The Edwards campaign office has me so upset I'm shaking...

[LiberalHeart]

I have so much emotion and support invested in the Edwards campaign, I'm taking personally the treatment I've gotten from the campaign office this week. I fully recognize I'm just a small a cog in the political machinery, unable to contribute little more than a vote and a few dollars, but I do not appreciate being treated like a bug that should be smashed. I think this voter and any voter deserves better than what I got.

When I saw the AP story about Elizabeth Edwards' comments about her new neighbor (the "rabid, rabid Republican" story that also included the supposed EE comment that she would not be nice to the neighbor if she met him), it rang false to me. It just didn't sound like her. As a voter, I wanted to know if she really said it. If she did say it, fine. But if she didn't, I didn't want to see that story become the vehicle for swiftboating the Edwards as they shine a light on the two Americas.

I went to the horse's mouth, so to speak, asking the campaign whether the comments were really made. That seemed to me the responsible action, given my desire to know the truth. When calling, I explained my reason for asking, I explained that I wasn't a part of any organization (they asked who I was with), I was non-confrontational (there's nothing to be confrontational about; I just wanted information) -- yet I was treated like an enemy.

Even if I had been the enemy, there was no reason to treat my questions like they were poison. Any caller deserved being told the truth.

The first time I called, the person answering the phone responded to my question by telling me the report appeared on the Charlotte Observer website. I knew that. That's where I saw it. And that response did nothing to answer my question. So I said that and asked again the question I first posed. Then the person said she hadn't read the story. I pointed out that she knew about it, and I wasn't asking if she'd read it, I was asking if Elizabeth really said those things. She put me on hold. Then told me I'd need to speak to their media relations person. I gave my name and phone number, and was told I'd get a call. I didn't.

I called the next day and was put through to the media relations person's voicemail, even though I'm not the media. I left all the info about why I was calling, my name, and phone number. I did not receive a return call.

That was two days ago. Today I called and said I had been trying to get an answer to my question in previous calls and had not yet been given an answer, so I was asking again if Elizabeth said those things. The person who answered the phone said, "I have no comment," then freaking HUNG UP on me. I called back immediately to express my displeasure at being treated so rudely when all I was doing was asking a question -- but the phone was left ringing till it went over to voicemail. I left a message telling them how much I did not appreciate the treatment I got.

I still want to know if Elzabeth really said those things but I certainly won't be asking again the only people I trusted to have the facts of this matter. I feel like I was treated the way I would expect a right-wing campaign office to treat a caller who brought up a topic they might not have been comfortable addressing. But I always viewed the Edwards family and campaign as being comfortable addressing anything. And I would expect them to set the matter straight if the AP reports something that's untrue, or to say yes, those were my words, if the story is correct. It's a simple thing, and certainly the kind of information a voter deserves to receive from a candidate.

I'm not angry, but I'm very disappointed. I started this post immediately after being hung up on, then my return call not being picked up. I was shaking then from how upset I was, but as I've written this, I've calmed down. But the disappointment in the campaign office has not diminished. I've never felt letdown by a campaign staff before on a directly personal level. I'm surprised it stings so much. I suspect it's because I have in my mind this view that the Edwards are above politicals as usual, and that they are straight with the public. I don't know if this tap dancing at their office comes from them or if it's just a staff reflecting poorly on the candidate and his wonderful wife. But whichever it is, it is disheartening.

None of the above should be construed as my thinking Elizabeth shouldn't have said what she was reported to have said. That isn't my point. All I had on my mind was damage control (because the Monty Johnson story is being used against Elizabeth and, therefore, John) if she did say it, and cleaning up the public record if she didn't say it. If they're being swiftboated by a false story, I don't want to see them handle it the way John Kerry did when he was faced with swiftboating.

I note that in another thread today, EE is denying something that was in an AP story, so it is possible this Johnson story is another example of inaccurate reporting. I just want to know if it is, that's all.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. although it is natural, you should not allow the

actions of one or two lowly workers in a national campaign office tar and feather your ideas of the candidate.

[hippiechick]

4. ... those 'lowly workers' have the most public contact

... with their peers, co-workers at other jobs, grocery stores - IN OTHER WORDS, VOTERS- and if that's the image and attitude they're spreading ...


:shrug:

[Morgana LaFey]

69. yeah, incredibly poor handling of basic stuff

very bad. Can we say, "Not ready for prime time"??

[saltpoint]

2. I have neighbors I don't like. When the windows are shut and

the door is closed I am far less charitable in describing them than Elizabeth Edwards was with her neighbor.

I saw the Giuliani sign on the news on her neighbor's property.

The sign was confrontational.

It was hung as an in-your-face to John Edwards.

I support Elizabeth Edwards' decision -- public or not -- to have her young children stay away.

You are making a mountain out of a teacup.

[LiberalHeart]

16. No, I'm not -- and here's why...

1. As I said, my concern is not with the comments attributed to Elizabeth. I tried to make that clear in my original post.

2. I've done some research on Monty Johnson and see that he is a tool of the right-wing machine. I found a story about his sign dating back to Jan. 28, and blogs chattering about it. The wording in the various appearances of the matter is often identical -- and some of that wording showed up in the more current AP story. My concern is that the AP is doing a hatchet job on Elizabeth and, therefore John, by hitting them where their strength lies (their connection to the second America). The right has found the guy to symbolize that. He has become a weapon that we'll hear a lot about in the future, and he can be damaging to folks whose know about the Edwards only what they see getting play in the "scandal" stories. Right now, what's gaining traction via Johnson is the notion that the Edwards goodness and concern for the little guy is all a sham as they wallow in luxury. I do not want this version of the Edwards to be allowed to flourish. So if EE didn't say the things attributed to her, I want the record clarified and corrected. NOW. Otherwise, this will fester and take on a much larger life. Mark my words.

3. It's a no brainer that EE would want to keep her kids away from a guy with a gun. What just doesn't sound like her is the "rabid, rabid Republican" thing. His Rudy sign hardly makes him rabid. And I can't imagine her actually saying she wouldn't be nice to someone if she were to meet him.

4. The sign is no more confrontational than are my Dem signs at election time appearing right across the street from my GOP neighbor's signs supporting their favored party and candidates. It's just very difficult for me to picture EE getting upset over a political sign. Really. Think about that.

Also, the AP story says EE said the comments attributed to her "in an interview" but I don't think they said in "an AP interview" -- so what interview was this? Did someone just tell the AP reporter she said those things in an interview somewhere? I would really like to know how accurate the reporting was, and if it was slanted, I'd like to know how it slipped through.

[saltpoint]

19. The man has a right to hang a sign on his fence. Elizabeth Edwards

has a right to keep her kids away from him.

I'm not seeing the crisis.

[LiberalHeart]

24. Here's what the story gives the right wing...

1. The impression that EE doesn't support gun rights.

2. The impression that EE doesn't support the man's right to post a sign for his candidate.

3. The impression that EE is a snob to her poorer neighbors.

4. The impression that the Edwards are hypocritical when they speak of the two Americas when they, themselves, are driving a poor guy off his property.

etc. etc. etc.

In other words, this Monty Johnson thing is aimed at redefining the Edwards and it will be used over and over by conservative pundits if it isn't countered. Monty Johnson and his right to post a sign and his right to own a gun and his right to live on his property in peace regardless of his economic status is a right-wing wet dream come true.

[saltpoint]

27. No, it gives them nothing. Your post is the source of the concern

and I feel the concern is misplaced.

Move on.

Choose an issue, advance its purpose onto the citizenry, and elect a Democrat in 08.

You're reaction to this is way the hell off the chart, IMO.

[LiberalHeart]

31. While I respect your opinion, I do not agree with it -- for all the reasons I've stated here.

[saltpoint]

32. I would suggest you pen a letter to the campaign if it has upended you

to the degree it has.

I think your points are misplaced.

The man's sign is legal, but obviously has a kick to it.

A good parent's instincts would likely keep her young children away from the guy.

A good call on Elizabeth Edwards' part, I would say.

Your post might have begun there as a starting point.

[karynnj]

63. This sounds like what the right is already doing

and all you said reduces to "He's a phony". As someone who was shocked to see how the truth was completed turned around in 2004, I think you are 100% right.

[karynnj]

60. I suspect you may be right

The neighbor was on one of the rw radio shows yesterday. I didn't hear bacause I got where I was going.

[blossomstar]

72. Sorry, but it sounds like you are adding fuel to the fire

and talking it to death. I would have called the butt-head neighbor "rabid" because he is a rabid republican like a lot of people are here in NC... I live here and know them. I don't know where you are from, but; here in NC, people can actually be "rabid". If you are a "supporter" of John and Elizabeth Edwards, why are you taking up valuable time over two or three days asking such questions? Especially, since you state that it didn't matter one way or the other? Just seems odd. I hope and pray that she did say "rabid" because she would be telling it just like it truly is. The sign was definitely an "in your face" manuver from the redneck rabid republican neighbor. Republicans tend to be that way and it's ok... when a dem comes back it's not appropriate? I think that it's high time that we spoke back to these bullies because that's what they are. Calling and calling and calling asking them is it true, doesn't seem supportive and the staff probably thought that you were a republican mole... I probably would have too.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

78. Yes, it does seem rather odd.

[XemaSab]

121. If Rudy Giuliani's wife called someone a "rabid democrat"

for having an Edwards sign on the fence and having an anti-gun sticker on their car, how would that make you feel?

:shrug:

[saltpoint]

128. Which of Rudy's 3 wives do you mean? It's hard to keep count in his

case.

[blossomstar]

132. If all three of them called someone a "rabid dem" I'd be proud!

It is time that we became more vocal. You are not from here so you don't understand the Orange County guy. NC is swarming with ignorant, beligerant, racist republican bullies that are just plain mean. That's why the state is so red... They have no manners, nor care to ever have any. Believe me, the guy was not offended. He loved the attention. There's more to it than just the sign and gun sticker, it's a political agenda of crude, rude, obnoxious republicans and I for one am just plain sick of being bullied.

[ultraist]

81. Think about it, LH

Who is more credible, Elizabeth Edwards or the corporate M$M?

Read up on what Elizabeth said about this.

No point in giving some radical rightwing Gulliani fan a bunch of bandwidth and attention. The guy is selling his property for 1.5 million---how convenient he got all of this free press just as he put his property on the market!

[question everything]

120. His website has a "chat room"

http://blog.johnedwards.com/chat/General/

why not post your questions there?

[Clark2008]

52. That sign was NOT confrontational.

Nothing written on it was bad or even slammed the Edwards.

Geesch.

Do you not have neighbors who threw up Republican placards to your Democratic ones? I have.

I agree that the poster is making a bit much of this - if it was me, I'd call the author of the news article and see if they could either email the notes or let her listen to the tape over the phone, not the campaign, but I take issue with someone calling someone else's First Amendment rights to post their choice of candidate on their own property as "confrontational."

That said, Elizabeth Edwards also has a right to call the guy a jerk.

[Snotcicles]

54. Delete doubled up.nt

[Snotcicles]

55. He posted the sign directly across from their entrance from what I understand.

If that isn't confrontational, it is at least passive aggressive.

[Clark2008]

62. It's his property. He can post what he wants.

For example, I saw houses opposite each other during the Ford/Corker race in which the owners each kept putting up progressively larger and larger signs for their candidates.

It was funny - but nothing mean, off-color or rude was written on any sign and; therefore, not confrontational.

My point was that the neighbor's sign didn't say anything rude toward the Edwards and he has a right to his opinion... that he wants Rudy to win. I don't want Rudy to win, but the sign said nothing ugly.

[Snotcicles]

70. He could post it anywhere he wanted is the point. Putting where they had

to see it made it confrontational. I did not say it was illegal.

[ddeclue]

98. I agree..this just sounds like a very contrived way to bash Edwards

[saltpoint]

103. Hi, ddeclue. I hadn't ruled that out, although what's coming through

for me is a disinterest in political focus.

Edwards' HQ notwithstanding, there are serious issues out there for which Democrats have notably better positions and proposals than Republicans.

When that focus ceases to be a starting point, it may suggest a case of misplaced concerns.

Let's hang together and whip the Rethugs but good.

[Lerkfish]

3. do you have a link to the story in question?

[LiberalHeart]

45. Link

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/112/story/79067.html

(google "monty johnson" "orange county" to see some of the history of how this story has evolved)

[merh]

5. did you pmail her here?

she also checks her email at their website.

Sorry you have had such an experience but I agree with antifacist, don't hold her responsible for the worker's poor handling of this.

[LiberalHeart]

It's not that I hold her responsible. I adore Elizabeth.

But it does concern me to see the staffers behave this way because what they do reflects on the Edwards.

I haven't PMed her. I don't even know how to PM someone. I've never sent a message like that, don't know anything about the process.

[merh]

26. I just checked and she has disabled her profile

Apparently we bombarded her with pmails, DU can overwhelm.

Write her a letter, let her know your concerns. I'm glad you don't hold it against her, it's hard to be all things to all folks, she is doing the best she can, I am sure.

:hi:

[ultraist]

83. Staffers? You are making assumptions again

LH: You are jumping to a lot of conclusions and making a whole lot of assumptions here. I'm starting to really wonder about your motive.

You do not know for a fact it was a staffer rather than a volunteer who answered the phone.

BTW, no one knows for sure if the rightwingnut neighbor's sign is legal. It may not be! But whatever, it's obvious why he put a big ass Gulliani sign up---to be antagonistic.

[LiberalHeart]

96. I didn't know that volunteers aren't considered staffers....

I don't know if the people I spoke with were paid or unpaid, and it really doesn't change the experience I had one way or the other.

My "motive"? I think I've spelled out very clearly why I made the calls I made and why I felt that the treatment I received was not a good sign if that's how the campaign office deals with other callers.

I see in comments here that some think I'm a freeper, a mole, someone pushing someone else's campaign. That's just nonsense. There are two candidates who could get my vote: Edwards and Kucinich. I will promote both, but I know Kucinich doesn't have a chance. So the only way my vote in November 2008 could be diverted from Edwards would be if Al Gore steps in -- and then I would hope for a Gore/Edwards ticket. Then, eight years later, a ticket with Edwards at the top of the ticket. My goal in regard to the Monty Johnson story is to find out the facts and then tailor my response to those who bring it up accordingly. And I want the Edwards campaign to handle it effectively, too. The treatment I got when I asked questions was not effective.

[Sammy Pepys]

6. They are being cautious

Lots of folks snake around now, trying to dredge up dirt anywhere they can, and this has put lots of campiagns on guard recently. With the exception of the media relations person (I'm not surprised your call wasn't returned, frankly), the folks you're talking to are probably not permitted to answer questions outside of a very short roster of things like donations, campaign schedule and stuff like that. Since the information you're looking for is not really campaign related it's not addressed.

I wouldn't take it personally, and I wouldn't look at it as an overall indictment of the campaign.

[msmcghee]

7. Take a deep breath.

There are repuke organizations out to get Edwards as anyone can imagine. The Edwards campaign has no way of knowing who you are at the end of the telephone line or what your intentions are. They are smart to be wary of any Swiftboat style traps that are being set for them.

You should be glad they do not answer questions like that over the phone - not knowing who you are or what your intentions are. Think of it as safe-guarding the few dollars you invested - and the millions others have invested in his campaign.

[LiberalHeart]

28. self-deleted ... repeat post because of posting problem

[LiberalHeart]

29. Self deleted ... repeat post due to posting problem

[LiberalHeart]

30. Then be polite, don't hang up on a caller, and don't say there'll be a return call when there won't.

My questions could have been answered with, you know, the truth. If delivering the truth is falling into a right-wing trap, then there may be something in this story that is a problem for the Edwards. If so, that needs fixing now.

Also, keep in mind that I called three times with my question over several days. After that first call, wouldn't you think they'd realize a proper response should be put together for any and all callers, regardless of which side of the political fence they're on?

This story isn't going away. Just looking at the path it has taken to this point shows that. It's progressing toward something more, and will be used against the Edwards as long as they permit that.

[LuckyLib]

137. And like most folks in today's world, have an email in-box packed with messages

and voice mail the same. Each one requiring action and/or a response. If folks don't get back to you instantly, or even after 2 days, that's life. That's what I tell folks who call me and act huffy about not being at the top of the response list.

[mitchtv]

8. I suspect they thought you were trying to make a story

out of A comment. I must admit I read your previous post, and didn't understand how you could take it the way you did. I wouldn't be nice to the guy either! I believed it was a true story and couln't see a negative side of it for her or her family. You got a nutball running around with with a gun in a probably very nice neighborhood, making anti-Edwards comments to the press. You would be nice?

[LiberalHeart]

33. I wouldn't be nice, but I wouldn't announce in advance of meeting him that I wouldn't.

And I wouldn't have made any comments about him at all for the press. Once a campaign makes negative comments specific to an individual, the games begin and that individual becomes a tool of the opposition. But again, the comments weren't something I was judging. I just wanted to know if they were really made. That's all my phone calls were about -- and the hope that if the comments were made, the campaign fixes the negative they've become. What matters about them is not what we, as fervent Dems think, but what the masses who do not follow politics closely yet hear the story will think. I considered the tone of AP story a hit piece.

I can understand why some think it's no big deal if she said those things. But I'm telling you it will become a big deal in the negative campaigning. It has already been a growing legend starting with just the sign. Monty got some press out of that, and now he's been on TV and the story is all over the net.

I see Rovian fingerprints all over this Monty story. John Kerry was a hero in the military, so what is the right-wing response to that? Paint him as a coward and traitor. Hit him where his strength lies. The Edwards are champions of the little guy, so hit them where their strength lies -- paint them as just the opposite. Monty the poor, rural guy clinging to his right to erect a sign and carry a gun and live in peace on his property versus the big ol' mean millionaires next door.

[mitchtv]

36. Huge story?

there's no there there, I suspect. If that's the best/worst they can do...
Elizabeth , do some creative landscaping

[jobycom]

9. What do you expect, what with the huge house and all?

:rofl: I'm joking.

They were suspicious of you, and probably no one knew the answer anyway. They were expecting a setup from the media or just from someone wanting to start an internet rumor, and were afraid to answer, and had probably been told not to answer questions that they didn't have a pre-approved response to. So they couldn't answer you without getting in trouble, and couldn't tell you they couldn't answer you, so they behaved badly. The joys of a bureaucracy.

[Hobarticus]

10. I'm sorry, but reading this, I can't empathize with your displeasure.

If you really were emotionally involved in this campaign, then your need to substantiate such a trifling comment would never cross your mind.

Liz is scared of her gun-wielding neighbor. So what?

Frankly, I'm not sure what you expected to find by calling campaign headquarters. What did you think they would say?

If it were me on the other end of the line, I'd assume you were a troll looking to stir up trouble.

Just being honest, not meaning to be insulting or derogatory.

[LiberalHeart]

37. What did I think they would say? Either "yes" or "no"

The comment might be trifling to you, but it isn't be to the people whose political agenda it serves to bolster. My reason for wanting to know whether it was really said was exactly what I've stated here repeatedly.

It's a mistake for campaign offices to treat anyone like a troll. Good manners and truth are what we should expect, as voters, when we call them asking for information.

(I didn't take your post as insulting or derogatory. But I did notice that your first sentence calls into question my emotional investment in the campaign. I didn't lie about that. I don't think having an emotional investment in a campaign requires that we not have questions or seek answers. You speak of EE's right to her concerns -- which is something I've never said she didn't have a right to -- but then you appear to be saying I don't have the right, as an Edwards supporter, to have concerns of my own about the campaign staff and the campaign's willingness to answer what was really a very straightforward question.)

[Hobarticus]

47. Next question: what difference does it make, yes or no?

Will you not support the Edwards anymore?

You have every right to chase down a candidate for any reason you please, as it is your responsibility as a voter to be informed. That's not an issue.

Still, I have to admit, with everything at stake in this election, I just find your focus on this trifling comment by a candidate's wife to be kind of silly, in the grand scheme of things. Even more silly is a relentless pursuit of the "truth" to something pretty much anyone with Google can find.

The answer's already out there. She didn't deny she said it. Again, who would ask a question that they already know the answer to? Why, one of those shadowy people whose political agenda it serves to bolster, would be my guess.

See where I'm going with this? I'm not saying you're one those people, but if I were on the other end of the phone, that would be the first thing I'd think. Maybe you should take that into consideration.

Again, no offense.

Hope you find the answers you seek.

[LiberalHeart]

50. I did google. The answer to my question didn't come up; only links to the story did.

As I've said multiple times, the answer to the question mattered because a) if the story was false, I would have done my best to shoot it down here and on my blog, and b) if it was true, I'd have urged the campaign to recognize how it's being used against them and come up with an effective way to defuse it.

I do see what you mean about how I may have been regarded by the campaign, but that's one of the reasons I find the response I got so upsetting. NOBODY should have been treated that way. Suppose I were Ann Coulter and I called. Hanging up on her would not have reflected well on the campaign, it would have been a terrible way to treat a voter, any voter, and it would have played into the right-wingers agenda for the Monty Johnson story. I wonder if right-wingers have called and received similar treatment. I hope I'm the only recipient of it.Bottom line: nobody should be treated like the enemy. Those who are, will be only all the more committed to that mindset if someone in that campaign office tells them they'll get a call and they don't, then on another call hangs up, then lets a call after that hang-up go directly to voicemail. This is not the grown-up way to deal with the public, even the portion of the public that wishes them ill. I've seen the Edwards as being great communicators and I'd like to see that skill extend to the people who are the first ones people encounter when contacting the office.

[CTyankee]

139. This story doesn't surprise me. I was a staffer at Planned Parenthood and

they were very suspicious of callers who might present themselves as you did. Sorry to say this. But they were in a defensive crouch mode all of the time because of the incessant pummelling they took by the crazies. It got to where they became very aggressive with any disagreement with minor stuff, e.g. if another staffer had a disagreement with an organizational matter (not dealing with reproductive rights, which we all supported 100%) and even being unpleasant if you didn't toe the line on every topic. The CEO became very controlling and secretive, management kept a lid on their activities. There was a real atmosphere of backbiting and mishandling of lower level staff.

This happens in "cause" organizations, I have discovered after 32 years in the nonprofit world. People are suspicious of outsiders and don't want to reveal anything for fear of betrayal.

Just keep that in mind. It's not you. It's the pervasive environment of cause groups, as great as they can be.

That said, I am still leaning toward supporting Edwards when our primary comes around here in CT and I will work for him too. I believe in his message and I greatly admired both Eliz. and his courage and grace at their press conference last month.

[blossomstar]

74. Bingo!

Rove would be so pleased at all the talk because of one rabid redneck neighbor of Edwards putting up a sign! This is just what they are about. Bravo to Elizabeth! End of story! Now, on to the campaign and REAL issues!

[renie408]

68. Really? Did you really expect them to give you a yes or no answer over the phone?

That seems really unrealistic to me.

[cally]

11. Please forward this post to the campaign

I can understand and agree with your anger. As someone who's been in charge of volunteer orgs., mistakes are sometimes made by the volunteers or staff. It is the responsibility of the campaign to handle feedback if staff or volunteers are not being courteous and responsive. Let the campaign know what happened with a link to your post and then see what happens.

[karynnj]

64. I agree - and add the last paragraph of your post 33

That paragraph explains beautifully what your concern. The Kerry comparison is apt - and the idea that they are taking major strengths and not only neutering tham but turning them 100% is true. In some ways this and similar attacks could hurt Edwards more as his appeal is based more on who he is and his ideas rather than a long record.

[Cleita]

12. Campaign workers, who are volunteers, come in all sizes of

temperament. I know. There was a lady on a campaign I worked on in the last election that I wanted to smack upside a couple of times and I can imagine that she rubbed anyone she came in contact with the wrong way, but yet she was a very loyal campaign worker and always available. Our campaign manager tried to steer her away from her personality flaws, but there wasn't much more she could do. After all, they aren't employees and you can't fire them.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

13. Sounds like some of the dickheads I've worked w/on some campaigns.

We had some guy work at the reception desk who was a total ass to me and most everyone except for the Campaign Manager and candidate.

It didn't mean the candidate himself was a jerk. I would try to call back (maybe from another number) and speak to the PR people or someone else and let them know about this person. If a media person calls and gets this kind of treatment - it would not be good.

[sandnsea]

14. John Kerry responded

Please don't slur him as some sort of validation for your Elizabeth concern. It's always been a load of bullshit and we've seen with the Edwards that they've got no more ability to stop media smear campaigns than anybody else. If you want to know whether Elizabeth said what she said about that Republican, ask yourself why you believe a lie about the Kerry campaign - gee, because Elizabeth said it.

[LiberalHeart]

39. What? What lie about the Kerry campaign are you saying I believe?

I worked on Kerry's campaign. I remember clearly my frustration when he let precious time go by without coming out with a response to the swiftboaters. Attacks like that -- treated by the media as if they're just free speech -- need to be nipped immediately. That did not happen during that campaign. If no other lesson was learned then, that one should be top o' mind now.

[sandnsea]

49. Then you didn't pay attention

He responded, repeatedly. All year long. The entire list of responses has been posted all over the internet since the election. It's a lie that he didn't respond. The only reason you would insert it into your argument is because it's a lie that Elizabeth perpetuates for their political purposes. In fact, people who worked on the campaign have since posted that EDWARDS wasn't tough enough when asked to be. Elizabeth has made catty comments about Teresa and Hillary. You shouldn't be surprised she made catty comments about a neighbor. She's a wonderful person, but not a saint.

[LiberalHeart]

51. I've seen nothing about any of this. I'll look for it.

[karynnj]

59. Your answer and hers are both right and important for future campaigns

She was right:
Kerry and his team did respond - there's a whole DU reseach thread on it. The fact is that the offical record was 100% behind Kerry - the Navy gave him those prestigious medals. The Nixon tapes show that they checked him out only to find he was a highly decorated war veteran AND clean. Additionally, all the men on his boat when all of the medals were earned were 100% behind him. The media had all of this before August. This is much much more than Carville/Clinton had on the various Clinton issues - where there goal was simply to get a "response" to the media in the news cycle.

Even knowing the media had the truth, the Kerry team went further. Go to the DU Research Forum and read the SBVT thread - it shows the incredible length they went to to discredit all those stories (think of their book as a clusterbumb of lies). They proven there were lies and they proved that the SBVT and B?C shared a lawyer and many funders. Kerry has said they should have put more money on ads - I honestly don't think that would have worked. The SBVT weren't trying to "prove" anything - just create questions on Kerry's character and honesty - which, even more than is heroics - were major strengths. (oddly consider that the Edwards' honesty and character are obliquely questioned in these attacks)

You were right:
You were in the campaign - and they should have had responses written for you and others to spread.

Between 1992 and 2004, we frankly lost the media. In 1992, the need was to give the media something that put the best face on a problem and it was done. In 2004, John Kerry was a highly decorated veteran with a spotless record - this was not a problem that needed to be explained - and the media had the truth. They simply chose to ignore it. If we can't change the media, this needs to be rethought. The Boston Globe has looked at every nit that could become a Kerry scandal for decades - he genuinely is one of the cleanest people in politics. They never found any scandals.

So, what we need to find a way to become the media. The Edwards/Obama/Clinton/Dodd .... campaigns need people like you to alert them to negative stories - and they should have responses that allow you to counter the story (or if true put the best face on it.)

[mzteris]

15. I probably would have been upset, too.

It's upsetting to be treated badly/rudely by anyone - but especially by the representatives of a candidate you actually DO support.

You expected better and you didn't get it.

SHOULD you have expected better? Evidently not according to most responders in here.

But the Edwards campaign has positioned itself as a people-friendly, folksy, family type - and you expected to be treated like the "family" you are - and instead had the door slammed in your face like a red-headed stepchild.

The others are "right" in that you shouldn't hold the behaviour of some staffers against the candidate himself - - - BUT - - - I think you have every right to be upset and look for an answer - both to your original question and to the shoddy treatment you received.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

17. They need to know about this - talk to someone who's higher up....

n/t

[Greyhound]

18. All of the major campaigns are run by the "professionals" and, like the

civil war, they all went to the same schools and learned the same lessons. One of the reasons that The American Civil War was such a giant clusterfuck, resulting in the needless slaughter of hundreds of thousands of lives, was because all of the Generals on both sides went to West Point and were in the same classes and learned from the same teachers.

Our political campaigns are the same, that's one reason there is so little difference between them. Once in a while someone comes up with a different idea (Dean's campaign come to mind) and their candidate "comes out of nowhere" to the shock and dismay of the others, but generally they all follow the same rules, use the same strategies, buy from the same vendors, hire the same staffs, talk to the same reporters, ad infinitum.

Don't take it personally, or do, but realize it has nothing to do with your candidate, but is the result of the overarching political machine, set up by both parties, that controls the whole game.

[Democrat 4 Ever]

20. Sorry, boo fricking hoo. So they didn't have time to take your phone

call personally? Can you begin to imagine the calls they are getting about this nonsense? You say you don't care if she did say those things but - BUT - you need a personal reply to your questions. You have something invested in her responses? The Edwards have fielded and handle much worse than this neighbor dustup. Critics were frigging criticizing their decision to stay in the race due to her cancer and now we have a whining ass neighbor who sounds like a nut making the whole neighborhood nervous. He PULLED A GUN on someone. I'd avoid him, too. I know I would probably dislike him for his tacky sign and still being a rethug after all we know about that bunch is beyond the pale.

They shouldn't have hung up on you but it appears your reaction to this whole deal a little over the top. How about cutting them some slack? These are some very busy times for a staff that is mostly volunteer. You have seen enough of Elizabeth and John Edwards to know this doesn't reflect their values toward people. They are good and decent people who would do us proud in the White House. Don't take it so personally, you just got an overwork, stressed out person who overreacted. Take a chill pill.

[LiberalHeart]

40. Your snark has no bearing on what transpired.

I did not ask to speak to them personally. I asked for the answer from those whose job it is to deal with the public. It required nothing more than a yes or no, and I went to the source who should have had that information, or gotten it. I was told I'd get a response and I didn't, then I was treated rudely for asking.

Had I wanted to know John's stance on universal insurance but had been unable to find the answer to my questions online, I would not have been treated that way. I would have been given the information I requested. I expected the same in regard to the question I had about the Monty Johnson remarks. If you think that's a reason to make fun of me, fine. But get your facts straight, beginning with who I expected to get the information from. I made clear in my OP who received my questions.

[Old and In the Way]

21. You are shaking over this?

Take my advice, don't read up on anything that's happening with regards to what the WH is doing these days. It'll blow your mind.

[saltpoint]

25. Sound advice, and it wouldn't hurt to have some wine on chill as well.

Hi, Old and In the Way.

Good to see you today on DU.

[Catchawave]

80. Good advice....

Happy Friday News Dump Day :toast:

[Laurab]

34. Indeed - a little perspective is a wonderful thing

death, destruction, criminal activity that just keeps getting worse - or a rude staffer? I'd take a rude staffer anyday.

[LiberalHeart]

41. LOL ... yeah, I know ... I read all day and night, every damn day and it's heart-breaking.

[havocmom]

102. Gots ta add a new folder to my 'operatives' file

;) Anti-Edwards Screamin Memies.

I suppose there are lots of reasons for no user profile, but there are patterns too.

You're right, OaItW, OP best back away from any real news lest blood pressure hit critical

[azmouse]

22. It could be that many, many people have called them

about that issue and they are tired of it all. They could think you are just one of many trying to annoy them without realizing that you just want info.
I wouldn't take it personally. They're under a lot of pressure too.

[stellanoir]

23. The woman is bravely and gracefully facing cancer.

Can you imagine how beseiged their campaign office has been since Elizabeth's announcement?

Please chill on this one.

We've all mostly been treated dismissively by candidates and our allegedly representative leadership.

It's not a matter of life and death really.

Let it drop.

[LiberalHeart]

42. Yes, I've been through breast cancer far less bravely and gracefully.

My letting it drop is beside the point. What I'm trying to get across is that this Monty Johnson thing is not going to go away and there needs to be an effective way of dealing with it. Something better than just hanging up on a caller.

I know we've all been treated dismissively by politicians, but I was never hung up on by any of the staff of any right-wing officer holders I've called to express my views. Your mileage may vary. But that's beside the point. It's not the hanging up, it's not the lack of response (that's all personal to me); it's the lack of preparedness for what will be a weapon in the campaign (that should be a worry to all who hope to see Edwards move into the WH).

[stellanoir]

48. So glad you recovered.

I had a similar thing happen with a potential negative factor in the prospects of another candidate that I really knew how to neutralize in an artful and enlightened way and I wrote to the campaign and got a financial solicitation letter back and that was all.

I put a lot of effort into it.

It's disheartening for sure.

I'm sorry you were hung up on. No one deserves that. I just flashed on how weary they all must be after the cancer announcement is all.

Still it's not polite or respectful at all.

[ultraist]

85. Monty Johnson is moving

His property is up for sale and this ridiculous non story that the corporate M$M created will fade away.

Good God, there are real issues to discuss.

[mmonk]

35. This particular neighbor has appeared before

in similar "stories". You have to understand local politics around here and the constant attempts of character assassination on the part of local republicans. Honestly, you don't know how many calls they may have been getting from republicans also. It's really not worth your time IMO, but it's your decision.

[Jack Sprat]

38. I don't know what to say to you to calm your shaking,

but I can assure you of one thing that concerns you. Even if General Dwight D Eisenhower was alive today and running as a Democratic candidate from Kansas, he would be attacked by the Swiftboaters during the course of the campaign. Be assured of that. Being swiftboated by Swiftboaters for Truth? is now a badge of honor for decent people.

[LiberalHeart]

43. That's a good point, but swiftboating is still damaging to the candidate.

[LibraLiz1973]

44. I see you've just learned not to post on DU when your upset.

Alot of the responses have been snarky & rude. So, basically in line with the treatment you got from the Edwards Campaign Office.
People are being ridiculous. You had a question. You wanted an answer. It is a YES or NO question.
Now people from DU are piling on because you ASKED A QUESTION!!
Oh my god- the heavens are falling!!
I am seriously disgusted that people are responding that you
either should not have asked the question or you should not care- or worse, you should have expected rude treatment from the Campaign Office.
Sometimes I feel like I need to take crazy pills to come into GD.
There are attack dogs everywhere who will argue with you for anything.

The truth is, Edwards is running for President. People are going to ask questions.
This wasn't even a complicated question! If his campaign office cant handle this, that's a problem.

I can't believe people on a supposedly democratic board are telling you to take your question and go home. LAME!

Keep your head up!

[LiberalHeart]

46. Thanks. I knew what I was in for when I posted, but I also knew I'd reach folks like you.

[onecent]

53. K & R

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

56. You have to remember, they don't know you from a hole in the wall. With dirty tricks

(and I don't think they will be from real Dems), I can understand very easily why they aren't responding to you. I can't fathom why you are upset by this.

[dogday]

57. My Reps are all republican... Do you know how they treat me

when I call to state my cause? Well anyway, one day, one of them asked me why did I call so much? I said my Son is in Iraq and this all the control I have over the situation, so I use it, sometimes every single day.....

[gatorboy]

58. Why are liberals expected to be nice to EVERYBODY?

The guy pulls guns on folks. I'd say that makes him a prick.

If he was pulling samurai swords on people then EVERYONE would be saying, "yes, he's a nut." But since it was a gun, we gotta go through the whole, "LiberalS hate my right to bear arms" schtick. Geez fuckin' Louise!

[Beaverhausen]

61. The people who answer the phones can't comment

They aren't 'spokespeople' for the campaign, therefore they can't answer you, all they can say is "no comment." They think that you might be press and are trying to trick someone into making a statement they can use.

[applegrove]

65. I'm sure the Edwards Team is a little wary of falling into any Rovelike traps

with the information they give out. They have to stay on message and not allow for small things to be blown into large thing. They don't know who you are. So they gave ya a "no comment". They probably have orders to say that.

I would hope more that they stay professional and on message than they talk to me. Politics is a dirty, dirty game these days. Mountains are made out of molehills and the opposite. There is Grover's fax tree and Rove's network of Fox Newses out there. I would worry if Edwards staff were all casual and laxidaisical. Sorrry you are so offended by try and look at it from their point of view. They are not gearing up to endear themselves to people over the phone. They have a campaign to win. That means what it means. On election day expect a phone call making sure you have voted and bloody hell if you have not. If you prepare for that now...perhaps you will not be disappointed again by their lack of familiality and friendship.

[brentspeak]

66. It sounds like you have more invested in someone else's campaign

Otherwise, you wouldn't be trying to get us angry at the Edwards campaign.

[renie408]

67. I don't think they should have hung up on you. But is that the kind of thing they would talk about

to a total stranger on the phone? I have to say, I think you are overreacting.

[Orangepeel]

71. You know, they are really busy.

No one should have been rude to you, but you also shouldn't take it so personally. The person who answered the phone is someone who should be able to give you directions to the office, tell you where to send a check, send you a bumper sticker and/or refer you to someone else. He/she is not empowered to speak for Elizabeth Edwards or interpret a newspaper quote. He/she should not have hung up on you, of course, but I have some sympathy for that person given all that he/she had the ability to do was what was done already -- refer you to someone else.

The media relations person didn't call you back by the next day. But how many calls do you think he/she gets in a day? Honestly, if you were responsible for prioritizing the calls would you have put yours on the top of the list?

[citizen snips]

73. I don't think any campaign would place much importance

on neighborhood gossip.

[Cha]

75. Thanks for trying to get to the

bottom of this in a patient and reasonable manner, LiberalHeart. I'm sorry you were treated so shabbily by the phone workers @ Edwards' campaign office.

I know Elizabeth reads DU..I hope she reads your post and cuts to the chase. I get the impression that they listen to the people so this would be upsetting to say the least.

All that brouhaha with the "neighbor" from hell should be nipped in the bud any way they can. We all know the fascist wing will swiftboat the shyte outta it.

[Alexander]

76. Blame the workers, not Edwards.

If I voted against every candidate whose staff was ever rude to me, I would be banned from DU.

It's not like John Edwards was personally an asshole to you on the phone.

[ultraist]

77. Volunteers often answer the front desk phone

You probably spoke to a volunteer----not campaign staff.

I have had many dealings with the Edwards camnpaign staff as a volunteer who lives in the area of the main headquarters and they have never been rude or short. Ever.

It's unfortunate that you did not immediately get the answer you wanted but presidential campaigns are very busy with thousands of people calling and emailing in daily, so it may take several days for you to get an answer on a question regarding an article, which btw, Elizabeth Edwards has already addressed. I would encourage you to email your question before jumping to conclusions.

[dk2]

82. This post doesn't make since.

This encounter has been in the news for days now, you can find out on the internet all about it, why did you think you had to go to the campaign office? Going to the "horses mouth" like you say, would have been directly speaking to Elizabeth herself, not a campaign staffer.

I think this is another post by another campaign trying to smeer, and slam dunk Edwards.

It has been getting so bad on the DNC partybuilder site someone even is paranoid about the DNC admins uprating any post about Edwards. On Mydd, and on Kos, posters are getting hyper about Edwards getting so much netroots post.


This post doesn't make since to me, I don't think they would hang up on anyone, it may have been an accident or something, if this call was ever made, of which I have my doubts.

[benny05]

79. This is a weird post

For starters, Mike Glover of the AP wrote that story.

Second, the thread from earlier today is correct. Mrs. Edwards posted on MyDD and said her words were minced so to speak, and she punked the diarist, who is a big Obama supporter and is frustrated at the moment because Edwards is and deservedly, getting some very positive netroots attention, contrasted to Obama who gets mainly MSM attention, but fails to mention that fact in her/her post each time.

No, I did not (3.00 / 22)

I spoke earlier today to Mike Glover of the AP. He asked about the public interest in my cancer. I said that in entertainment the cult of personality was fine and harmless but in politics it interferred with the real discussion of issues. I said the campaigns were all going through this process of concentration on personality, and even when the process involved people saying nice things about me, I didn't think it was useful. I never mentioned Senators Clinton or Obama at all directly or indirectly, and when I saw what Mike had written, I asked our press people to speak to him about correcting it.
Just so you know.
by ElizabethEdwards on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 12:11:36 AM EST

That is the real Elizabeth Edwards.

If the blogger is upset with the volunteers at the office, I can understand. But why is the blogger in disbelief that Elizabeth told the truth on MyDD?

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/4/12/223822/066

[kdpeters]

84. I would have told you to go to hell.

But that's just me. John and Elizabeth Edwards are much too nice to be so honestly blunt to you.

Some friend you are. Did it never occur to you to just stand up for her? If you support them, then support them already and stop acting like some pretentious church lady!! If she isn't speaking for herself and it "rings false", it's FALSE!! If your support is as flimsy as to make a pest of yourself at every off-handed swift boat smear, maybe you should try not to be so supportive.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

106. that's a bit harsh, dont you think?

it's best to be armed with the truth in defending someone. That's politics.
Unfortunately, the story is out there, in a prominant NC newspaper.
Unless the campaign has denied it, it's only natural to want to full story. How else to counter it in LTTEs and such? It's not like the poster was calling her aliar or anything.

[ultraist]

86. After reading more comments of the OP, I'm smelling something...

[LiberalHeart]

87. It hurts to see a comment like that.

[ultraist]

89. Oh, good grief Liberal Heart

It is more hurtful to see people believe a corporate M$M smear over Elizabeth Edwards and question her dignity and creditibility. I know who I believe!

[LiberalHeart]

91. If you believe that's what I did, you did not understand a thing I said here.

[kdpeters]

88. Go with that hunch

I post on other boards and I've started to assume that any supposed insane self-described "liberal" acting like some freakazoid is in reality a freeper mole. Look for it. They seem crazy, but on closer examination, act exactly like those right wingnuts say about us. Nope. Not an insane liberal freakazoid -- freeper mole. Once you peg them, they usually log off.

FREAKS!!

[LiberalHeart]

90. I love DU, I love the people here, but the personal attacks? Not so much.

[kdpeters]

94. What I said about "freeper moles" on other boards is true

If you post anywhere else, look for it. You'll see it.

And you'll notice I didn't personally attack you. I told you bluntly what I thought -- tough love, my friend. Trust me, you would APPRECIATE someone who took up for you that passionately if it was you being smeared with gossip and innuendo. You would. Now that's what your friends need from you. Don't listen to that mess. There's a lot more coming where that came from and it's only going to get worse. We have a year and a half.

Speaking for myself, I mean nothing personal. I don't even know who you are. But I respond what i feel is commensurate to get the point across. I don't know how to politely explain how terribly I think you betrayed and insulted Mrs. Edwards, so I respond in a manner i feel appropriate.

So, please know I only want you to put yourself at the middle of a gossip, innuendo, whisper campaign and ask yourself how you would want your friends to react. Calling you up asking if you really did sleep with the Dallas Cowboys - AGAIN - or standing by you and defending you by pushing back on that BS and pushing back HARD!? Why would I even need to ask you if you did something so out of character? I know you wouldn't.

Me on the other hand, it's a bit more believable, but you'd know I was making a point.

Peace, friend.

[LiberalHeart]

97. How did I betray and insult Elizabeth? And what persuades you the report is false?

As I said, my gut told me it didn't sound like her. But I could find no reaction from her (via google) regarding the report. The AP report that she did refute was about something else, not Monty Johnson. It is not an insult to her to want to know if the interview mentioned in the AP report was accurate.

I know I am going to be hearing about Monty Johnson in my debates with conservatives between now and election day. I know it because googling showed me how he's caught fire with the conservatives and the blogosphere. I intend to stick up for the Edwards, but I don't want to be defending comments if Elizabeth didn't make them (and if she didn't, I want to be able to say she didn't with the force of the facts and the truth to back me up). On the other hand, if she did make the comments, I also want to know that before going head to head with conservatives because it will alter what I say. I see some here defending her reported comments, and they do so with apparent confidence that she did indeed say them. I just want to be sure that she did before I do likewise because I have a nagging feeling the report wasn't accurate. My doubts caused me to seek confirmation or denial from those who should know. It perplexes me that some here seem to think it's wrong to want to know. I think seeking information and truth is a good thing. Certainly not something to be viewed as suspect.

By the way, I appreciate your straightforwardness.

[w4rma]

92. The campaign isn't talking to anyone about that guy. Including you. Its inane and a diversion. (nt)

[earth mom]

93. Why does it matter? You should let it go.

To pursue it and pester the Edwards campaign anymore about it just strikes me as freeperish, even if that wasn't your intention in the first place. And the more you go on and on about it, more people around here will feel the same. Most long time DUers can spot freepers quite easily....

[spooky3]

95. Here's a little bit different (I hope) take on it

(I've read many of these posts and don't want to be repetitive.)

I can understand your frustration with inefficiency, rudeness, lack of concern, or whatever may have accounted for what happened. I got annoyed recently when it took me more than an hour and five different media (!) to get through to a bank that told me I had to call about my CD that is maturing within their deadline period. They had even given me the wrong fax number and sent me repeatedly error filled instructions, etc. One simple phone call or email should have done it. And I still don't know if they are going to take care of the problem. this kind of stuff happens to people dozens, hundreds, thousands of times every day! But it is frustrating and makes you feel no one gives a care.

But...think about what responding to your request would require. You were really asking someone to go straight to Elizabeth (because who else would you trust to tell you the truth?) to verify what was actually said or done. How likely is that that ANYONE, let alone a likely untrained volunteer, would be able to do that immediately and call you back? In my example, my question could have been handled by any lower level customer service person with a computer. And I was a paying customer that they knew and presumably wanted to do more business with! Yet it was still a complete mess and never would have been handled if I had not taken a lot of time trying to sort it out and someone HAD to deal with me legally. My point is that if organizations with paid employees can't handle the most routine questions, you can't take it personally, so you really must not take it personally when you have a much more difficult question and are posing it to people who are overworked and probalby unpaid and may simply not have the means to get your question answered.

Hope this helps a little.

[Breeze54]

99. Why is your story so familiar to me?

I read a similar scenario on DU, concerning someone being
treated 'badly' by the Kucinich Campaign people, last week.

Hmmmmmm.....

The Edwards Campaign is obviously in protective mode and as you don't have any
credentials then you could be any other crackpot calling to 'clarify' what you
heard or read. It's called damage control and allowing a story to die. So? Let it.

[Catchawave]

100. Liberal Heart - profile/pm disabled ?

Tried to contact you with some personal contact information.

[LiberalHeart]

101. I've never pm'ed; don't know how

Do you mean contact info for the campaign? After some folks here suggested I contact the campaign, I did so this afternoon, with a link to this discussion. I used the contact form on their site.

[Breeze54]

104. ERROR: No such user profile

ERROR: No such user profile
The user has disabled his/her user profile.

[Catchawave]

105. That's not good

uh-oh

[LiberalHeart]

107. I have been on DU for years, I donate to them, I spend hours here per day...

...and I have never had a profile. So shoot me.

[benny05]

108. What's the Beef?

Who is your candidate? Present transparently.

[LiberalHeart]

109. Am I now or have I ever been a member of the Communist party?

[benny05]

110. Who asked that question?

This needs to stop. It's beginning to look really insincere and showcasing. And because the poster is unwilling to answer my question...well, you decide. If poster even said, "I'm still shopping", it's better than the lame answer "being part of the Communist Party". That's sounds FR.com in tone.

[LiberalHeart]

113. You are questioning my political loyalty as a litmus test of your own design.

It really doesn't matter who I support. It has no bearing on the experiences I related here. But if you're so all-fired eager to know, maybe you should read post number 96.

Your attack on me is without evidence or purpose other than to simply lash out against some other person you have projected onto me. It's sad, really.

[benny05]

116. No I am questioning this post

I question your message because to me, you are not being authentic. You have no enabled profile. And as Led Zepplin would sing, "and it makes me wonder."

[LiberalHeart]

118. So if I had a profile, I'd be authentic?

That's silly and you know it. You're just being ornery. I'll bet you're not at all like this in real life.

[benny05]

119. Guess Again

It would be interesting to a DU poll to see if having a profile matters. If you won't, I will. But I suggest you do, since I have one, and you don't.

[LiberalHeart]

125. You, not I, think such a poll would be significant -- so you do it, if you feel compelled to.

I've never written a profile, but aren't I correct in assuming that one could write anything one wanted about themselves? I'm missing how this is some kind of ticket to credibility.

[benny05]

133. Bottom Line

I think this post is full of BS.

1) Why would one be shaking from a unreturned phone call? It's one thing to be a little miffed, but really, "shaking"?

2) If you had such a complaint, why did you you not e-mail the campaign to get an answer? It's on Edwards' web site.

This is a pitiful, "woe is me", and trying to detract from the Edwards to gain attention for yourself. Congrats to you. It worked for a day.

[Breeze54]

136. I know! I was just alerting you, as

you said something about not ever having sent a PM before
and didn't know what that was, if I recall correctly. ;)

See?? Here it is:

LiberalHeart - Sat Apr-14-07 12:34 AM

Donating Member (1000+ posts)
Click to send private message to this author
Click to view this author's profile
Click to add this author to your buddy list
Click to add this author to your Ignore list

Sat Apr-14-07 12:34 AM
Response to Reply #100

101. I've never pm'ed; don't know how

Do you mean contact info for the campaign? After some folks here suggested I contact the campaign,
I did so this afternoon, with a link to this discussion. I used the contact form on their site.

[man4allcats]

111. "I have in my mind this view that the Edwards are above

politicals as usual..."

I don't blame you at all for being disappointed. As you indicated, it is indeed possible that the behavior in question is indicative not of the Edwards themselves but rather of some witless staffer. Whatever the case, the office handled your call very badly. As for your view of the Edwards being a cut above, perhaps they are, but personally I suspect all politicians will do or say whatever is necessary to achieve their own personal ends. Like nature itself, as a class they are red in tooth and claw and just as amoral. I almost wonder if it might not be genetic. }(


Impeach Bushco!

[benny05]

112. Plant Job eom

[LiberalHeart]

115. Are you always this charming?

[man4allcats]

130. Plant?

spinach, cucumber, oak tree, rose bush, rosebud, Charles Foster Kane, sunflower, corn, wheat, barley, apple, grapefruit, orange, imPEACH

[LiberalHeart]

114. It's just not in my DNA to see the Edwards that way.

[Kerrytravelers]

117. I have been on the other side of that phone before. (Not this particular phone call, however.)

We have to say no comment. The hanging up might have been out of frustration. Not the best move, but place yourself in their chair for a minute. And the not getting back to you is simply because they are going to do a public response, not a personal one on the phone. They don't know you. They couldn't pick you out in a line up.

Don't take it personally. In fact, maybe the person on the other end of the line was shaking because they had received so many calls on the issue.

The more attention we pay to this, the more the riech-winger and this menace with a firearm of a neighbor win. They get the negative attention they want. Don't give it to them! :)

[LiberalHeart]

122. The story has legs without any input from us (18,500 google entries for Monty Johnson tonight)

We're looking at a seedling and it's going to be a redwood someday if the campaign doesn't take control of the story, making sure their version of it is the one that takes up residence in voters' minds.

I think it was in the movie Malice where someone (a reporter?) spoke of things being accurate but not true. If you look at the story as it appeared on the Charlotte Observer's site (I considered it a hit piece), then read what new forms it has taken since there as it has been retold, you'll see that the information remains the same (accurate at least in terms of relaying what was in the original story) but not true in that language and editorializing has transformed it into a hateful distortion of a family I think I can safely say most of us adore. I'm not one who can sit back and, with a wave of my hand, say, "Oh, it's nothing, it'll blow over." I'm worried.

[Kerrytravelers]

123. I didn't mean that if we here at DU ignore it, it will go away. I was thinking more general.

However, I guess all of us are now part of the Google/Yahoo/Internet Search hits. How many times has the neighbor's name been mentioned in this thread alone, not to mention the other threads regarding EE.?

[LiberalHeart]

127. Well, maybe we should change the names to protect the innocent.

[NormanYorkstein]

124. all the crap about the Edwards' and their neighbor sounds like crap

to me :shrug: more of the house bullshit

[orleans]

126. sorry to hear you had a hard time with the volunteers who work the

phones.

(i almost hesitate to post on this because of all the fur flying & feathers ruffling)

glad to read that you did notify the campaign office about their nonresponse to your question & how you got hung up on.

their response to you was not professional, polite nor was it representative of how any dem candidate would want their volunteers to behave and respond to the public (i'm assuming)



after reading that article i saw a minor contradiction regarding the "neighbor"
"Monty Johnson brought out a gun while chasing workers investigating a right of way near his property. "

and then
"But Johnson defended the occasion he brandished a gun, saying those on his land didn't have the proper approval"

now...if this guy is swinging his gun around at people "near" his property i would view him as dangerous & fucking crazy. it would make me nervous as hell to have to live around a wack job like that (especially with a couple kids in my house)

(and obviously this wack is a republic--he wears his rudy sign in plain sight)

hence the phrase "rabid, rabid republican" (rabid is kinder than other euphemisms such as fucking crazy or wack job or royal asshole)

here is my thought: if, in fact, she was misquoted in that article the campaign would have been notified and been able to tell you she was misquoted.

and having expectations of someone speaking to you courteously and not hanging up on you is not unreasonable. (it's something i would expect of a republic's campaign but not from a dem. maybe because i tend to hold dems to a higher standard because i know we're better than that.)

i don't think you should stop asking when you have questions. i don't think you should have to shut up or let it go when all you want is some clarification. and i don't think it's odd that you suspected the media twisted her words. hell, if we all just shut up and believe everything we are told by the press then where the fuck would all of us be? certainly not with a house majority, certainly not with subpoenas coming down, certainly not with an anti-war majority or libby on his way to prison.


hang in there.

[LiberalHeart]

129. Thanks. Kind words are balm at this hour of the night.

But let me clarify: my immediate response when the woman hung up on me was was just plain hurt feelings. But that quickly gave way to the larger concern. It seemed like the campaign was not ready for the questions, and they need to be ready for everything.

[orleans]

131. i would have felt hurt too. and you're right--they do need to be

ready for EVERYTHING.

we all have to be.

we can't wait, and hope things blow over (like we did before) and then respond. all the dem candidates & their campaigns have got to clarify and respond immediately. no more "let's just put ourselves above the fray" crap or "it's not worthy of a response". it is obvious that doesn't work anymore. this time we all have to kick some ass. every candidate and every one of us.

[cooolandrew]

134. Well there is an alternative...

The millenium begins in 2008. Link...

United we stand http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoID=1807013296

[benny05]

135. Your answer is the best one

I'm not his supporter, but I liked how you slipped his video in.

[Catchawave]

138. BREAKING: Mr. Johnson is a "Rapid Republican" !

While there is no excuse you, LiberalHeart, deserved the rudeness you described in your OP, I did find time to do some research. Most of the Googling led to wingnut sites, including the OrangeCountyGOP.com, which has been encouraging their "people" to contact the Edwards office. "Rudeness" aside, have you called the OCGOP office also?

Also, Mr. Johnson's DAUGHTER posted a comment calling Mrs E a "clasist bitch" (sic). Disturbing, because her daughter shares a class with one of the Edwards kids..scary, huh?

The rest of the 15 brazillion hits you were concerned about on searchin' Google World, led to Johnson, Orange, Elizabeth, County, however, the first 12 hits were local news items that died 4 days before your OP.

With this in mind. DU Peeps...when you call campaign offices, please ask politely for "whom you are speaking too", write it down, ask your question.

Liberal Heart, I tried to help you yesterday, you have your PM's turned off. Your profile is too? Your thread had 9 recs and appears on the Greatest Page, last time I checked.

I wouldn't piss on your leg and tell you it's raining, why are you doing it to the Edwards Campaign?

I'm certainly not going to post private information from anyone's campaign on DU public threads, especially to people who intentionally turn off their PM/Profile, and insist on peeing on my leg.

Have a great day :hi: