A favored technique is to use a single event for the purpose of discussing broader themes and goings on. Thus, the Dred Scott case, as shown in Don Fehrenbacher's seminal book on the subject, is actually a reflection of the antebellum age. Some wish to see things in a vacuum. This is the path to fiction. Libby's trial is sold that way to some people -- nothing there, you see, maybe a single lie. Nothing to see here. B.S. It is a reflection of how their handled the war, how the establishment press handles sources, how Cheney et. al. operated, how they corruptly blocked any investigations of their actions, etc.
[Balkanization now wants to target Cheney -- we must have a "no confidence" vote for dangerous vps! But, a means is there. Agnew was forced out for things pettier than this! Cheney's involvement in the Plame business alone is impeachable. Again, let's not whine too much about our powerlessness. It is as much a matter of will.]
And, less importantly, the Edwards' blogger story also is in effect much bigger than the ultimately small scale nature of the individual acts involved. You can check out sources like Glenn Greenwald, Talking Points Memo, Salon, and so forth to get the background, useful links, and further commentary. Basically, the Edwards campaign hired two bloggers, who some distasteful self-claimed Catholic defense sorts targeted as hateful types. And, they made some comments on their personal blogs -- a medium known for such openness and lack of restraint -- that were a bit blunt.
Some sympathizers wondered why Edwards, especially with his nice guy persona, chose these two in particular. It was also noted that one of the two made blog comments on the Duke trial, and Edwards' former law partner is on the defense team. And, some other comments that were not really thought through. [see TPM] OTOH, the fact Edwards himself is Catholic was not made clear in the early accounts I read.
GG suggests that he thinks, though the campaign denied it when first reported, the two were fired, but there was a negative backlash, and the campaign changed course. Edwards ultimately said that he opposed some of the negative language used, but the two assured him of their bona fides. As a comment here noted, he even wily challenged one of the main critics involved. A few were not satisfied, thinking this still gave in to hypocritical blowhards. This was the sort that seemed to think this was some sort of make or break decision, a sign of how he will fold on major issues. "Now, I can't vote for him!" Or, the type the spoke of a "bunker mentality" when the Edwards campaign took a few hours to decide what to do. Oh, grow up.
I respect that you need to deal with these attacks, but as GG noted, he did. And, the NYT actually wrote about the negative tone of the other side as well. Yes, one fears a "pox on both houses" mentality, but the bloggers are still there, and it was all handled quickly. It also shows that as blogs grow in importance, they will be used against campaigns, even for low ranked staffers. With power and success, comes pressure. This is expected and must be handled in a sound fashion. And, yes, there are going to be some missteps (were these good hires? not clear) and some a bit messy choices made partially to look good. Such is politics, such is life. Beside, it is rather early, and dealing with the edges like this is the point of long campaigns, right?
Anyway, check the blogs etc. for further thoughts on the matter. In sum, I see it both a reflection of the importance of the blogosphere as well as the importance of a bit of caution/perspective in this 24hr news cycle. Heck, when someone mentioned that the story got just a blip, someone pointed out that Wolf Blitzer talked about it. Well, yeah, that's the point -- not too many hang on what he says, even with blogs like Crooks and Liars now providing movie clips to key cable news moments. And, yes, as a warning on the care one must take in handling attacks. Overall, I think Edwards did pretty well, though mentioning the tone of specific past blog entries might be a bad precedent.
Oh, did I say that the putative top two Republican candidates -- Johnny and Rudy -- skeeve me out? No? Well, that's because we have to focus on what Congress and the President we have now is doing. Except when we don't, I guess.