John Edwards and Amanda Marcotte
Amanda is a bold, outspoken writer who has established herself as one of the most influential and important bloggers in the entire feminist blogosphere. She has supported and nurtured dozens of other aspiring bloggers, and her blogging (first at the now-defunct Mousewords and then at Pandagon) has been prolific, inspiring, powerful, and frequently blunt.
Now, some are attacking Edwards for his bold decision to hire Amanda, citing in particular her writing about the Duke lacrosse rape case. One particular critic of the Marcotte hire is KC Johnson, whose Durham-in-Wonderland blog has provided regular commentary on the case (from a perspective hostile to the prosecution) since last year. KC is one of my fellow Cliopatriarchs; a historian at CUNY, he and I are both long-time bloggers for the History News Network. I don't share all of his views, but I've appreciated his writing and we've commented on each other's posts from time to time.
Last Friday, KC wrote about Amanda's hiring by the Edwards campaign. Quoting extensively from various Pandagon posts about the rape case, KC suggests that Amanda's bias against the lacrosse players and in favor of the alleged victim ought to lead Edwards to ask for her resignation. This weekend, the lamentable Michelle Malkin picked up the story. Beltway Blogroll is all over it now.
One problem is not only has Amanda used profane language in her posts, her critics claim that she sought to delete some of the offensive language from those posts after she was hired by the Edwards campaign. They accuse her of" covering up". That seems an absurd charge to me! Blogging is, for most of us, stream-of-consciousness. We all retain the right to rethink our positions, clean up our language, and alter our past writings if we choose. The fact that we blog doesn't mean that the rest of the world is entitled to access an unredacted cyber-trail of our thoughts! Of course, it isn't at all clear that Amanda DID try and disguise her prior postings. (See Auguste at Pandagon here, and Jill at Feministe here , Jessica at Feministing here for more).
Amanda has been a regular commenter on this blog and on its Typepad predecessor. She's been an insightful, kind presence here. She falls among those small number of bloggers whom I have never met in person, but whom I regard as both friend and colleague. When she and I first"met" on line, it was after my own intemperate post about the famous Amy Richards case back in July 2004.
Here was my original post: Crying with Rage at Amy Richards. Amanda's response was both harsh and eloquent. It was also pretty damn funny, as most of her writing is. Among other things, she said of me: I want to kick him.; I asked her nicely in the comments to reconsider that, and we ended up forming a blogging friendship that has lasted ever since. We don't always agree, and we choose different styles even when we do share the same stance -- but I have nothing but colossal respect for her and her tremendous contributions to the feminist blogosphere.
The attacks on Amanda are savage this week; predictably, in some places, they devolve into nasty misogyny, replete with hateful remarks about her appearance and her personal life. (Let me be clear that KC Johnson, my fellow blogger here at Cliopatria, has not stooped to this level, but some in his comments section have.) But for what it's worth, I want to throw my support wholeheartedly behind Amanda. What Edwards decides to do in the face of this minor tempest of criticism will say a lot about his campaign; if he does the right thing, and makes it clear to Amanda that she enjoys his full support and that she ought to stay, then he will have demonstrated laudable courage and good sense. If he caves, then the disappointment and frustration will ripple throughout the feminist blogosphere -- and beyond.
Hang in there, Amanda. You are very much in my prayers today, my good cyber friend.