June 28, 2007
Ann Coulter, John Edwards, Chris Matthews (updated)
There are 3 people who belong in the same league:
All 3 are not above using Elizabeth Edwards for their own personal gains.
As vitriolic as Coulter is, however, she's honest about what she's doing. John Edwards and Chris Matthews, on the other hand, are claiming to take the high road when we can see they're in the swamp. Coulter admits that she's motivated by the desire for publicity in order to sell books. Since Matthews got as much publicity as Coulter did (and wasted no time boasting about it) why does he consider himself above her standards?
Matthews repeatedly asked his guests what they thought of Coulter saying that she hoped John Edwards would die in a terrorist attack. He neglected to point out that her statement was in response to Bill Maher's saying that he wished Dick Cheney would die in a terrorist attack. Coulter's point was that it must be permissible to say such a thing, since it didn't bother the media when Maher said it. The intent is lost when the context is omitted and Matthews omitted plenty of context.
When asked if he knew that his wife was going to call into "Hardball", Edwards evaded the question and was not pressed by Matthews to answer it.
It isn't difficult to see that Matthews' ultimate intent is to boost his own career at any price...paid by others....whom he claims to care for. It also isn't difficult to envision Matthews calling Elizabeth Edwards to set up this low road confrontation. This is not an honorable man.
Update: Annette D'Amato adds:
It's interesting to me that everyone is forgetting that Elizabeth's husband John hired Amanda Morcotte.
Remember her? She's the "filled with the white, hot, sticky, holy spirit" lady. So Elizabeth wants all vitriol to stop unless it's from her husband's employee, right? Too bad Ann didn't think of it on the spot.
Ann is vitriolic, that's true, but she's also absolutely correct; the left can get away with it, the right cannot.