Sounds like it. Read this:
The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte’s and Melissa McEwan’s posts personally offended me. It’s not how I talk to people, and it’s not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it’s intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I’ve talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone’s faith, and I take them at their word. We’re beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can’t let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in.
Perhaps it was the threats from a few lefty Nutroots bloggers to release the ‘post from hell’ if the decison wasn’t reversed that made him change his mind? LOL.
In any event, as I said in my last post about them:
I’ve seen some blogposts today from bloggers on the right who clearly thought John Edwards should ‘do something’ about these bloggers (presumably: fire them). My question is: why? I believe it was Reagan (correct me if I’m wrong. Update 2/8/07: I was wrong - it was Napoleon. Thanks, to those who noted that!) who said never stand in the way of anyone from the opposition who is shooting themselves in the foot (or something along those lines). That’s how I’m viewing this. Is it fair game to bring to light someone’s past statements or actions as a way of scrutinizing or confirming their credibility? Absolutely. If you’ve put yourself in the public eye, you can and better expect to be scrutinized, especially if you’re angling for and/or accepted a political job of any kind. But if a candidate from the opposition is shooting themselves in the foot, I’m not going to stand in his or her way, outside of helping to point out that that is what he or she has done. There’s nothing wrong with exposing someone for who/what they are.
And continue to shoot themselves in the foot they do.
It appears that Edwards has caved to his Nutrootian base, which isn’t bad news for us.
Update I: ST reader Sev makes a great point in the comments:
This is just a great endorsement for Edwards for President. If he doesn’t have the stones to stand up to the nutroots, I’m sure he’ll really be just the perfect man to stand up to Islamic Terrorists and Iran and North Korea. He’ll need a pair of knee pads pronto if he becomes President.
Let’s not forget this isn’t the first time the left has caved to the Nutroots.
It’s a good move for another reason, too. Like the boss noted recently in a not-dissimilar context, sunshine is the best disinfectant. The best way to fight the nutroots is to raise their level of exposure. Edwards helped do that. Thanks, Silky Pony.
Update II: Here’s a must-read from Rick Moran on the issue.
Update III: A Goldstein slam-a-lama:
Lots of gloating already in the comments by the flying monkeys the left typically dispatches to sprinkle schadenfreude over the poppies. But that’s to be expected, I guess. That their commentary is rife with further attacks on the faithful and suggestions that those who find Marcotte reprehensible have been saddled with tiny penises—well, this, too, is about as surprising as a Marcotte post that doesn’t somehow wend its way back to the institutionalized torturing of her pudendum by misanthropic godbags.
But lost on these Marcotte supporters—who are cheering on the power of the “netroots” to cow a politician into keeping on an ugly and hateful liability—is that Edwards just showed up Marcotte and McEwan as frauds and posturing blowhards, writers who have been pulling the wool over their audiences’ eyes by posting vicious “arguments” they never truly believed. To use the loaded language of establishment feminism—he publicly castrated them—and in so doing, he made fools out of their audiences, to boot.
Further, in doing so, he has shown himself to be nothing more than a calculating political opportunist of the worst sort—one who believes the voting public so daft they might actually buy a statement like the one he just released.
I’m so glad JG’s blogging again 
ST Edwards was right to keep her. Just because some people do not like her language and her viewpoints doesn’t mean she shouldn’t have the chance to work for somebody based on comments she made before she was hired. If that’s the case this country would have much higher unemployment rate than it has now.
Comment by tommy in nyc @ 2/8/2007 - 12:54 pm
have you ever considered applying to be a blogger for Edwards, tommy? I think you’d fit in well
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 2/8/2007 - 12:56 pm
I don’t know, ST– tommy doesn’t have quite the command of “potty mouth” that seems to be necessary to succeed as a leftist.
Comment by libertarian observer @ 2/8/2007 - 1:02 pm
Comment by tommy in nyc @ 2/8/2007 - 1:07 pm
This is just a great endorsement for Edwards for President. If he doesn’t have the stones to stand up to the nutroots, I’m sure he’ll really be just the perfect man to stand up to Islamic Terrorists and Iran and North Korea. He’ll need a pair of knee pads pronto if he becomes President.
Comment by Severian @ 2/8/2007 - 1:09 pm
tommy, you just forfeited your right to criticize any blogger from the right. Good going.
Comment by PCD @ 2/8/2007 - 1:22 pm
I’m not sure this is a cave by Edwards to the left wing. He read the blogs enough to know he wanted to interview the writers, then he hired them. No offense to Sister Toldjah or Donohue or Malkin, but he would never be expected to consider them his constituency, so appeasing them probably isn’t high on his list.
Comment by carsick @ 2/8/2007 - 2:02 pm
But carsick, it didn’t ‘appease’ me to see the bloggers let go, because I wasn’t clamoring for them to be fired. It ‘appeases’ me to see them brought back, though. I’m sure Mr. Edwards didn’t intend to ‘appease’ bloggers like me, but he did
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 2/8/2007 - 2:05 pm
Seems a tempest in a teapot to me. I doubt it will be much of a factor in Edward’s credibility or lack thereof in a race. Their work may have infrastructural benefit (or not) to his campaign. I doubt their histories will become an issue in the race though.
Comment by carsick @ 2/8/2007 - 2:26 pm
Yeah, don’t think it’s a big deal at all. I think this is the kind of thing that distracts people from serious American issues and pisses me off when the left does it.
Try not to play into their game. It’s beneath ya Sister.
Comment by Dan @ 2/8/2007 - 2:59 pm
I do think it’s a big deal. It’s not beneath ya Sister. The left’s antics are always up for some exposure and people should see who they are aligning themselves with.
Comment by Baklava @ 2/8/2007 - 3:28 pm
I honestly don’t care whether they are fired or not, but that announcement that Edwards’ blog made was just stupid. “never their intention to malign anyone’s faith”? If they are such incompetent bloggers that they accidentally and repetitively maligned someone’s faith, then why are they being hired?
He wanted leftwing bloggers who could stir up trouble. He got them, he’s keeping them, why make excuses for them? They are who they are. Rather than having made that statement, he would have been better served to tell the blogging community to @#$%-off. It would have drawn less flack, and been forgotten sooner.
Comment by hdw @ 2/8/2007 - 3:31 pm
Good points, hdw, especally the bit about ‘never intended to malign someone’s faith’ - does he really expect people outside of the Nutroots to believe that??
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 2/8/2007 - 3:33 pm
hdw
There is some irony that one of the loudest spreaders of this story is the man who said, “Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It’s not a secret, okay? And I’m not afraid to say it… Hollywood likes anal sex.”
My Catholic neighbors make a pretty impassioned argument that Mr. Donohue maligns their faith by supposedly representing their Catholic views on national news programs.
Comment by carsick @ 2/8/2007 - 3:55 pm
Following Napoleon’s advice of never interfering with the opposition while he’s in the process of destroying himself, I’d let this pass quietly. For now.
Let Edwards’ official left-wing hatemongers spew their nonsense to their hearts’ content, while the GOP meticulously documents every word of it.
And then, if Edwards happens to win the nomination, hit them hard with every bit of anti-Christian and anti-male and anti-American drivel they’ve composed. Force Silky Pony to explain why he takes advice from that sort of mindset. There will be enough material there to put him on the defensive right up till election day ‘08.
Comment by Great White Rat @ 2/8/2007 - 3:58 pm
Thanks to Steve Skubbina in the other thread and GWR in this one for correcting me on the Napoleon quote. It’s just that the great things are said, I tend to think most of them were said by Reagan
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 2/8/2007 - 4:26 pm
This is almost too good to be true! Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan are the gifts that will keep on giving.
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi @ 2/8/2007 - 4:59 pm
Um, Edwards is SOOO not a frontrunner. So who cares. Bloggers are incendiary (or they would be boring). Whether bloggers have a place in political campaigns is another story. I think it is kind of lame. Politicians have to be so phony and careful that a campaign is no place for a truly entertaining blogger who speaks his or her mind.
The really funny part is the Donohue is such a bigoted jerk that it is completely ironic for him to be calling someone else intolerant. Whatever.
Comment by Lisa @ 2/8/2007 - 5:13 pm
“Bloggers are incendiary (or they would be boring)”…I don’t think this is true at all. There are lots of ways to be interesting without being incendiary: be thoughtful / be humorous, for example.
Comment by david foster @ 2/8/2007 - 6:27 pm
I don’t find Sister Toldjah’s blog to be boring, and it’s hardly what I’d call incendiary, and doesn’t use profanity.
Comment by Severian @ 2/8/2007 - 7:42 pm
Whatchu mean, Sev? You tellin’ me you haven’t seen those coded VRWC-nastyspeak messages where I tell the *$!*@# Dems to where to go?
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 2/8/2007 - 7:51 pm
I forgot my Official Karl Rove VWRC Decoder Ring today! Grumble…
Comment by Severian @ 2/8/2007 - 8:42 pm
David, incendiary does not mean profane (though in this case, those young ladies were indeed amusingly profane). Bloggers make STRONG opinions. I like this blog too, though I disagree with it most of the time. I am fascinated by Sister Toldjah’s paranoid rants about how “the left” is the enemy of America. There is no profanity here, but the slightly creepy eliminationist undertone would not go well in a national campaign.
People may enjoy reading blogs where people express deep contempt for those who do not share their ideas, however, they want their elected officials to be a little more moderate that is just how it is.
My point is, that what is good for a popular blogger is not really so good for a national campaign.
Besides, most candidates who are making a big deal of “reaching out to the blogosphere” are not all that viable anyway - even if they look kind of interesting for a minute or two (think Kucinich and Dean).
I don’t like the idea of a blogger working for a candidate. It makes me think less of the candidate and the blogger.
Comment by Lisa @ 2/10/2007 - 2:01 pm
Mice attack Lisa. Can you do a post without one?
Comment by Baklava @ 2/10/2007 - 3:12 pm
I am not familiar with “mice attacks”…
Perhaps you could illuminate me.
Comment by Lisa @ 2/10/2007 - 5:29 pm
The [n]ice attack is the one you just did on ST at 2:01 PM (referrring to her as paranoid)
You don’t know ST. It’d be nice to see a lefty apologize for their behavior. Own up to it…
Comment by Baklava @ 2/10/2007 - 6:30 pm
Gee, Baklava, people around here have called me things a lot worse than “paranoid.” It was even suggested by a regular here that I should slit my wrists because of my supposed inadequacy. Did anybody apologize to me for that? It seems that “lefties” are held to different standards of behavior around here, no? So please be fair. Otherwise you’re not being “mice.”
Comment by Bob @ 2/10/2007 - 6:39 pm
David, incendiary does not mean profane (though in this case, those young ladies were indeed amusingly profane).
If profanity amuses you, you’re obviously easily amused. I bet you can watch a test pattern for hours then.
Comment by Severian @ 2/10/2007 - 7:16 pm
Nice lie Bob, what was said was that your own delusions of adequacy probably kept you from killing youself, not the same thing, but dishonesty is obviously endemic in your nature.
Or to put it more simply, cry me a river…why is it that liberals like yourself have this stunning problem with honesty?
Comment by Severian @ 2/10/2007 - 7:26 pm
Liberals like to make inaccurate accusations. It’s the only way they know how…
Comment by Baklava @ 2/10/2007 - 9:35 pm
Actually, Severian, I was not trying to personally shame you on this, which is why I didn’t identify you. But since you identified yourself, I went back and found the exact quote you used:
“your delusions of adequacy obviously keeps you from opening your wrists out of sheer desperation.”
Perhaps I hadn’t remember the exact wording, but it seems like it reasonably captures your intent by inverting the sense of it as I did earlier. In other words, if it weren’t for my delusions of adequacy, it would be appropriate for me to slit my wrists. Is that better? You can quibble about the wording, but I think it’s safe to say that it was a rather vulgar and mean-spirited thing to say. It just wasn’t very “mice.” So if “we’re” asking people to apologize for saying rather mild things like “paranoid,” shouldn’t these standards be applied across the board, even to pompous conservative commentators?
Comment by Bob @ 2/10/2007 - 10:28 pm
Baklava: Opining that sometimes The Sister is paranoid is an ATTACK? My, you are a sensitive soul, perhaps you should consider doing something else with your time like knitting. I wouldn’t want you to become distressed by having to read someone’s opinion.
Severian: Consider Haldol. It would help immensely with your condition.
Baklava: Liberals like to make inaccurate accusations. It’s the only way they know how… I bet you typed that without even a hint of irony.
Comment by Lisa @ 2/10/2007 - 11:23 pm
Not sensitive at all my dear. Pointing out facts..
Comment by Baklava @ 2/10/2007 - 11:30 pm
Why Lisa? Will Haldol stop liberals from lying, or will it just make me not care, make me happy that people are peeing on my head and telling me it’s raining?
Comment by Severian @ 2/11/2007 - 7:20 am
Severian: LMAO. That was excellent. I simply have no adequate riposte.
You may be a crazy wingnut, but you are a clever one.
Comment by Lisa @ 2/11/2007 - 11:22 am
The left wing bloggers in question are a couple of complete lunatics with dirty mouths.
I am always open to listen to a viewpoint on any subject, but when someone can’t go 10 words without using foul language, it tells me not to listen.
Comment by G-Monster @ 2/13/2007 - 5:15 pm