Hell hath no fury like a feminist scorned

Amanda has announced her resignation from the Edwards' campaign.

Announcement at Pandagon:

I was hired by the Edwards campaign for the skills and talents I bring to the table, and my willingness to work hard for what’s right. Unfortunately, Bill Donohue and his calvacade of right wing shills don’t respect that a mere woman like me could be hired for my skills, and pretended that John Edwards had to be held accountable for some of my personal, non-mainstream views on religious influence on politics (I’m anti-theocracy, for those who were keeping track). Bill Donohue—anti-Semite, right wing lackey whose entire job is to create non-controversies in order to derail liberal politics—has been running a scorched earth campaign to get me fired for my personal beliefs and my writings on this blog.

In fact, he’s made no bones about the fact that his intent is to “silence” me, as if he—a perfect stranger—should have a right to curtail my freedom of speech. Why? Because I’m a woman? Because I’m pro-choice? Because I’m not religious? All of the above, it seems.

Regardless, it was creating a situation where I felt that every time I coughed, I was risking the Edwards campaign. No matter what you think about the campaign, I signed on to be a supporter and a tireless employee for them, and if I can’t do the job I was hired to do because Bill Donohue doesn’t have anything better to do with his time than harass me, then I won’t do it. I resigned my position today and they accepted.

May I say this is the most opportune moment for all bloggers, but most important feminist bloggers, to consider the importance of what's next?

I don't see any other way around it but we are now playing big leagues. The stakes are too high to drop the ball and go back to doing what we know best to do : rant at 'the man', pick blogfights, rally around other people's political interests, rinse and repeat.

We have influence.

We obviously have some power.

We need money to use it like a club.

We need a Feminist BlogPAC.

The taste of victory, albeit small, has been sweet. Whomever said feminists and gays don't win elections obviously did not expect for a coalition that included feminist and gay of organizations and bloggers to win one for the democrats with the election of (not-yet-minted) State Senator Craig Johnson (grock, how I love to say that).

It was not just empowering but a truly historic election.

Which is why today I was fixing to post my thoughts on a feminist version of BlogPAC and I got pinged with the news that Amanda had resigned. The timing could not be more ... timely?

As I woke up yesterday morning, I couldn't shake the feeling that what we are witnessing and experiencing is real change. That we are mired in something historic for which we need to have in hand resources and money. Because with blogs and good intentions alone we cannot take further into action our commitment to a rebirt of democracy in the United States.

I really don't see our movement maturing without money to grow it in the first place. Which makes Amanda's situation not a setback but an opportunity.

Chris Bowers wrote this late last night :

MyDD :: Why Attacks Against Bloggers Fail:

But I want to return to the point of this post, which is how the blogger "scandal" didn't hurt Edwards at all. This poll was conducted during the heart of the flap over the issue, from last Monday until last Thursday. Not surprisingly (at least from my perspective), it turns out that the advice of the conventional, establishment consultants who thought McEwan and Marcotte should be fired was completely wrong. Instead of facing any negative repercussions, Edwards actually ended up with a slight bounce in the polls. Maybe we should call it the Marcotte and McEwan bump, since the progressive netroots is chock full of Democratic primary voters.

Once again, Republican attempts to make Democrats look bad though guilt by association with us crazy bloggers were a miserable failure. The reason why is simple: the vast majority of voters will have no idea this "scandal," ever happened, and most of those who know it happened will have forgotten the next day. Bloggers, even the most prominent ones, have national name recognition numbers in the single digits. Even after 300+ newspapers picked up one of more of the various wire reports surrounding the flap, and even after numerous cable news network segments on the story, I still bet that less than 10% of the country knows this happened. Further, I bet there are basically no undecided, general election voters among that 10%. Anyone who knows about the story is already locked down hard into one partisan camp or another. As such, there is simply no way that this story will, in the long run, have any measurable, negative blowback for the Edwards campaign.

This report confirms my take on these bloggers events : When it comes to the general public they have no impact.

The problem though is that bloggers are not just the general public anymore as in "citizen journalists". We happen to be an increasingly organized block of political influentials.

As long as we are influencing 'the people who know people' and the decision makers in the parties and Capitol Hill, we will make and break campaigns. Which is why that poll is a bit misleading.

Rasmussen has not polled influentials, the blogger's real base and constituency. If they were to poll us, the numbers may be significantly different.

Which is why Amanda's departure from the Edwards' campaign should not be taken as a sign of relief. It should be a warning.

The Bill Donohue's who litter the political landscape are stooges in a bigger fight. Bill Donohue the stooge is a mere distraction thrown by the extremists in their fight to dismantle our democracy.

I believe we will enjoy using Feminist BlogPAC to fund candidates who would enjoy tearing a new one to the fundies.

Feminist bloggers represent a larger group of issues bloggers that are becoming better networked and thus, more influential. Once we have money to wage out battles, we may well be the force that not only swings but decides 2008. We need be able to go after Donohue and all the motherfuckers who support them with a vengeance.

We are in this to win, not just to cheerlead from the sidelines.

Extremists : Y'all on warning.


http://culturekitchen.com/liza/blog/hell_hath_no_fury_like_a_feminist_scorned
Mouse over the text to select it, then press Ctrl-C to copy it.
Your rating: None
About author n/a
liza's picture



Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
blog comments powered by Disqus ">
minorripper's picture

Edwards Gets Tough (video)

Edwards is shedding the softie,breck girl image though...here's video proof:
here

[Edited by liza to deal with URL]


blog comments powered by Disqus ">
mole333's picture

Can we...

Now that Amanda has some extra time, maybe she would like to blog here? Just a thought...


blog comments powered by Disqus ">
rwallnerny2007's picture

Did Amanda resign or was she pushed out?

I bet its going to come out that Amanda didn't simply resign of her own accord, that she was essentially pushed out. That Edwards, who thought firing and then re-hiring both of these girls would calm things down, was still taking heat from Donohue & Co. Bill Donahue probably wanted them both re-fired. Somebody could have come up with the compromise of firing one and keeping the other. Allowing both sides a moral victory. However even firing one of them would get Edwards flack from the 'net roots. So I suspect Edwards or one of his people went to Amanda and rather strongly suggested that she fall on her own sword and "resign". "Be a good trooper Amanda and take one for the team"

If Edwards didn't in fact solicit the resignation himself, he shouldn't have accepted it. He should have had the guts to take sides in this case instead of waffling and playing both sides like a typical politician.

The least Edwards could do is invite Amanda over to his new 28,000 ft. mansion with the indoor basketball court and olympic size swimming pool. I mean she deserves to get something for all the trouble she's been put through!


blog comments powered by Disqus ">
JJ Ross's picture

No love lost

between wallner and Edwards then. Okay, good to know for interpreting future comments here.

But what --not who, what -- is it that you are "for" then, I wonder? Understanding that would be even more useful.


blog comments powered by Disqus ">
Michael Bouldin's picture

It's this kind of stuff...

...that should be considered libelous, Wallner. Either you're a mindreader, or you need to be working more with expressions such as 'I have no proof for this' or 'this comes straight out of my ass'. It's also worth noting that the Edwards' house is not of the dimensions and lavishness you claim, and even if it were, again, he's the son of a millworker.

Hillary should be spending her money on people better able to present her online, not on you, WallBot.


blog comments powered by Disqus ">
natasha's picture

A feminist BlogPAC

It sounds like a good idea, useful for strength in numbers. Though I think what the feminist blogosphere could use more of are professional development opportunities and a coordinated PR effort.


blog comments powered by Disqus ">
liza's picture

tell me about it

the media movers and shakers of the party know we exist. they read us. they won't touch most of us --that's the sad truth. not just because of the fallacy of 'angry = feminist = unprofessional' but because we have no money to leverage. the minute we get that into our hands, you'll see the hypocrites knocking on our doors.


blog comments powered by Disqus ">
rwallnerny2007's picture

Edwards house

Bouldin said: (It's also worth noting that the Edwards' house is not of the dimensions and lavishness you claim)

Yes it is. Check this link:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/4535381.html

There was nothing libelous in anything I posted. I expressed my personal opinion that Edwards could have shown the guts to take sides in this case, instead of trying to be on both sides. Which is the truth.


blog comments powered by Disqus ">
Michael Bouldin's picture

Wrong.

You expressed 'personal opinions' that you presented as factual. A little bit less sloppy English, please.


blog comments powered by Disqus ">
mole333's picture

Reminder...

The editors have the final say on what we consider potentially libelous. Simple rephrasing to emphasize opinion from fact could solve the problem. Otherwise if an editor suggests something may be libelous, take their word for it. It is a measure of OUR comfort level as people resonsible for this site.


Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Links to specified hosts will have a rel="nofollow" added to them.

  • Easily link to terms in various wikis. For help, see <a href="/interwiki/4">interwiki</a>.
  • Images can be added to this post.
  • Use <!--pagebreak--> to create page breaks.
  • Textual smileys will be replaced with graphical ones.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • E-Mail addresses are hidden with reCAPTCHA Mailhide.

More information about formatting options

Captcha
This question is used to make sure you are a human visitor and to prevent spam submissions.

User login

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers

Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network

BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.


Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.



Powered by FeedBlitz

Upcoming events

  • No upcoming events available

QUOTES

To WILLIAM H. HERNDON, Esq. February 15, 1848.— LETTER TO WILLIAM H. HERNDON. WASHINGTON, February 15, 1848.

Dear William :

Your letter of the 29th January was received last night. Being exclusively a constitutional argument, I wish to submit some reflections upon it in the same spirit of kindness that I know actuates you. Let me first state what I understand to be your position. It is that if it shall become necessary to repel invasion, the President may, without violation of the Constitution, cross the line and invade the territory of another country and that whether such necessity exists in any given case the President is the sole judge.

Before going further consider well whether this is or is not your position. If it is, it is a position that neither the President himself, nor any friend of his, so far as I know, has ever taken. Their only positions are— first, that the soil was ours when the hostilities commenced ; and second, that whether it was rightfully ours or not, Congress had annexed it, and the President for that reason was bound to defend it; both of which are as clearly proved to be false in fact as you can prove that your house is mine. The soil was not ours, and Congress did not annex or attempt to annex it. But to return to your position. Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after having given him so much as you propose. If to-day he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him Î You may say to him, " I see no probability of the British invading us "; but he will say to you, " Be silent: I see it, if you don't."

The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood. Write soon again.

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN.


— Abraham Lincoln (while a Congressman)


Poll