Elizabeth Edwards crushes Coulter
I'm telling you, it's stuff like this that makes you wish Elizabeth was running for president. This is a woman candidate I could get behind. She calls Coulter out on Chris Matthews freak show interview with the GOP's favorite sewermouth who apparently has been let out of her cage to promote a book.
Elizabeth called in response to an earlier broadcast where the slattern of slime said from now on she was going to wish John Edwards had been killed in a terrorist attack.
Confronted with Elizabeth's class, Coulter never looked more crass.
[Thanks to Gun Toting Liberal, Jon Swift, Democratic Daily and The Populist for the links. All of them have significantly more to say.]
Elizabeth called in response to an earlier broadcast where the slattern of slime said from now on she was going to wish John Edwards had been killed in a terrorist attack.
Confronted with Elizabeth's class, Coulter never looked more crass.
[Thanks to Gun Toting Liberal, Jon Swift, Democratic Daily and The Populist for the links. All of them have significantly more to say.]
Labels: Media, viral videos
posted by Libby Spencer at 9:56 PM
16 Comments:
She's never looked anything else, unless you have eyes with that clear membrane that other reptiles have.
Matthews should change the name to Slushball for all the good he did in countering her staccato lies, slanders and slitherings. She just walked all over him asserting that Saddam attacked the US and that we attacked them for reasons having nothing to do with WMD.
I simply have no words to describe her, to vilify her, excoriate her or insult her that come close to being adequate. I wish she would die. I'm sorry, but I do.
Fogg, it's bad when even you can't come up with sufficient language to describe the depths of her depravity. I feel the same way. I almost didn't post on this because (a) I hate to give her any attention and (b) there really aren't words sufficient to express my loathing.
I can't say I wish she would die, but I do wish she would crawl into the sludge she comes from and never come out again to sully our airwaves.
Where did this media whore come from and why does anyone give her air time? She is a classless slimeball and no matter how much she flings her haor back and forth, she will never be "oh so pretty". To attack the Edwards' over the death of their son is another digusting display of how far she'll go to pander to the media to get her face on camera. I'm not a big fan of ole John but living in NC, I've been exposed to a number of his campaigns and although the death of their son has occasionally come up,never did they use it as a political ploy. She has no idea what she's talking about. I hope she gets reflux and spasmodic dysphonia.
Yeah, and a hang nail too! :)
Nyaa!
Anyhow, Did you know your Authority rating is higher than mine? (On Techorati)
O_o
Anyways... great post and your welcome for the links.
Rocky - I ask myself that question every time she sullies our airwaves.
Populist - LOL. Permanent hangnails would be a good curse.
Not to bust your bubble, but the comment you blast Ms. Coulter for saying was actually a reference to Bill Mauer calling for the murder of our Vice President. I guess it went over your head.
JohninFL - Is this that famous moral equivalency I hear you guys bitching about when we point out the White House is condoning tactics that are as bad as the terrorists are? You know the one you say doesn't matter because those other people are evil?
And I think you should start doing your own reading instead of just swallowing the noise machine's talking points. Even if the slattern of slime was making the reference relative to Maher's remark, your interpretation goes to show how far overdosed on the koolade you are. Maher didn't say he WISHED Cheney had been killed. He rightly noted that a lot of people might have lived if the attempt on Cheney's life had been successful. Cankersore Coulter on the other hand responded to Maher's correct observation, by stating that henceforth she WILL WISH that Edwards had been killed by a terrorist action that has not already occurred.
To spell it out in simple words for you, Maher reacts to a past event that made the news by making a valid observation on its effect, Coulter expresses a wish for personal misfortune to occur to someone who had not already been threatened.
Moral equivalize yourself out of that one buddy. You're supporting a hateful scum bag and there's no way around it. You have that right but don't expect me to tell you it's okay with me.
I think you are missing the point: Coulter is a voter and Elisabeth’s Edwards husband is going to be a president. Coulter is definitely not Edwards’s constituency but it gives no right to would be a fist lady to use Chris Mathews’s ambush to shut up your opponent. This is not Venezuela and not Russia. Elisabeth! Are you trying to cry your way to the White House? You came into running voluntarily so stop complaining. If so, Coulter is right. If not. then shut up and at least pretend that you are serious about this campaign.
Coulter is a private person who has no obligations whatsoever to be polite . It may be wrong what she is saying but it is many times more wrong to shut her up by would be first lady. Coulter has rights to say what she said . Period. You do not like it? Deal with that or quit your campaign , but do not lecture a voter on how to react to your candidacy.
2008 - Sorry but I call bullshit on that. Coulter is not just another voter, she's a voter who got away with fraudently voting in the wrong district for one thing and she is an influential right wing spokesmouth.
To excuse her hateful remarks is to condone the behavior and frankly I think you should check your own moral compass before you make judgments on Elizabeth Edwards.
Coulter is given a big fat platform she doesn't deserve and she's polluting the political debate for her own personal gain. You enable that kind of partisan hatefulness by excusing her. I'm grateful to Elizabeth for calling her out. Frankly, I think I have the high ground on this one.
to Libby Spencer:
“Coulter is not just another voter, she's a voter who got away with fraudently voting in the wrong district for one thing “
if so, then sue her , but unless it is proven treat her as any other voter
“and she is an influential right wing spokesmouth.”
so, help me understand: just because she is more influential than you ( and may be elisabeth edwards as well) she should be denied her right to talk about presidential candidates what she thinks??
”To excuse her hateful remarks is to condone the behavior and frankly I think you should check your own moral compass before you make judgments on Elizabeth Edwards.”
it is not about moral it is about freedom of speech and it is about the right of a voters to say whatever they please to say ( until it is legal) about any candidate. It is about a candidate to presidency who should respect that right and should not behave themselves like Hugo Chaves, shutting up everything that goes against them
My moral compass is nobody’s business . I am not running for office and not hosting TV show . These people who are running and hosting TV shows are obliged to have some additional ethical, logical and legal restrictions. I am not. I am going to vote and I am discussing whatever I think is necessary to discuss in order to figure out the best candidate for whom it is worth voting for.
I am not judging Elizabeth Edwards’ personal morality I am saying that as would be first lady she should have more respect to voters’ right to tell what they think have to be said
”Coulter is given a big fat platform she doesn't deserve and she's polluting the political debate for her own personal gain. “
What is wrong with that ? Who gave her this platform ? Taxpayers ? Government? No, it is entirely private matter. So, I just do not see how it can be anybody’s business. Bill Maher is not anyhow more polite that Coulter and he has a big platform as well so what does it mean, that he must shut up too?
“Then it is You enable that kind of partisan hatefulness by excusing her. “
I am not excusing her for how she does what she does but I am protecting her right to do that because… she has the right to do that and this right is not up to Elizabeth
“I'm grateful to Elizabeth for calling her out. “
right, i just have a vision how she will shut up those whom she does not like when she would be a first lady.( fortunately it is obviously not going to happen)
2008 - if you choose to remain willfully ignorant, we have nothing to talk about it. Elizabeth exercised her first admendment right to ask the classless c*nt to stop talking trash about her. She didn't tell her to stop talking. She asked her to stop lying and making vile remarks.
I uphold Coulter's right to spew her sewage, but we also have the right to condemn what she says and ask people not to listen. If you condone Coulter's speech, then you're no better than she is and you're part of the problem.
It looks like everybody who thinks not like you are your problem, so i am happy to be your problem, then :)
2008 - I'll give you creds for a sense of humor but my problem isn't people who don't think like I do, it's people who don't think at all and merely repeat the RNC talking points without any critical analysis or acknowlegement of the facts. Which does make you a problem, but not mine alone.
Nonetheless, thanks for offering your thoughts. Always glad to know what the latest White House memo has to say and we do welcome opposing views.
to Libby Spencer :
Thank you for the feedback:)))
You have a very interesting way to think:
Your thinking is goes like that :”I am always right , I think different from White house, therefore white house is wrong and if anybody think not like me they think like a white house and therefore they are wrong”
Very logical, very impressive
I am just wondering:
1. in what part do you think I am repeating white house?
2. are you sure that thinking “ not like white house “ is necessarily correct?
3. why instead of saying anything about the substance of what I think you are trying to intimidate me by presuming my white house affiliation ?
You know, I am always trying to talk with those who do not agree with me . what is the point to talk with those who has same opinion? But my problem that if I do not agree with a liberal they are :
1. switching from the subject of conversation to personal attacks( and you are blaming for something Coulter?? is it not funny? )
2. never follow logic
3. always ignoring substantive part of a conversation
4. Always rude and aggressive
Did I miss anything?
Yes two more things
-Always use clichés such as ” you are part of a problem” ( does it mean that you think of yourself as a solution??? Problem for whom??? If I am problem for Elisabeth Edwards style politicians, it makes my day)
-pathologically lacking any sense of humor at all
I am not saying that you all things above ( I hope not) you just did not give me a chance to know that yet:)
2008 - This is my last word on this subject. If you want to get to know me better, then read some of my other posts. I certainly don't think I'm always right nor do I feel a compelling need to be.
You post arguments here in defense of Coulter's hatemongering that merely repeat right wing talking points which falsely depict the true events. If you can't see that, I can't make you but I see that as a major problem in our politial discourse in general. Namely people basing opinions on soundbites alone without bothering to vet their veracity.
The one thing you are right about, is that my tone with you has been somewhat rude, at least by my standards, and for that I apologize. However, I do have to mention that it defies logic by definition when you can characterize my mild rebuke as a personal attack while at the same time defending Coulter's shameful hatemongering as appropriate to political discourse.
to Libby Spencer :
Do not you think that to dismiss others because they think not like you is a hatemongering by itself? It is called intolerance
In any way it looks indeed that it was your last word on this subject, because your last comment is a repetition of your previous one, despite my questions. You are not the first one on your side of the isle who cannot overcome intolerance and to sustain a substantial discussion ( answering questions and making meaningful comments) with those who do not agree with you
One more time: I never defended Coulter's way of doing what she is doing. I was
blaming Elisabeth Edwards for deliberate provocation on the air using Mathews’s set up ,
I was protecting Coulter's right to be not attacked by president’s candidates for not liking those candidates
What is the point to read your posting on your blog if you are not reading my posting and comments and questions right here?
The easiest way to survive when you cannot answer questions is to label an opponent a right wing . Are you choosing the easy way?
Post a Comment
<< Home