[Warning: the language in some of the links is definitely not appropriate for work]
While I find her remarks about Catholicism deeply offensive, starting with her interpretation of the virgin birth as a “super-patriarcal event” (a totally clueless statement which, as The Anchoress says, God can handle, thanks), and I firmly believe that she was “fired-not fired so she could quit”, what amazes me is that the Edwards campaign thought that anyone who routinely expresses herself, day in and day out, in that kind of language could possibly appeal to the general public.
Mind you, I’ve worked with guys whose moms forgot to bring out the Lifebuoy soap, and who told me some really funny and profoundly vulgar jokes. Guys whose language could curdle milk and peel wallpaper off the walls, and proudly so. However, those guys were not in the business of marketing a presidential candidate to the masses.
Yes, I swear, and I can swear intentionally and in mixed company when I want to make a point. However, a little swearing goes a long way. Beyond a certain point you stop making a point and simply debase yourself and your audience. And that’s what Marcotte does.
There is no denying that Marcotte is a successful blogger. But blogging is one thing. Conveying a presidential candidate’s image is something else, entirely different.
My question is, how could a lawyer, who has made millions out of using the right words to his intended audience (the jurors), not know this would matter?
Or is this just another attention-grabbing scheme that will be spun down the line as “the upcoming theocracy trying to end free speech” by Edwards?