While I don't want to dwell on on Amanda Marcotte more than necessary, let me put on my tin foil hat for a second, and pose a theoretical question.

Might the goal be to discredit the blogosphere?

It's not every day leftists are tarred as "bigots" in the New York Times, so I think it's worth paying attention to this:

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, said in a statement on Tuesday, "John Edwards is a decent man who has had his campaign tarnished by two anti-Catholic vulgar trash-talking bigots."

Mr. Edwards's spokeswoman, Jennifer Palmieri, said Tuesday night that the campaign was weighing the fate of the two bloggers.

The two women brought to the Edwards campaign long cyber trails in the incendiary language of the blogosphere. Other campaigns are likely to face similar controversies as they try to court voters using the latest techniques of online communication.

As I said, I didn't want to dwell on Amanda Marcotte, but I think I have to, because she -- Amanda Marcotte -- is the problem here.

Not bloggers. Not "the blogosphere."

I'm afraid that when the dust settles, all that will be remembered is that bloggers are unhinged characters who hurl "incendiary language," ad hominem insults and vituperation willy-nilly, and should never be hired in any official capacity, or in any job entailing responsibility.

Which is one of the reasons I think it's right to compare Ms. Marcotte to Ann Coulter. Ann Coulter gets called a lot of things, but "blogger" doesn't really stand out, even though she has a blog (at least I'm pretty sure).

What's not mentioned by the New York Times (because I think they want it forgotten) is how and why the Amanda Marcotte stuff came to light. If you read only the Times analysis of the Marcotte affair, you'd think she had been exposed by Bill Donahue and the Catholic League.

Wrong!

She was exposed by the blogosphere, and by numerous bloggers (from major players like Glenn Reynolds on down to smaller bloggers derided by Pandagon as Grade B. wingnuts) -- many of whom had known all about her and her site for a long time, and who carefully documented disappearing links, and collected her most "interesting" opinions. If Amanda Marcotte is to be used to discredit the blogosphere, why can't the Times at least report that she'd been thoroughly discredited as a blogger?

I mean, why not at least a mention of her numerous pulled posts and disappearing links?

Sorry to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but something about this whole affair has been fishy from the start, and it's just getting fishier.

UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds points out that a lot of lefty blogs are up in arms that this has become a scandal (because they want to join the new establishment) and wonders whether there will be "more Pandagon-like airbrushing of blog archives over the next few weeks."

I never thought about it before, but I guess if the Democrats take power, it's natural to assume that some of the leading lefty bloggers would want a piece of the action. If they were rude and over the top in their blogs, maybe they should have thought about that before they did it. (I always try to remember that anything I say can and will be used against me.)

I didn't start blogging with any anticipation of "joining the establishment," and I expect nothing from either party. Ann Althouse doesn't think anyone should be surprised that what they say can derail a political career, and she stresses the value of independence:

For you bloggers seeking jobs: I hope you get them. But for you bloggers staying in this noble enterprise: Preserve your independence and don't let yourself get manipulated, even by some blogger wrangler you loved when she was one of you.