I tend to agree with Pandagon that this seems to be a case where authorial intent was inferior to the actual product.
Also, I've started regularly reading Amanda Marcotte on Pandagon. I tend to enjoy her literary criticism. She really got me with an (spoilery) analysis of 28 days later. Also, I do still think the Edwards campaign made a mistake when they brought her on. This isn't because she's not pragmatic or shrill or the like, I think this rather length abortion post shows that she knows how to play the politics of things. Instead it's that she goes after religion and pro-lifers the way that say Matt Yglesias goes after supporters of preemptive war. Trouble is that her nemesis is a much larger constituency. Appointing her was picking a fight Edwards didn't want. If those were his main issues, she would have been a reasonable choice, albeit still an obvious shot across the bow.
As a side note, she's definitely a harder line pro-choicer than I am. I'm generally willing to assume that pro-lifers that support birth control are acting in good faith even when I disagree with them. In fairness to her, the leadership she's fighting isn't acting in good faith. However, I also am more willing to do humanitarian interventions than Yglesias is. I picked him as an example because I'm trying to distinguish between why she was a problematic choice and why I might disagree with her.