Amanda joins the Edwards camp
First, because I know you’re dying to know, why did I throw my hat into the Edwards ring? Two major reasons. The first is that of all the candidates in the field, the only one worth my endorsement is John Edwards. He’s the only candidate that isn’t falling for the same tired line about moving to the center and is actually talking about issues that matter, like poverty. On the feminist angle, I think that this interview with Kate Michelman, the former head of NARAL, says it all on why I feel that the best candidate for feminists to endorse is John Edwards. That Hillary Clinton is a woman is not enough for me, since she makes maneuvers that send up all sorts of red flags.
Amanda will be moving to my neck of the woods — she’ll be in Chapel Hill — and is in for the duration — I guess this means I’ll finally get to meet her in person. 🙂
I don’t have any inside dope about how or why she was selected (or wooed, whichever the case), but I know she’ll do a great job for the Edwards team; she’s a great writer and a good fit. Her first post is here. The one curiosity, no slight to Amanda, is why the Edwards camp didn’t pick someone from the home team — there are a lot of good local bloggers here in NC who are enthusiastic about John Edwards’ candidacy; maybe I’ll get the scoop down the line. My guess is that he wanted star power, and Amanda will certainly bring that and a ton of readers to his blog.
Amanda will still blog on Pandagon, but less frequently, of course (and she’ll have to clean up her potty mouth!). I’m sure some topics will be off limits for her now, but she’s added several other great bloggers to share the workload.
Good luck Amanda, we’ll roll out the welcome mat!
More on blogging and politics after the flip…The news about Amanda’s crossover from blogging into front-line politics actually dovetails with a comment of mine in an unrelated earlier thread. Several people have recently asked me whether I’ve ever been wooed or recruited by a politician or advocacy organization to go work for them. The answer is no — and I don’t expect to be. The fact is that my blogging “voice” varies so much depending on my mood at the time I’m writing (or the amount of sleep I’ve had), and that’s there’s a level of unpredictability to the Blend that probably gives folks like pols agita. Sometimes I’m civil, sometimes I’m ranting or snarky and non-PC, sometimes I write pensive, serious posts.
Holly kindly said: You reveal your range in your blog, when you scoot from “snarky” to “pensive.” Your voice is authentic and I adore that. The flip side is my blogging style (and the focus on gay rights and race issues) practically ensures that I will never have a Dem politician knocking on my door to help them in a campaign. A cursory look at my output would probably place me into the category of “loose blogging cannon” to them (though anyone who knows me offline would be shocked at that assessment). I’m certainly more activist than academic, more entertainment and release than food for thought. That doesn’t translate into “mainstream,” lol.
Oh, btw, Holly, I can’t possibly be a public figure yet — I don’t even have a Wikipedia page. When I get a full-blown entry then you can say that I’ve arrived.
An aside — I’ve said in the comments of a couple of earlier threads that I have not endorsed any candidate for president (fwiw, Kate leans Edwards at the moment). You’ll see ads from candidates on here from time to time as I’m in the Advertising Liberally network, but that’s not indicative of any measure of support on my part. You can choose click through an ad for a “product” and decide whether you think it’s attractive, interesting, tasty or simply crap and decide to learn more — or not.