PRECEDENT. One more point on Edwards and the bloggers: Does the Edwards campaign really want to set the precedent that they endorse the entire public record of each and every low-level staffer they hire? Amanda and Melissa, after all, weren't brought on to be the candidate. One is supposed to be the blogmaster, the other to run netroots outreach. Neither is there to offer personal opinions on theological disputes. The only real question at hand should be whether Amanda is a capable blogger and Melissa a savvy promoter. I'd suggest the blogosphere's now-demonstrated defensiveness and affection for both rather decisively answers those questions. But this is really the point, no? John Edwards is the candidate. He doesn't have to agree with his campaign manager, David Bonier, on Israel, nor with Amanda on feminism, nor with Jen Palmieri on ice cream flavors, nor with anyone else. All these folks have been brought on to make their widgets (a working campaign, a readable blog, and a smart press strategy, respectively) and the question is whether they're good widget makers. If Edwards is readying to say that he can't countenance Amanda's past posts because he doesn't want to be associated with them, then what of David Bonier's voting record? The latter is surely in a more influential position than the former. What worries me about this is not the possible firings of Amanda or Melissa. It's the precedent. And not just for Edwards. If he drops these hires, then that will be the norm for what campaigns do when their new recruits are attacked. And if it turns out that a possibly controversial public record will effectively bar you from political positions down the road, how many young people will avoid the wonderful, chaotic, educational world of the blogosphere because they don't want to close off future options? The question here should be whether Amanda and Melissa are qualified for their jobs. What it's becoming is whether candidates are responsible for the views of their underlings. And that strikes me as rather dangerous to answer in the affirmative. --Ezra Klein
