That’s how it goes: no regrets as of Feb. 4, “I am sorry” as of Feb. 8. Associated Press has more. Edwards’ statement is here. Earlier, in what a Shakespeare’s Sister commenter dubs a “Dewey Defeats Truman moment”, Salon had erroneously reported that the two had been ousted. (P.S.: Salon stands by its story, saying the two were in fact sacked but that the decision was then reversed.) Earlier coverage on this site here, here and here.
More: Ted, in comments:
“I am sorry that you were offended” is a rather non-apologetic apology by Marcotte, so she isn’t being quite inconsistent with her earlier “Je ne regrette rien” position, other than that her statement doesn’t refer to “tone-deaf wingnuts.”
What’s amusing is that even this tepid politic gesture by Edwards is causing the Angry Blog Left to howl for his head. It’s an entertaining deal with the devil Edwards has made by courting this crowd, and shows his general unfitness for governing.
And from reader Hans Bader:
Apparently, Edwards is ethically clueless after all.
The only remarks that offended him were Marcotte’s religious insults, not Marcotte’s defamatory, malicious, and ignorant remarks about the Duke student defendants….
And: “Asked whether the campaign had sufficiently screened the two women before they were hired, [Edwards spokeswoman Jennifer] Palmieri said it was difficult to find and read every word a prolific blogger had written over a period of years.” (John M. Broder, “Edwards Learns Blogs Can Cut 2 Ways”, New York Times, Feb. 9). That’s an exceptionally lame excuse as regards Marcotte, whose abusiveness of tone seems to have been a standing, definitional aspect of her online presence: it’s hard to sample any random week’s worth of her posts at Pandagon without being hit over the head by it. As mentioned earlier, her post on the Duke case appeared while she was actually under consideration for the Edwards team, which would hardly have required anyone to dig through “years” of her work.