I’ve tried to make a point to Tim Russo and to many others. Should one’s life be defined by one incident like this? I don’t think so.

Even worse, what shows up on Google, to many, is the definition of your life. I’m as guilty as others of this attitude, if you don’t have a web page, a blog, or a good web identity its like you don’t exist.

As to using or not using someone’s name, I think it is case by case. I wrote extensively about a young man from Chicago that used to work for Ted Strickland. I elected not to use his name at his request, and at the request of his wife and attorney. I thought he deserved a second chance and that his name didn’t add anything to the story.

At the same time, average folks can quickly get drug into these web issues that they are ill prepared to handle. Anyone can write anything about any person on the web, whether its true or not. It is very expensive, and time consuming to correct the errors.

Part of what needs to be understood here is my earnestness in the activities around getting women into the political pipeline. Those closest to me are aware of it and I think people who read this blog regularly know it too.

So, my first thoughts were, Goddamnit – what is this – here I was on cloud nine that there’s this new PAID position! And this woman with this great pedigree!

And then – I do everyday normal normal normal backgrounding – a simple google search.

And I read that column.

And I followed up what I read by contacting people I knew knew the person involved and said, hey – you know her – what’s this about.

Please notice – not one single solitary time did I ever make a judgment about whether I expected it to be what she thinks now or doesn’t think now. And I won’t speculate – because I don’t know – beyond what she has now written for herself. And no one else knew except for whomever she’s told.

The ODP should have found that column and handled it. How they’ve now handled it can be judged by all of us.

The author of the column is accepting responsibility for being the author of that column.

She is not now nor was she at the time she wrote the column a minor, to the best of my knowledge so the idea of not using her name didn’t occur to me – but remember, I wrote this post after Scott wrote his and had named her.

I’ve written before about how I have never found value in calling someone a flip-flopper – as others have noted, isn’t that what we hope for when people think and re-think issues- that they may change their mind? Flip-flopping as a negative is a total red herring – a Frank Luntzism. And I’ve always said that. You must look behind the change to judge what it is, or isn’t.

It is a situation that did not have to occur. But there’s every indication that this young woman has every intention of learning as much if not more from this incident as the rest of us who’ve given it this attention.

Sadly, the ability of the ODP to learn and grow remains to be seen.

I posted about the OSU freshman who grew up to be a Demo party official in Ohio but I did not use her name. I learned about all the hoo-haa after reading Pho, which made me want to weigh in. I never used her name, though I did link to her column, which was preserved in the online version of The Lantern. I also linked to Pho.

Today I am wondering if there could have been a way to do this without mentioning this young lady’s name at all? I certainly tried to avoid it — and probably didn’t succeed completely. Today I keep thinking, agonizing really, that this soul has been tarred forever over some unfortunate commentary that was written in her teenage years. Now I wish I had never heard or wrote about this young person. I wish there was a way to take it all back. I really winced when I saw the OPENERS item — not because it was incorrect but because it now has the imprimatur of being BIG NEWS.

The more I reflect, the more I think about this matter, the deeper issue seems to me to be one of maturity — that her Lantern column was regrettably sophomoric. I can understand the ODP’s discomfort with having this young lady on staff — there are people who would be offended within the party, and there are others outside the party who would use the info as a bludgeon had it fallen into their hands. (I’m thinking the Townhall.com crowd and their wannabes.)

But surely there must be some means available to extricate oneself from comments or commentary that one no longer agrees with, or regrets making. There has to be something between losing a job or committing hara kiri. People do grow and do change. Wasn’t Hillary Clinton at one time a more zealous supporter of the Iraq War than now? Wasn’t she once a conservative Republican who supported Barry Goldwater?

I understand and accept the concept of evolution. And, over time, it seems crystal clear this young lady evolved. But it now feels like she has been burned at the stake. And I think I was in the mob crying witch.

I would say C., Both.

But allow me to elaborate. I make a habit of giving thanks every morning for my ignorance because that means I get to learn something new every day.

Stupidity is forever, but Ignorance is curable through learning.

We talked at some length about this at the Blogger MeetUp last night and part of the consensus was that at 18 we all had held beliefs and said things we now, in hindsight, consider to be ignorant.

Other commenters here have suggested that if we cannot grow in our views and sincerely correct what we said on the record in the past then most of us aren’t ever going to say anything.

That’s not flip flopping as some might assert. It’s being thoughtful .

B’shalom,

Jeff

I’m just thankful that the current ODP leadership was not around in the 1930s, for they certainly would have thrown Justice Hugo Black under the bus for his youthful racist views and never allowed him the chance to grow and mature into becoming one of the most forceful public advocates for equal rights that this country has ever known.