by Jessica Reed
If Howard Dean's campaign back in 2004 was very avant-garde in its approach to grassroot mobilisation and the use of social network sites and blogs, then "web 2.0" is definitely proving to be a major ressource for the '08 candidates (see post below).
But with it all comes the inevitable blogging-drama: two weeks ago Presidential candidate John Edwards hired two bloggers. Yesterday blogger Amanda Marcotte (from Pandagon.net) resigned from her post after right-wing Bill Donohue ran a defaming campaign against her:
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.
Meanwhile, the great Andrew Sullivan regrets "the way in which blogging has been coopted by the collective and used as a tool for political purposes". I am not sure I agree, and can't say I am fiercely opposed to bloggers taking an active political role: if they are 'freelance columnists' hired to work on a political campaign, and if their allegiance to a specific candidate is made very clear to all the readers, where's the issue?
In this respect I fail to see the difference between Amanda Marcotte and Andrew Sullivan: up until last january his blog was published and hosted by TIME magazine, a publication known for supporting some candidates and political perspectives more than others (Sullivan now works for the Atlantic monthly). Of course, it shouldn't mean Sullivan was not entitled to disagree with the TIME's tone (he claims he had absolute editorial control over his blog), nor that the TIME's editorial staff was accountable for his opinions.
Two questions come to mind. First, when asserting that "blogging has been coopted by the collective", does he mean non-independent publications (like the ones who pay for his blog; he is not an independent blogger per say) as well as political parties? Second, why should Amanda Marcotte not be capable of blogging for Edwards with integrity and honesty, even if some of her opinions (pro-choice, pro-gay mariage) are not representative of Edward's?
