Creative Destruction

June 1, 2007

A Campaign Theme Song By Queen

Filed under: Blogosphere,Election 2008 — Off Colfax @ 9:24 pm

With the blogosphere still a-twitter with the Clinton44 Or Bust campaign asking people to nominate theme songs (This buzz-making strategy is a definite winner for them, by the way. As much as I don’t like the very thought of the Oligarchical Presidency, I have to tip my hat to whoever thought up this bit of political genius.), it looks like the volunteer opposition researchers of the blogosphere just might start humming a theme song of their own:

This is a public service message to all contenders for the Oval Office.

Just because a blogger has a high hit-count, regular visits from those who are on your particular ideological slope, and contacts throughout the blogosphere does not automatically make them a safe choice for your Outreach Director for Intar-tubes Writing Thingies or whatever you want to call the position.
I would imagine that the ruckus caused by the Edwards Campaign’s Marcotte/McEwan kerfluffle would have made someone go through and review the writings of the person in question before those volunteer opposition research specialists (Also Known As: SOME OTHER BLOGGER!) pointed things out to you.

So. This makes the second campaign to put their foot in the bit bucket. And soon to come will be the second campaign that will have a staffer released due to the chosen language of their blog.

If there is a third one, particularly on the Democratic side, I might just despair entirely. Or send them my resume. Or send my resume and then despair entirely that they won’t hire a perfectly reasonable individual, such as myself, particularly when I don’t even have oodles and oodles of the Seven Words You Can’t Say On Television in any given post.

[Turn Signal: Insty]


  1. I doubt this will have the same fall-out as Edwards’ situation. Browner-Hamlin’s words, while coarse and clearly hateful, pale in comparison to Marcotte’s (except for the “dumb-ass bitches” line).

    I do not think that Dodd is completely unaware of Browner-Hamlin’s comments. If he is, then that is reason enough to back away from him as a potential candidate. Why vote for someone who does not bother to check the backgrounds of people working for him? However, I do not think Browner-Hamlin’s comments will prevent Democrats from supporting Dodd per se. When one considers Dodd’s base, this may in fact play to their wants the same way Marcotte played to Edwards base.

    Of course, Dodd may have chosen Browner-Hamlin knowing that the blogger’s comments would raise the hackles of certain people who would then spread the news, therein putting Dodd’s name out there. At the moment, the bad publicity does not harm him as much as the lack of publicity. So perhaps this was an intentional move.

    Comment by TS — June 2, 2007 @ 11:16 am | Reply

  2. Yeah. There is some sexism at play – a guy who did/said what Amanda did/said might have gotten a bit less flack. But the key issue was always that Amanda was accurately perceived as being aggressively hostile towards a great big voting bloc that her candidate wanted to get votes from. The “asshole” vote, while large, is extremely scattered and disorganized. 😉

    Comment by Robert — June 2, 2007 @ 5:34 pm | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: