Elizabeth Edwards is even more of a hypocrite than NewsBusters readers already think. Everyone knows that during the infamous “Hardball” phone-call confrontation, Mrs. Edwards criticized Ann Coulter's “hate speech” and her “personal attacks" that “lower our political dialog.” But regular readers know that NewsBusters pointed out the hypocrisy of Elizabeth Edwards' comments, considering that until liberal bloggers Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan resigned, they worked for the Edwards' campaign and were known for anti-Christian “hate speech” and "personal attacks" toward Republicans.
Now it's even worse than Mrs. Edwards condemning Coulter because "(w)e can't have a debate about issues [while] using this kind of language” after employing Marcotte and McEwan. Guess who hired them in the first place? Yep, Elizabeth Edwards herself.
This golden nugget of information was tucked away in an article about John Edwards (bold mine):
As Edwards's (sic) key political adviser, Elizabeth is a major force behind the scenes, micromanaging details down to which tie he will wear and how he should respond to press questions...It was she who pushed for a more sophisticated Web presence for the 2008 campaign, including the hiring of two bloggers who quit after coming under fire for their comments about religion. "Are we going to mess up and try things that don't work?" she told me in February in New Hampshire. "Yeah, we're going to, but it's because we're trying."
So, Elizabeth Edwards found Marcotte and McEwan's comments acceptable enough for the women to be in charge of the Edwards campaign's blog, but Coulter should stop speaking and writing because she's “hateful?” Compare Coulter's work to some of Marcotte's and McEwan's comments from this MRC's statement:
“What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit? You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.” (Marcotte)
In the Duke Lacrosse case, “Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it?” (Marcotte)
Sen. Rick Santorum talks about sex “lest his lack of self-control be manifested by f***ing his desk on the Senate floor.” (Marcotte)
God is “a sadistic bastard.” (Marcotte)
Pope Benedict, “he’s just a dictator … the Pope’s gotta’ tell women who give birth to stillborns that their babies are cast into Satan’s maw.” (Marcotte)
President Bush has a “wingnut Christofascist base.” (McEwan)
“When CNN invited Ann Coulter to comment on the 2004 presidential debates, I sniffed, ‘I didn’t realize they had officially transformed into the C*** News Network.” (McEwan)
That's just a little sampling. Marcotte and McEwan's comments differed from Coulter's because theirs were questioned partially for mocking many people from whom the bloggers' boss was trying to raise money and win votes. “Controversial conservative” Coulter was slapped down because she didn't toe the PC line and offended the “wrong” people (If I don't include “controversial conservative” when discussing Ann, my media membership card will be taken away. It's the law).
Since Elizabeth Edwards is the one responsible for hiring the two bloggers, she is either so completely incompetent that she hired people for a presidential campaign sight unseen without even reading their websites, or she did check their websites before hiring and, at the very least, tacitly approved of their “hatefulness and ugliness” which “lowers political dialog.” You know, 'cause it's OK to use “hate speech” as long as it's hating the “right” people.
Let's see what the media have to say about Elizabeth Edwards' Bloggergate, or if they even care.
Contact Lynn at: tvisgoodforyou2 AT yahoo DOT com
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Elizabeth Edwards
July 3, 2007 - 05:40 ET by DontabDo as I say , not as I do! Typical liberal, and the msm sees nothing wrong.
Gorbal warming is a sickness, not a science.
A simple case of 'projection'
July 3, 2007 - 06:09 ET by Sergeant ROCKA simple case of 'projection'...
When you hear about a liberal making wild, unfounded accusations , almost everytime you can find an example of the alleged wrongdoing on the part of their own. "If I'm guilty of it, surely those of my opposition are guilty as well!"
Liberalism IS a mental illness.
I know this will come off bad
July 3, 2007 - 06:11 ET by BlazerI know this will come off bad, but shouldn't Mrs. Edwards be on her deathbed, or be sleeping underneath 6' of topsoil right now? She seems very healthy, and vibrant for someone that was diagnosed with terminal cancer. Seems to me when the Breck Girl slides even farther into irrelevancy, or the campaign funds start to dry up, these two cook up some publicity stunt to put them back in the limelight.
This last one w/ Coulter by my count netted them about 9 mill, put em' on the front page of numerous rags, and got him an appearance on the tonight show.
If indeed Mrs. Edwards is in dire health I appologise to anyone here I may offend, and encourage anyone to delete this post, but I clearly remember a few months ago all of the weepy newspaper articles, and the numerous television appearances she made singing her swansong. Now nothing, not one mention.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
Liberals will stoop to any le
July 3, 2007 - 06:25 ET by Sergeant ROCKLiberals will stoop to any level to achieve a political objective. Feigning an illness would not be out of the realm of reason - given their record.
It maybe in the realm of poss
July 3, 2007 - 06:41 ET by jcrapes4It maybe in the realm of possibility but I think conservatives should take the high road and not make that accusation unless there is proof of faking the deadly illness.
Who has made the accustaion?
July 3, 2007 - 07:20 ET by Sergeant ROCKWho has made the accustaion? Nobody that I'm aware of. Of course, a liberal would.
Remember, blanket generaliz
July 3, 2007 - 06:55 ET by Lynn DavidsonRemember, blanket generalizations about liberals' morality or honesty are just as accurate as the blanket generalizations concerning conservatives. No one group of people is completely the same, and politicians on both sides are dishonest.
I also truly doubt that Elizabeth Edwards is faking her illness. That's a little much to swallow.
Let me remind YOU about jumpi
July 3, 2007 - 07:23 ET by Sergeant ROCKLet me remind YOU about jumping to conclusions. I said that it wouldn't be out of the realm of reason. Your 'blanket generalization' comment is akin to the moral equivalency argument - which doesn't hold water. Show me a Republican President getting blow-jobs in the Whitehouse?
The only thing in the 'middle of the road' is a yellow stripe.
When you see photos of her;
July 3, 2007 - 06:55 ET by motherbeltWhen you see photos of her; she does not look well. That being said, they can't use that as a shield for whatever she chooses to say. Her cancer is untreatable; they have not said she is terminal. Who knows how long she will be able to continue. And don't even get me started on the subject of their insistence in continuing this campaign. Anyone who comments here knows very well my disgust for a man who would do this to his family.
The day after Mrs Edwards p
July 3, 2007 - 21:20 ET by BondPlainBondThe day after Mrs Edwards phoned in to Hardball, the Edwards campaign changed her photo at its' website. The "current" photo was a current photo. She was wearing a lovely lime green blouse that complimented her features nicely, her smile was wide and brilliant, she looked really good. Attractive. Healthy. To me, anyway.
The "changed to" photo is of Mrs Edwards minus significant poundage, shot through a "Barbara Walters" lens, her hair is several shades lighter, her smile is sans teeth, and her "look" is very collegiate (sweater set). To top it all off, from the research I have done via Google in finding the origination date of this "new" photo, the best I can tell is it is seven years old.
In addition, her lecture tour promoter, Harry Walker Agency, changed the photo of Mrs Edwards from "current" to "not-so-current" on the very same day.
Why change her photo? Is the present day Mrs Edwards not attractive enough or young enough to the Edwards campaign? Say it isn't so. Vanity of the part of Mrs Edwards? Maybe. But, come on. A deliberate misrepresentation of the current, and I really do find her facially attractive, Mrs Edwards? Why? You are what you are.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, now I get it.
*smirk*
Who wears the pants
July 3, 2007 - 07:00 ET by nkviking75Who wears the pants in this family? Seems to me Elizabeth would be the power behind the throne is John Edwards were elected. The problem for them is, Elizabeth's health situation makes it unlikely she'd make it through his first term, or even to his inauguration. The more Elizabeth speaks, the more John looks like the empty suit he is. If it weren't for her health, seems to me Elizabeth should be the candidate and John the potential First Lady.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
I guess they send Elizabeth
July 3, 2007 - 07:08 ET by motherbeltI guess they send Elizabeth out to speak because she is a more sympathetic figure than the $400 haircut, "two Americas" (and I know which one I live in!) Breck Girl. But really, who in their right mind would vote for a man who hides behind the skirts of his dying wife?
This kind of thing doesn't
July 3, 2007 - 07:12 ET by sarcasmoThis kind of thing doesn't lend itself to a TV episode, but it is ideal for the NB forum. Let's see how, or if, Ms. Edwards' defenders can distinguish her behavior from Ann Coulter's. But let's keep in mind the background fact that fans of neither-one also exist...
JMR
It has to do with the definit
July 3, 2007 - 07:51 ET by FastEdIt has to do with the definition of "speech" - one has free, the other has hate. Depending which side of the aisle your on - take your pick.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Well, since I'm on neither
July 3, 2007 - 07:57 ET by sarcasmoWell, since I'm on neither side usually, that might explain why I like a debate format where I can occasionally take my own shot at both sides, depending on who deserves a shot at the moment. Anyway, I'd be interested in seeing a real, content-filled, non-repetitive, non-name-calling, logical debate between both sides, and I think this format rather than one where people can talk over eachother gives the best chance for that.
JMR
The only thing in the 'middle
July 3, 2007 - 08:18 ET by Sergeant ROCKThe only thing in the 'middle of the road' is a YELLOW stripe.
Nope. Makes a good bumper s
July 3, 2007 - 08:19 ET by sarcasmoNope. Makes a good bumper sticker, but intellectually? A big 0.
JMR
Yes, not only does it make yo
July 3, 2007 - 08:26 ET by Sergeant ROCKYes, not only does it make you 'yellow', but an intellectual zero as well. It's so much easier to feign being in the 'middle'.
Great argument! I'm totally
July 3, 2007 - 08:27 ET by sarcasmoGreat argument! I'm totally convinced!!
JMR
Sarc,So, you like to sit on t
July 3, 2007 - 09:21 ET by ViperSarc,
So, you like to sit on the fence or "in the middle" and take you shots at either side depending upon who you feel like taking a "shot" at, or as you say who you think deserves it at that moment. I think that is a weak foundation from which to "take your shots". To me, it shows your lack of commitment and conviction to a base set of values and morals and you must believe that it leaves you free to "take your shots" all the while thinking that you are intellectually and morally superior to those at whom your shots are aimed.
But, I'm glad your totally convinced now.
I call 'em like I see 'em,
July 3, 2007 - 09:25 ET by sarcasmoI call 'em like I see 'em, so that's just tough luck for both you and for the left. I've been accused of intellectual superiority before, and with 'arguments' like these, it's hard to deny feeling that way...If you think your way's more moral than mine, that's fine. Argue it, if it's so strong, rather than accusing me, which is all that's happening here with all these brilliant intellectual lights of NB....
JMR
You can "call em like yo
July 3, 2007 - 10:25 ET by ViperYou can "call em like you see em" and that is not tough luck for me. I certainly did not accuse you of intellectual superiority. However, based upon your comments, I did say that you must "feel" that way. I intended to question your beliefs and see what foundation they are based on, but with your statements, I think I have the information needed to base my thought of your opinions on. The end of this discussion for me is your brilliant comment about about the "brilliant intellectual lights of NB".
Hey, read the "argumen
July 3, 2007 - 10:28 ET by sarcasmoHey, read the "arguments" against me in this thread from the start. I stand by every word I've said. Like it or not.
JMR
He over estimates his self-im
July 3, 2007 - 09:37 ET by Sergeant ROCKHe over estimates his self-importance.
We need "unintentional
July 3, 2007 - 09:42 ET by sarcasmoWe need "unintentionally-funny." Just "funny" doesn't do it for these!
JMR
sarc oh, oh---
July 3, 2007 - 10:30 ET by misterbillsarc oh, oh---
per your test, I am a conservative libertarian. "Maybe" is a tricky response!
Thanks. Needless to say, I'
July 4, 2007 - 02:14 ET by sarcasmoThanks. Needless to say, I'm not slamming you or jcrapes4 above, and I guess I should post the quiz-link more often, since the news media sure as hell hates it.
JMR
Thanks for the link sarc like
July 3, 2007 - 10:30 ET by jcrapes4Thanks for the link sarc liked the quiz.
jay
Sarc, your role on NB's is mo
July 3, 2007 - 20:47 ET by stratmanSarc, your role on NB's is mostly as spoiler and contrarian, lovingly performed with discriminating effect.
And your linked test said I was a Liberal. Changed one answer and became a Centrist. Vague questions with some premises conflicting, such as not all businesses are "corporations".
Does this mean you will apologize for derogatorily calling me a Conservative before? Uh, huh. Right.
Excuse me while I commit seppuku.
As soon as you give me an a
July 4, 2007 - 02:13 ET by sarcasmoAs soon as you give me an apology for lying about me using drugs (the reflexive lie I've seen about me OVER AND OVER from both conservatives and now you losing the tax and spend drugwar debate with me) you'll get that apology from me. I'm not holding my breath. And as for being a spoiler and contrarian, that's mostly false too. I spoil idiots' days (see above) when they're especially idiotic, such as claiming I have a yellow stripe down my back when I'm proven as perfectly willing to make lefties and righties look equally foolish in the same day, and often in the same thread. And yes, sometimes it's not even much of a challenge.
JMR
I never expected an apology f
July 4, 2007 - 11:17 ET by stratmanI never expected an apology from you. The statement was meant to highlight the absolutist and simplistic test's results against the backdrop of your assumptions. And for your edification, the suppuku comment had nothing to do with an apology from you either, rather a jocular exclamation regarding your linked test resulting in my Liberal designation. I take your choice of political test as seriously as how much I meant to actually call you one of the bizarre and frightening protestors in San Francisco: Not.
I did not know your history in this forum concerning drugs until after you brought up drugs initially and then posted a short and indignant response in reply to my silly post. It was then I looked up previous posts from you and read many of your posts about drugs and the drug war. Not only did you bring drugs into our discussion, you also edited your post to include a specific hallucinogenic mushroom. I thought you were being "smartly" humorous at that time by adding the Genus and Species (Psilocybe cubensis) of the mushroom. Instead, it now looks increasingly more like you were baiting me.
I stepped into your doodoo bucket unaware of your history with this topic. Excuse me for not knowing your hot button topics, being a short term participant on NB, especially when you bring them up cloaked in what I thought was humor. I replied to your "hallucinogen" comment in what I thought was an "in kind" humorous fashion.
I did not and am not now debating you concerning "tax and spend drug war" policy so I don't know how I can be "losing" the debate. Whatever anybody else does with respect to you, it was you who reflexively brought the drug war issue into our commentary. I understand how you would be sensitive about this issue as you have taken a lot of heat for your views, but, I have not been involved in that debate with you as of yet.
I appreciate some of the difficulties you've experienced on NB such as being called "yellow", which I don't get the sense you are. I don't have an issue with you or anyone else pointing out hypocracy from whomever. Tread very carefully, though, when you claim to not 'mostly' being a spoiler and contrarian and then in the next sentence declaring you are a spoiler of all political sides. The definition of "contrarian" is a person who takes an opposing view, especially one who rejects the majority opinion. I've seen ample posting on your part for the term to apply to you. Since you are a Libertarian, you cannot but be in opposition to a number of Republican and Democrat positions on issues. Being contrary might result in trying some people's patience but it does not necessarily make you wrong. Advances in science, politics, philosophy and religion throughout history occured because someone took a contrary position. I enjoy opposing views and spirited debate. You have brought these qualities to the forum.
Everyone posting on NB derives some secondary gain from posting. Since you appear to revel in pointing out "foolish" statements and taking positions contrary to the majority, one may conclude your secondary gain is from acting as contrarian and spoiler. Since you have presented some thoughtful and supported arguments and observations on NB I don't view you as a troll. Your post sometimes enlightens and enriches the NB community and sometimes not, just like the rest of us.
So, take a chill pill and realize not everyone is out to get you for everything you say. You might also want to consider dropping the unwarranted references to drug wars unless you actually do enjoy playing the contrarian ever butting heads with Conservatives on a conservative forum for your own secondary gain.
Have a pleasant and safe Independence Day, a true Libertarian day of commemoration.
So, drugs are to blame for yo
July 6, 2007 - 13:37 ET by Sergeant ROCKSo, drugs are to blame for your excessive self-adulation and delusion?
I thought so...
With John Edwards poll number
July 3, 2007 - 08:01 ET by GalvanicWith John Edwards poll numbers sinking and his fund-raising efforts stalling, the decision to bring Elizabeth into town with her six-guns blazing was a calculated risk aimed at getting a surge of donors before the next FEC fund-raising deadline was reached. She's more popular than her husband only if you transmute empathy (Her terminal cancer was publicly revealed some months ago) into popularity.
But I think the move may well backfire if she continues to duel with critics over campaign language while her husband remains 'above the fray' so to speak. Coulter eluded to this on that Matthews show when she asked Elizabeth why her husband wasn't calling instead of her.
Many will perceive that Johnny Boy has stuck his bullet-proof wife out front to do all the heavy lifting so he can keep his hands clean. Coming after the $400 haircut, it's not a very positive image of the candidate.
An astute observation.
July 3, 2007 - 08:19 ET by Sergeant ROCKAn astute observation.
All I can keep thinking about
July 3, 2007 - 08:49 ET by jpatchAll I can keep thinking about is "The Rules of Being a Liberal"...whomever started posting that on here, it's just genius. What was Rule #1? Accuse the Right of doing exactly what you do. Hmmm, let's see...Al Gore...check...HItllary Clinton...check...Mr. and Mrs. Elizabeth Edwards...check.
It's as if they believe that if they cast aspersions on other people, that we'll overlook their own blatant and horrific hypocrisies. Not only does this completely defraud their own images, it is a slap in the face to any intelligent person that is trying to be politically informed. For the common person, who doesn't spend much time on websites such as this, or that just reads one newspaper, or watches one news station, they'd never be able to see what's really going on. When people like Al Gore just lie and lie and lie, and then turn around and write a book that says, "We need to stop lying, and start paying attention to the facts," it almost makes me go insane. I mean, if anyone should be castigated and raked over the coals it should be Al "I really am the President" Gore.
But, we all know that Liberals never use hate speech, right? I mean, I've never heard Bill "Playboy" Maher, "Tokyo" Rosie O'Donnell, Keith "Psycho" Olberman, John "I'm a harmless comedian" Stewart, Jeanine "I have no career" Garafalo, Ben "Remember I saved the world in Armageddon" Afleck, Al "I'm Harvard smart" Franken, or Al "Look at me, look at me, listen to me!!!" Gore say anything that was remotely hateful or that debased political thought.
These people have made careers debasing political discourse....they're comedians and actors!!!
I concur. That's why I call i
July 3, 2007 - 09:06 ET by Sergeant ROCKI concur. That's why I call it 'projecting'... they just assume that because they have done it, then everyone else must do it to. Just goes to show you how out of touch with reality they truly are.
The whole truth was availab
July 3, 2007 - 09:55 ET by BondPlainBondThe whole truth was available to Mrs Edwards via the internet, an internet Mrs Edwards understands and knows how to use quite well (having active accounts at several of the radically Left blogging sites).
Mrs Edwards chose to deliberately ignore the truth and willfully exploit Ann Coulter using blatant and obvious lies specifically tailored to fuel hate toward Ms Coulter and the Right.
These lies were obviously carefully designed and crafted (deliberately placing the spotlight on Mrs Edwards, NOT her husband, as the castigator and exploiter of Ann Coulter) to increase last-minute donations to the Edwards campaign, immediately began playing the "untouchable political victim".
Forgive me for mentioning Mrs Edwards' much-publicized cancer illness which (is so very regretable, and I'm wishing Mrs Edwards every success in her current treatments to yet another happy remission) lapsed back from a full and complete remission just days after her husband announced his candidacy for president, cementing her in the "untouchable victim" category created exclusively by and for the Left.
Mrs Edwards, to parallel her own words, offered within the Edwards campaign the precise place where hatred will always have a foothold. The hiring and lengthy and indefensible defense of Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan demonstrated, to me, the direction in which the Edwards' campaign intended (intends) to proceed.
Mrs Edwards, to parallel her
July 3, 2007 - 13:46 ET by motherbeltMrs Edwards, to parallel her own words, offered within the Edwards
campaign the precise place where hatred will always have a foothold.
The hiring and lengthy and indefensible defense of Amanda Marcotte and
Melissa McEwan demonstrated, to me, the direction in which the Edwards'
campaign intended (intends) to proceed.
That is typical of liberals, Bond. They slash and burn, all the while whining how they are losing the battle because conservatives fight dirty.
This is a good example of the
July 3, 2007 - 10:05 ET by mattmThis is a good example of the hypocrisy of the Left, but there's really no comparison. Coulter is a colorful speaker and writer and she holds nothing back, but she's never untruthful about it. If she mentions Kennedy's untrustworthiness while driving drunk with a female passenger not his wife, that's because there's a point to be made about how little credibility we should give to the man - it's not gratuitous.
The real reason they hate her more than other conservatives is that she's effective.
Mattm,There really is no comp
July 3, 2007 - 10:44 ET by jpatchMattm,
There really is no comparison between the levels of hypocrisy on the two sides of the political aisle here. Seems to me that the Republicans have spent the last 10 years trying to figure out what direction to take American in, and the Democrats have spent the last 10 years calling Republicans names, and trying to point out what the "Right" has done wrong.
Please, Democrats, come up with a viable SOLUTION to ANYTHING!!! I'm all ears!! Just because people may consider themselves to be conservatives, or Republicans, or both, doesn't mean that we aren't interested in hearing intelligent ideas for the future of our country. We're not close the closed-minded bufoons that you surround yourselves with.
Good comment j. I like you
July 3, 2007 - 11:23 ET by ViperGood comment j. I like your last paragraph. I cannot understand many of the things the democrats/liberals have to say and the way in which they say them, but also cannot recall the last time they came out with any of the ideas you speak of. It seems as though this has turned into an US vs THEM format. I'm not sure where we find the answers and solutions needed when there so much anger and downright hatred from them. There are times it seems like it's trying to negotiate with terrorists... cannot and should not be done. They seem to understand only one thing, and that is done by the hammer. Someone once posted here a link to a speech at the Heritage Foundation about how the modern liberal thinks. I watched that speech and found it very useful. I started to compare the things the democrats/liberals have to say and compared them to the points in that speech and must say that I can see how well they fit into the patterns and behaviors described in that speech. How do you rationalize with an irrational person?
Link to that speech can be found here.
Thanks Viper.In my mind, the
July 3, 2007 - 13:05 ET by jpatchThanks Viper.
In my mind, the biggest crisis in America right now is the divisiveness that exists in our political environment - it makes it impossible to get anything accomplished. There is no question that it is an US vs. THEM situation, and until we have a leader who can bring this out into the open, and literally smash the barrier that exists between the parties, we are constantly going to be stuck in this struggle between fighting for power and fighting for America. There used to be a time when those two things were the same. I am hopeful for a renaissance of sorts in American politics, I'm just a bit scared that it's going to take another 9/11, but most likely on a larger scale, to really shake our society down to its foundation, where we may once again find our political roots and remember why we fought for this country in the first place.
Happy 4th everyone...let freedom ring.
Too funny! ...djms
July 3, 2007 - 13:15 ET byToo funny! ...djms
I don't doubt that Elizabeth
July 3, 2007 - 15:00 ET by JannyMaeI don't doubt that Elizabeth Edwards has cancer, although based on the dishonesty of both her and her candidate husband, I can understand why some people would be suspicious.
The thing that I find interesting is how the Edwards' are clearly cashing in on her illness. Not only are they generating sympathy to solicit funds by feigning outrage over Ann Coulter, they are setting Elizabeth up on a pedestal where she cannot be criticized because she has cancer.
This is, ironically, proof, positive, of Ann's point about the Jersey girls. The left sets themselves up as having, as Mo Dowd put it, "absolute moral authority," to shield themselves from criticism. Sickening, but true.
To any thinking person, it's obvious that the Edwards' have no shame about using anything to further the Silky Pony's political ambitions. While this may be typical or, "politics, as usual," it's still disgusting to me.
This is the manufactured cont
July 3, 2007 - 16:25 ET by ferrarimanf355This is the manufactured controversy that Just. Won't. Die. Already. As I pointed out quite a few times, one of the bloggers has been getting death threats and denial-of-service attacks because she spoke her mind. It wasn't hateful. It's truthful and mostly funny. Has anybody read Shakesville or Pandagon, or did everyone get their marching orders from Bill "Jews run Hollywood" Donahue? I just want to know.
Uzumaki/Ayanami '08. Because a ninja and an Eva pilot can govern the nation better that what we have now...
"Has anybody read Shakes
July 3, 2007 - 23:55 ET by stratman"Has anybody read Shakesville or Pandagon..."
Not until you mentioned them.
After looking them over I found myself wanting to try this - http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20070703/sc_livescience/newdrugdeletesbadmemories.
Of course you mean manufact
July 4, 2007 - 00:29 ET by BondPlainBondOf course you mean manufactured by Elizabeth and John Edwards with the complicity of Chris Matthews. What else could you mean?
Yes, I’ve read, quite often, the hateful speech and invective at both Shakespeare’s Sister (Melissa McEwan) and Pandagon (Amanda Marcotte). It all sounds the same, day after day after day. Belittle, malign, besmirch, repeat. Ad infinitum. Comments such as “Bill "Jews run Hollywood" Donahue” are sadly typical.
Please explain why Mrs Edwards should not be held responsible for her recent behavior (Hardball), the precise behavior she is so loudly condemning. Mrs Edwards is completely disingenuous and is obviously honing her "untouchable Leftist victim" skills for future stump stops for her husband's benefit.
Case in point, Mrs Edwards is an active member with Democratic Underground, a very radically Leftist site.
I was banned from DU for expressing a reasoned, intelligent, coherent, and timely Conservative viewpoint. I spoke my mind. I wasn’t hateful in the least. I was factual. My very first post was my last. I wrote DU after they banned me requesting the reason (this was about three weeks ago) and have yet to receive a response to my legitimate query. I’m not holding my breath for one, either.
Have a peruse of the "rules" at DU. Boiled down... Not interested in opposing points of view... If a post appears that is not in lockstep with the radical Leftist agenda (of MoveOn.org), you will be banned. That means silenced. DU and only DU will determine what is, and what is not, appropriate lock-step behavior. End of story.
DU mentions something in the rules about hateful commentary and personal attacks being forbidden, but that doesn't apply to comments regarding President Bush, Vice President Cheney, the life and death of Jerry Falwell, the life and death of Gerald Ford, Ann Coulter, or any other Conservative; it applies only to the membership of DU. Conservatives are to be treated badly, harrassed, maligned, personally attacked (relentlessly), called names, bullied, and ganged up on at every opportunity (if a Conservative even makes it to the "inner sanctum"). The DU membership has been investigated by the FBI at least two times of which I am aware.
DU is certainly someplace every wife of a prospective future President should tout their membership and political commentaries, to be completely certain the American public understands, without question, her political platform and core beliefs (in silencing the Conservative voice every time it speaks).
The deliberate and baseless silencing of the Conservative voice has to be a core belief of Mrs Edwards and quite high on her political agenda. Is it that Mrs Edwards condones the deliberate silencing of the Conservative voice only because it is a Conservative voice? Yes, she does. She continues her membership at DU.
Wow. And this is only one of the radically Leftist blogs of which Mrs Edwards is a contributor.
This all may be moot soon since her husband isn't really doing too well in the polls or in campaign contributions. Her antics on Hardball have ensured his earlier-than-expected withdrawal from the race.
Oh, whoops.
July 3, 2007 - 20:20 ET by balboaOh, whoops.