More on Marcotte

K.C. Johnson has more on Amanda Marcotte. One possible defense for Edwards in hiring Marcotte is that Edwards was not aware of it and had little input in the decision (e.g., go get us a blogger for our campaign blog). Johnson points out that this is hard to believe because it was fairly widely known that Marcotte was going to head up his blog and at least one rumor posits that it was Edward’s wife who picked Marcotte.

Also, Overlawyered, provides some evidence that Marcotte has been busily working away at shoving posts and comments down the memory hole. We also get this post as well.

And that’s all I’m going to say on the subject of why if I see the words “Duke” or “lacrosse” in an email that has the whiff of accusatory tone, I’m deleting it and simply not going to reply to it. I have never, ever stated that I think that anyone should go to jail without a proper trial.

There is only one problem with this: no evidence. Apparently Marcotte thinks it is okay for a criminal case to go to court when there is literally, no physical evidence to back up the (ever changing) story of the accuser. This raises the disturbing possibility that Marcotte is an extremist that believes if a woman makes an accusation of rape, then that is sufficient evidence that a rape occured, or in short a complete kook.

Some might be wondering what this might have to do with Edwards, beyond having bad judgment in picking his “official blogger”. Well, Edwards is from North Carolina. Edwards worked at the same law firm as one of the defense lawyers. Edwards has a chance to speak out on this complete fiasco. But it looks like Edwards is quite happy to simply ignore the whole issue as if it doesn’t exist. Nope, instead it is much better to bitch and whine about Wal-Mart (after sending an aide there to purchase a video game system for his son, where said aide tries to use Edward’s name to cut in line).

Note: If you are wondering what happened to the exceptionally wordy post by me [sarcasm] I deleted it. I don’t know what happned, but somehow an empty post went up instead of this one. The comments though were great.

FILED UNDER: Blogosphere, Campaign 2008, Law and the Courts, Politicians, US Politics, , , , , ,
Steve Verdon
About Steve Verdon
Steve has a B.A. in Economics from the University of California, Los Angeles and attended graduate school at The George Washington University, leaving school shortly before staring work on his dissertation when his first child was born. He works in the energy industry and prior to that worked at the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Division of Price Index and Number Research. He joined the staff at OTB in November 2004.

Comments

  1. I’ll grant that the hiring of the blogger may or may not reflect well on Edwards. At some level he approved of the person doing the hiring or not. What speaks more to me is his reaction. His retaining her after the fecal mater has hit the rotary wind maker seems to indicate he sees two Americas, one where being white and middle class means you shouldn’t be afforded US constitutional guarantees and the other where being a minority means your free to ruin someone’s life with a baseless claim.

  2. jpe says:

    A better explanation: Marcotte is a great blogger that has a blindspot or two.

  3. Steve Verdon says:

    jpe,

    The only problem though is that one of those blind spots is very much like how YAJ has described it just narrowed down a bit. It is a rather bad blind spot, IMO. Whenever some is not simply fudging the facts or being loose with, but is throwing them out wholesale simply because they don’t fit her world view…well you have a serious problem. What was all that stuff about the Republican War on Science…seems there are some rotten apples on the Left too at times.

  4. ken says:

    Steve, It seems to me that both you and Marcotte are guilty of the same thing. Both of you have already made up your minds about the veracity, or lack thereof, of the accuser.

    You say there is no physical evidence. So what? Since when is that the sole determinant as to whether a crime has been committed or not?

    Because the csse is, in its larger dimension, all about the relationships between men and women, and in its particulars about sex, you naturally tend to blame the woman/victim. Ms Marcotte, on the other hand, gives the woman/victim the benefit of the doubt.

    Thank god neither of you are on the jury.

  5. Kent G. Budge says:

    Ken-without-a-t,

    You say there is no physical evidence. So what? Since when is that the sole determinant as to whether a crime has been committed or not?

    Because, in this case, it would be impossible for the alleged crime to have taken place without leaving the physical evidence that is lacking.

    Because the csse is, in its larger dimension, all about the relationships between men and women, and in its particulars about sex, you naturally tend to blame the woman/victim.

    Have you any evidence to back up this claim? It seems to me that you are indulging in projection.

  6. bains says:

    At least Ken got the author right this time. Of course, letting facts get in his way of making political points still seems to be a liability.

    Makes one wonder why someone goes out of their way to defend another who is by most measurable accounts purposefully woefully ignorant.

  7. Andy Vance says:

    is throwing them out wholesale simply because they don’t fit her world view

    I think you’re missing a big part of the story. Her “world view” isn’t just shaped by her politics, but by relevant personal experience.

  8. Steve Verdon says:

    Well, I still say that is no excuse not to look at the evidence in each respective case. Ignoring said evidence, or more accurately the lack of evidence, is even worse.

  9. jaimie t says:

    Because Amanda says she was raped well we don’t need jury trials any more! Isn’t that special?!
    Amanda can consult her Majic 8ball and just fry all the effers right? And by the way, was she murdered by her black ex pro football husband? How else to explain her racist sexist stupidities comparing the Duke accused to OJ?
    But the real point is not her stupidities nor prejudices though both are extreme. No it is her bad faith efforts to erase those stupidities and prejudices from the record that is most problematic. To protect her well heeled job at Edwards.com she is flat out lying. And Edwards by keeping her on is saying that’s OK by him. Sure hope he’s not looking for any Carolina votes.