why the two were subjected to such violent sexual threats in the comments from supposed Christian men? THey may be on to something here - Doubtful the men commenting would have taken their comments to the rape zone so readily if the nasty comments that got everyone so up-in-arms were written by men. See The Rude Pundit as a perfect example - how many rape fantasies to commenters threaten from his blog posts?

Explain then, if it's possible, why the two were subjected to such violent sexual threats in the comments from supposed Christian men? Several things. First, I wouldn't assume these men are Christians; they're probably just right-wingers. No serious Christian could possibly talk like that, or wish such a thing. Second, the commenters no doubt said those things for the same reason Marcotte made those filthy remarks about the Holy Spirit: because that's the single most foul, offensive and hurtful thing anyone could possibly say to her. And third, the kinds of things people say to you anonymously via e-mail are no real measure of how the public feels. Trust me, if I thought most people, or even a significant number of people, thought like some of the cretins who write me, I'd be the world's greatest misanthrope. There's something about the anonymity that lies behind an Internet address that gives weaklings license to be bullies.

Rod, I find your follow-up persuasive. Yes, when you connect the matter to a possible POTUS, the two bloggers' hugely insulting _intent_ does matter.

...the commenters no doubt said those things for the same reason Marcotte made those filthy remarks about the Holy Spirit: because that's the single most foul, offensive and hurtful thing anyone could possibly say to her. Yeah - I can agree with you there. It's a shame, though, that no matter how far we think we've come as a people that whenever a woman is involved in button-pushing (from as egregious as Marcotte's foulness re: the holy spirit to something as simple as a woman getting a job a man wanted) some man is going to take it to the rape place. There's a reason so many feminists sound like they fear men. They have good reason to.

"Now you know how your Muslim neighbors feel." Frankly, Susan, that's a ridiculous statement. Are you implying that anyone who criticizes Islam is a purveyor of the vulgar and the blasphemous? Please.

"For the skrillionth time, critically questioning someone's religious beliefs is not the same thing as insulting and demeaning them." If these women had wanted to make a legitimate point, they could have simply said: "We feel the Catholic Church's position about abortion and birth control is wrong, because..." Instead, they decided to mock the Catholic belief system and call it "misogyny." (Note: by extension, they call everyone who chooses to believe that abortion and/or birth control are wrong misogynists.) You can't do that and expect people not to be a bit miffed about it. God bless.

meh - never mind. I don't hate to say it - I love parallels. Good on ya, Susan, for noticing this one.

Abundantly. Pardon.

"Muslims have had to endure blasphemy against both their God and their prophet (remember the cartoons?), and when they dared complain (admittedly in a poor way, with street riots, etc) had scorn heaped on them for not being thick-skinned enough." Actually, the scorn was heaped upon them because of the way they responded--riots, arson, marching with placards calling for beheadings, etc. Whatever one thinks of Bill Donahue, all he applied was political pressure, and--this is important--he never said Marcotte didn't have the right to insult Catholicism. Those differences make it a pretty lame analogy.

"No one outside of the far-right blogosphere is paying attention to this story or shares the outrage." To the extent that it is true, I think this is a real problem. The fact that the far-left blogosphere, complete with shrill monologue, exists is not necessarily news-worthy. Curious, perhaps, but not newsworthy.
But one wonders if, even now, John Edwards understands the problem. Instead of simply removing himself from the controversy by firing the two, he displayed, as Rod notes, an indifference to the issue.
That's outrageous, but we know that politicians are out of touch. But then, the mainstream (at least of the Democratic party) doesn't really seem to care. Comments that would have garnered widespread outrage ten years ago are met with a shrug by you and others.
But the comments were outrageous. The situation was outrageous. To the extent the far-right blogosphere (is any right-leaning blog considered a part of the far-right?) was outraged, you have to concede they have a point.
It is to one's credit to be outraged by the outrageous.

and when they dared complain (admittedly in a poor way, with street riots, etc) Is burning down embassies, looting, threatening murder, and so forth "complaining"? By that standard, I guess the US Army "complained" about Saddam's cat and mouse game with WMD inspectors.

No, RB, I'm afraid I don't pardon. You implied that, as a woman, I have some special vulnerability to the "charms" of politicians such as John Edwards and Bill Clinton. When I can see a color other than red, perhaps I'll talk about policy positions and your mistaken- and extremely insulting- assumptions. assumptions

That article is hilarious. She's found a formulaic structure and she's sticking with it: A: Report a nutty thing I did. B: Report the reaction of X to the nutty thing I did. C: State that "Dun-dun-duuuuuun" X must be a mysogynist who despise women with opinions. Wash, rinse, repeat.
(N.B. The use of "wash, rinse, repeat" to convey that Marcotte's article is formulaic, repetitive, and causes a painful stinging to the eyes would have been used even if she were not a woman.)

Mutual Assured Destruction, sadly, has a logical theoretical basis. If they take out one of our cities? Sure, send one their way. And Let it be KNOWN that this would be the consequence. That keeps sane people from even considering the possibility. Radical Islamofascists are another story...

I just read Minkoff's reply. It seems to me that she commits the ad feminem fallacy: she accuses her opponents of mysogyny while not critiquing their argument.
Here's how one can figure out if a fallacy is being committed. Ask yourself this question: Even if all the character flaws of the arguer were true does it any way affect the quality of the argument being offered? The answer in this case is clearly "no." Minkoff's critics could be child-molesting racist cannibals and that would have absolutely no bearing on whether the criticisms of Minkoff hold water. On the other hand, if her critics were deeply committed humanitarians that too would contribute nothing to the quality of their case. So, Minkoff commits the ad feminem fallacy in about as clear a fashion that one can imagine. Ironically, by focusing on her opponents rather her opponents' arguments, Minkoff reinforces, rather than dispels, the judgment of her critics that she is gifted in crafting personal attacks but wanting in the power of reason.

Susan F: Sorry. I didn't mean to imply.