In a great field of potential Democratic nominees, a field that originally included Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and John Edwards, the Democratic Party’s politically-correct activists (We have to have a woman President! We have to have a black President!), melding perfectly with a press obsessed with novelty and gotcha-ism, managed to leave us with the two least experienced, least qualified, least likely to be elected pair of survivors—Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

So be it. Like many long-term Democratic voters I’m used to not ending up with the best choices. We got what we got. And of these two survivors I opt for Clinton. Reluctantly.

The reason is simple, and to my way of thinking obvious. She has a better personal grip on foreign policy than Obama, who I believe has her trumped in most other respects. The foreign policy hole that has been dug for this country is now so deep, so filled with horrible consequences if steps to rectify the damages Bush & Company hath wrought are not taken immediately, that a new American president can’t be left to learn on the job—the way our present decider had to do because of his own lack of experience in this realm, and indeed, the way John F. Kennedy had to do after he was elected President.

The Obama people say that their man will be surrounded by foreign affairs experts from the get-go. That these experts will certainly not be of the sort found in the offices of Cheney and Rumsfeld who Bush was obliged to fall back on because of inexperience. Granted. But ultimately, in our system, for better or worse, it is the President who makes the decisions and the advisers who then all fall into line and publicly agree.

Would I prefer that people of the caliber of Richardson and Biden, rather than either Clinton or Obama, were in this ultimate decider position? Oh yes. But of the latter two I have to give the edge to Clinton. She knows the world players longer and better. She also knows the preferences of our own foreign policy experts and is thus better able to accept the good nuances of their advice while ignoring the quirks that fill any expert’s professional resume.

So when I vote this Tuesday in Philadelphia I’ll pull the Clinton lever. And hope like hell that if Obama ultimately gets the nomination nod (as I believe he will) he proves up to the the incredibly difficult task of rescuing the country from the foreign policy morass into which his predecessor has led us.

Have Democrats - and Europeans - become too comfortable with the inevitability of a Democratic President in 2008? Financial Times Deutschland columnist Thomas Klau writes in part, ‘The dramatic struggle between two exceptional Democratic politicians has drawn attention away from the fact that McCain’s candidacy is also a turning point - a break in the position of Republicans which, as far as party politics is concerned, could mean a historically and culturally deeper break than the Democratic Party’s nomination duel. … The reproach so often repeated by Obama - that McCain offers only a sequel of the failed politics of George W. Bush - misses the point: McCain has contradicted Bush’s policies so often, that no one can embody calls for change the way he does.’

By Thomas Klau

Translated by Julian Jacob

March 6, 2008

Germany - Financial Times Deutschland - Original Article (German)

The saga goes on - the epochal battle for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Once again, the voters have resisted the pressure of the media, which was so quick to choose a favorite candidate.

In the U.S., people love quick results and clear statistics and a fast declaration of winners and losers. But Americans also appreciate the courage of those who don’t give up. Hillary Clinton has fought on after being written off and has gone on the attack when many were urging her to clear the field for Barack Obama. On Tuesday [Mar. 4] , the voters didn’t abandon her.

The senator’s tenacity and her steadfastness in times of great stress could be her best argument, if in Denver in July it comes down to drawing party delegates to her side. Clinton will need arguments because despite her victory yesterday, the numbers continue to speak against her. In terms of the number of delegates, Obama is out in front and will be almost impossible to catch - the arithmetic and dynamics of the approaching primary dates work in his advantage.

Now the battle for the Democratic nomination will become harder and perhaps dirtier. Clinton’s revitalized election team will make every effort to keep the Illinois senator on the defensive. Obama’s squeaky-clean image will suffer if for the first time, the press keeps its klieg lights on the senator’s more problematic contacts. It is here that he is vulnerable to attack. He’s member of a Black church congregation in Chicago, the leader of which has maintained contacts with Black racists. And the corruption trial against a former Obama supporter, building contractor Tony Rezko, is imminent.

DEEP-SEATED PARTY CRISES

With the withdrawal of Mike Huckabee, the Republican primary battle has ended with the formal selection of John McCain. The dramatic struggle between two exceptional Democratic politicians has drawn attention away from the fact that McCain’s candidacy is also a turning point - a break in the position of Republicans which, as far as party politics is concerned, could mean a historically and culturally deeper break than the Democratic Party’s nomination duel.

Politically, Clinton and Obama are conventional Democrats, located in the middle-left of their own party. But McCain is the first Republican presidential candidate in many years who has ascended in spite of the resistance of the culture warriors - that aggressive nationalistic wing of the Party. Unlike the leading figures of the present U.S. government, his TV is not tuned to Fox News - the propaganda channel of the right - but MSNBC - and anyone who knows the United States understand how much that says.

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing translated foreign press coverage of the U.S. elections

I have to admit that I’ve been wrong about the Conservative Political Action Committee inviting crazy people like Ann Coulter to their parties.

For far too long, society has marginalized the mentally deranged among us and with few exceptions like Theodore Brewster (photo) in Arsenic and Old Lace, who thought he was Teddy Roosevelt, we have literally kept these people locked away for generations.

So it was sort of refreshing when CPAC reneged on its disinvitation to Coulter, who far and away has been the most popular CPAC speaker (sorry, Mr. President) after appearances at previous annual meetings in which she hogged the spotlight with outrageous and sometimes obscene outbursts, thereby deflecting attention from the conservatives’ more serious name calling.

And so there was Annie Got Her Guns on the CPAC podium yesterday soaking up the love and cracking gay Democrat and “B. Hussein Obama” jokes following President Bush’s beyond droll stand-up comedy routine in which he warned that “Prosperity and peace are in the balance,” as well as all of the other advances made on his watch, if Hillary Clinton or Obama were to be elected.

Now I understand why the most popular booth at CPAC was where they were giving away free Librium samples.

It may be an example of mass wishful thinking, but John McCain and hard-core conservatives seem to have taken a big step toward rapprochement.

In a speech draped with olive branches and punctuated by only a smattering of boos, the prohibitive favorite to win the Republican nomination told the annual meeting of the Conservative Political Action Committee that:

“We have had a few disagreements, and none of us will pretend that we won’t continue to have a few. But even in disagreement, especially in disagreement, I will seek the counsel of my fellow conservatives. If I am convinced my judgment is in error, I will correct it. And if I stand by my position, even after benefit of your counsel, I hope you will not lose sight of the far more numerous occasions when we are in complete accord.”

Jennifer Rubin, speaking for a goodly number of conservatives at Commentary.com, wrote that the speech was just what the doctor ordered:

“That take comes from the most loyal Romney supporters to a wide array of conservative voices. The ‘We’ll take Hillary’ view is clearly out of fashion. One speech a reconciliation does not make, but realistically there is only one way forward now for former McCain critics: Take credit and make the most of it.”

I’m not sure about the taking credit part because in the end conservatives not in the thrall of cannibals like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, James Dobson and other Malkintents knew that their failure to acknowledge McCain’s viability — and his failure to reciprocate — would mean likely defeat for the Republican Party in November.

The chances of McCain going down the tubes is still pretty good regardless of whether he tacks further to the right. Besides which, the conservatives’ core issues aren’t likely to play well enough this time around to make a difference. These issues include abortion, punitive action against illegal immigrants and standing with President Bush on the Iraq war.

Read the rest of this entry »

In one very important respect — that of voter perceptions — Barack Obama couldn’t lose on Super Tuesday and Hillary Clinton couldn’t win.

Despite the fact that Clinton won most of the big states yesterday and has more delegates overall, the die is cast (or in Julius Caesar’s immortal words: alea jacta est) for a headlong scramble through the remaining primaries, and Clinton is in trouble. Clinton is in trouble because Obama has momentum, while the perceptions that have accrued to the candidates — largely positive for Obama and largely negative for Clinton in my mind — are now pretty much set in stone.

Obama has climbed some tall mountains in overcoming the inherent advantages of the Clinton campaign, including its attached-at-the-hip relationship with the Democratic Party establishment. He hasn’t had to cry in public even once, let alone try to evoke sympathy because he’s a minority dude, and except for an occasional misfire has conducted himself with a take-me-as-I-am demeanor and dignity that has inspired millions of people who didn’t know him from Adam a few short months ago.

Meanwhile, Clinton helicoptered to the top of the tallest mountain and from the outset branded herself as the incumbent, but since then has had to scratch and claw to try to stay on top. Her tears on cue and gender whinging are beyond tiresome, while the coldly calculated use of her husband and other surrogates to sling mud is contemptuous. She may be a decent person at heart, but has permitted only fleeting glimpses of her “true” self because her campaign is so scripted.

If there is a tiebreaker for me, and I suspect many other voters as well, it is the candidates’ sharply divergent positions on the Iraq war: Obama is one of the few senators to oppose it from the jump, while Clinton has bobbed and weaved as public opinion has ebbed and flowed.

If the nominee, she will be accurately saddled with the flip-flopper label that helped doom John Kerry in 2004. If president, she would continue to embrace this fool’s mission.

Read the rest of this entry »

That’s what Howard Kurtz at WaPo calls it.

First we got Coulter promising with a straight face to campaign for Hillary if McCain wins.  Now Rush Limbaugh is saying that he’d rather see Clinton or Obama win the presidency than John McCain, despite Bob Dole’s plea for sanity on the party’s far right.  Too bad, Bob Dole.  That ship sailed a long time ago.

When it comes to the McCain mutiny, Limbaugh has plenty of company on the right side of the dial. Laura Ingraham endorsed Mitt Romney last week, saying, "There is no way in hell I could pull the lever for John McCain." Sean Hannity, who also endorsed the former Massachusetts governor, regularly rips McCain. Hugh Hewitt is urging the audience for his syndicated radio show to fight for Romney against what he calls a media-generated "McCain resurrection." But with a program heard on 600 stations, including Washington’s WMAL, Limbaugh is the loudest and brashest voice inveighing against the man he derides as "Saint John of Arizona." (New York Times)

Could it be that even some of the dittoheads have noticed that the far right has turned out to be wrong about every single thing it’s said every single time? Doubtful. Clearly, though, a certain number of sane Republicans have noticed.

Read the rest of this entry »

by Damozel |  Hurray!  Ann Coulter has semi-endorsed Hillary, sort of!  Ed Morissey asks "Has Ann Coulter jumped the shark?"He wonders if this will finish her off with anyone who still takes her seriously, assuming anyone still does. Jill Miller Zimon has the video right here. Is this the greatest campaign season ever, or what? It’s not exactly fair on Hillary, but I can’t help chortling madly as I watch it again and again and again.

So. Ann too is well and truly infected, as the Captain puts it, with “McCain Derangement Syndrome.”  You might be surprised by her extreme solution to it, but I’m not.  True, from Duncan Hunter to Hillary might strike some as something of a leap, but McCain has the power to drive neocons right over the jagged edge, bless him. This campaign season, liberal is the new conservative!  

Read the rest of this entry »

George W. Bush and Karl Rove apparently accomplished something the North Vietnamese in five years of captivity could not do–get John McCain to consider switching loyalties.

The story surfaces, just before Super Tuesday, in The Hill today, of McCain’s temptation to leave the Republican Party after being savagely smeared by the Bush campaign in the 2000 primaries.

In persuasive detail, it reports the approach of a McCain aide to Congressional Democratic leaders about the possibility of the Arizona Senator emulating Vermont’s Jim Jeffords in becoming an Independent and aligning himself with their party.

McCain’s disaffection in 2001 was no secret. Fellow Republican Trent Lott criticized him publicly then for keeping “unusual company.”

But why does the story surface now? The cui bono is obvious as Mitt Romney tries to persuade Republicans that he is the party’s legitimate standard bearer, and Ann Coulter reflects the weird vote by announcing she would back Hillary Clinton before McCain.

There must be déjà vu in all this for the Republican front runner. The rabid Right hated him back then, still does and will stop at nothing to derail him. But Romney, Coulter, Rush Limbaugh et al are no Karl Roves in the art of demonizing those they oppose.

When McCain gets the nomination, rational Republicans and Independents may be drawn to him by what these attacks reveal about his character–and the people who are targeting him

Cross-posted from my blog.

I’m not speculating - Ann said it herself.

Would love to see a real-time reaction meter on that clip.

Comment on what you think she’s really thinking here.

NO JOKE. (Just ask our tech). It is NOT funny and it is NOT a joke. We condemn it…even when it happens TO HER.

Controversial conservative author, icon and columnist Ann Coulter is in hot water again — and this time she’s accused of being anti-Semitic.

Coulter has been denounced before. In fact, most Americans are already free members of the Ann Coulter Outrage Of The Month Club, with a new edition of outrage usually shipped right around the time she has a new book coming out.

But this time you wonder if she’s going to recover as quickly because at issue is less bomb throwing — if you watch the video (below) it doesn’t seem like she’s trying to create controversy and even tries to clarify her comments after the commercial — than showing a fundamental attitude that many people who are Jewish (and who aren’t) will interpret as antisemitism.

Not all Jews will feel that way, of course. Her Jewish allies on the right will say they know she isn’t anti-Semitic, defend her, spin the words on the video (and the utter, visible consternation of the Jewish host that heard her say them). Why? Because she blasts liberals (whom they hate) and Democrats (whom they hate). So she needs to be defended and her comments need to be explained away (or, better yet, attack those who are criticizing her ).

The irony remains: this time Coulter truly did NOT seem to be trying to throw a bomb to sell books. She was just explaining what she felt — that Jews were not “perfect” and suggested that if they were they’d be Christians (like her).

What is likely to be Coulter’s authentic case of foot-in-mouth rather than her standard foot-shoved-up-someone’s-you-know-what came on CNBC

Appearing on Donny Deutsch’s CNBC show, “The Big Idea,” on Monday night, columnist/author Ann Coulter suggested that the U.S. would be a better place if there weren’t any Jewish people and that they needed to “perfect” themselves into — Christians.

It led Deutsch to suggest that surely she couldn’t mean that, and when she insisted she did, he said this sounded “anti-Semitic.”

Asked by Deutsch whether she wanted to be like “the head of Iran” and “wipe Israel off the Earth,” Coulter stated: “No, we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say. … That’s what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament.”

Deutsch told E&P’s sibling magazine, Adweek, today, “I was offended. And then, and this was interesting, she started to back off and seemed a little upset.”

Asked to gauge her reaction, Deutsch said, “I think she got frightened that maybe she had crossed a line, that this was maybe a faux pas of great proportions. I mean, did it show ignorance? Anti-Semitism? It wasn’t just one of those silly things.”

Readers are urged to watch the segment on the You Tube below and judge for themselves. Make sure you sit through the commercials and watch it through to the end.

Our view? She was not trying to whip up sales for a book but showed disdain for Jews — even though she insisted it wasn’t — that could further limit her audience and could impact her speaking appearances.

How bad is it? This bad:

The National Jewish Democratic Council launched on an online petition to CNN, Fox News, NBC, CBS and ABC urging them to no longer use her as a commentator. “While Ms. Coulter has her freedom of speech, you have the freedom to exercise better judgment,” the petition says. “You wouldn’t put people who claim Martians roam the earth to frequently comment on science. It is time to stop putting Ms. Coulter on the air to comment on politics, thus giving her free publicity and attention.”

Shmuel Rosner, U.S. correspondent for the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, kills Coulter with snark in a post titled: ‘Is it okay for Ann Coulter to want all Jews to become Christian?”

Blogging can sometimes be a silly business. For example, when one has to deal with controversies over things that were said by commentator Ann Coulter. Nevertheless, people say she’s an influential celebrity, so we have to take her words seriously. I’ll try, but I have to warn you that it won’t be easy.

He then lists the various ways people react to Coulter.

How REALLY REALLY bad is it for Ann Coulter?

Bad enough that the lively Republican mega-blog Red State contains a post that says this:

With all the phony kerfuffle over the phony Limbaugh comments last week, here comes Ann Coulter with guns-a-blazing — basically sounding the al-Qaida line against infidels…only this time about Jews and Christianity.

I’m sure a lot of you are fans of her. But she basically needs to shut up and go away forever.

There’s more so here’s a big chunk:

She’s said that we should ponder murdering Supreme Court justices…wished that the 9/11 attackers had targeted the New York Times building rather than the WTC…and various other just dazzlingly odious things. Yes, I realize that usually she’s just trying to be irreverent and perversely humorous.

But there’s just nothing funny about these things. There’s nothing funny about a “we must convert you” mentality about religion in an age where we’re fighting people to the death who take that very outlook extremely seriously. There’s nothing funny about poisoning high officials’ desserts for political gain.

Every Republican candidate for office needs to denounce her, and right quick, and never have the slightest bit to do with her again. She’s gone too far — and it’s not the first time.

The problem:

It will never happen.

Already there are rumblings among some on the right from people who are trying to a) defend her, b) rationalize her comments, c) say she didn’t really mean what she said and point to her comments right after the commercial (which many Jews and her interviewer feel confirm her attitude).

If you think about it, this has been a catastrophic week for people on the far-right in America in terms of winning over people to their side.

First, there is a major political attack on a 12-year-old kid and his family because the boy dared to counter President George Bush’s speech on Bush’s children’s health care veto. The spectacle was denounced by Democrats, many independents and turned the stomachs of some non-lockstep Republicans.

Now you have Coulter saying that Jews — who do vote — need to be perfected and suggesting that the United States would be more Utopian if only Judaism didn’t exist.

The problem for the Republican Party: it is chasing away voters and, by 2008, could find that it has lost soccer moms (they have kids and are struggling with health care), chasing away Jews (will Coulter’s comments be condemned by GOPers and, if not, will the Democrats use a clip of her comments with her appearing before adoring Republican audiences or with GOP candidates or use them in fund-raising letters to Jewish voters?).

What will likely happen?

–Outrage will continue.

–She’ll still be on Fox News and pack conservative crowds in when she speaks.

–She’ll further explain it and Rush, Sean, Hannity, Mark and others will blast the “liberals” supposedly upset about this only because she is a conservative.

–Some conservative Jewish talk show hosts will defend her and this will be pointed to by her supporters and sympathetic weblogs. You might call this the Some Of My Best Friends Are Perceived As Bigots defense.

But if Maureen Dowd had said that about Jews? Or if Barbra Streisand had said that about Christians? Those who are defending and will defend Coulter would be screaming for their scalps on a plate. But they won’t when it comes to Coulter because she’s on their “team.”

Still, the bottom line is that this time Coulter did NOT throw a bomb.

She just spoke her mind (which showed what was inside of her).

Which was worse.

WATCH THE VIDEO AND MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND:

BUT THAT’S JUST OUR VIEW. HERE’S A CROSS-SECTION OF SOME OTHER VIEWPOINTS:

–Mac’s Mind says Coulter is right:
Read the rest of this entry »

Instead of ignoring Ann Coulter completely, John Edwards seems to have decided that attacking her might pay off (politically):

ABC News’ Rick Klein Reports: Former Sen. John Edwards on Friday fired the latest round in his ongoing verbal feud with Ann Coulter, calling her a “she-devil” at a public event before quickly adding that he shouldn’t engage in name-calling.

Edwards, D-N.C., was railing against the right-wing media — including Fox News and Rush Limbaugh — when he reminded a crowd in Burlington, Iowa, that his wife stood up to Coulter in a public spat earlier this summer.

“We know these people. We know their game plan. They’re going to attack us personally,” Edwards said. “They attacked Elizabeth personally, because she stood up to that she-devil Ann Coulter.

Now, after this he immediately said “I should not have name-called,” but as I see it that is too little too late.

Please click here to read more.

Mike Keefe, The Denver Post

Mike Lane, Cagle Cartoons

Science defines mutualism, one form of symbiosis, as “an interaction between two or more species, where both derive benefit.” Think bees and flowers.

In putting the relationship of Ann Coulter and John Edwards under the microscope, another example seems more apt: the birds that eat parasites off crocodiles and are in turn protected from predators by their hosts’ giant jaws.

The gnashing of Coulter’s mandibles against him have not only nourished her notoriety (and lecture fees) but served as a fund-raising boon for Edwards.

When she called him a “faggot” in March, his campaign converted it into $300,000 in contributions. This week, when Elizabeth Edwards protested Coulter’s remark about wishing “he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot,” the fund-raisers went into high gear and raised more money than from any previous e-mail campaign.

So we have here another instance of Nature’s grand design, in which two victims of Reverse Attention Deficit Disorder serve to ease each other’s affliction.

Cross posted from my blog

Scene: A GOP debate. The REAL Event: lightning messing up the sound system…right when Rudy Giuliani was about to answer a question on abortion. Was the lightning interfering with Giuliani at the Republican debate an editorial comment from The Man (or The Woman) Uptairs? We post, you decide:

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State reports on the Reclaiming America For Christ Conference. There’s a lot of interesting (in all senses) stuff in there, but I’m more curious about this passage from the FRC’s Tony Perkins:

How is it that in our nation where Muslims account for about 6 million of the 300 million living in this country, and Christians comprise 100 million, that Muslims can control the public policy and we cannot? I suggest to you that it is because Christians have become apathetic to our role in shaping the policy in our nation, and it could have deadly consequences, not only for the unborn, but for the living as well.

Are those numbers reallly right? Do Christians really only comprise a third of the American population? I’m assuming that Perkins is using a definition of “Christian” that excludes people who may identify as Christian but are less religious (or less conservative). But I’m curious what groups and people get tallied into the 100 million figure, where it comes from, and who specifically is excluded.

The particular point Perkins was making, it goes without saying, was inane.

Oh, and quickly, Ann Coulter also repeated her “fag” slur regarding John Edwards at the conference. To the attendees’ credit, it did not go over well, and she scurried off the stage shortly thereafter.

Our linkfest offering readers a road map to interesting blog posts of varying viewpoints. Links do not necessarily represent views of The Moderate Voice or its writers.

Have We Just Seen “A Softer Gentler Iran?” Publius Pundit has a detailed answer 4 U.

Meanwhile, Are Pundits Using The Hostage Crisis For Political Agenda Gain? Oxblog’s Patrick Porter believes they are.

What Is It About Women Named “Monica?” Veteran newspaper editor, publisher and journalism teacher Robert Stein has some thoughts on the Bush administrations’ Monica problem.

What Liberal Critics Of Wal-Mart Are Missing: aTypical Joe gives a thoughtful take on the whole hot-button issue of Walmart and looks at it extensively. He offers a DIFFERENT TAKE on it than people on the left and right are used to reading. A small part of it:

But a funny thing happened on my way to ridicule - I gave it a second thought. I began to think of Wal-Mart from this side, the rural-resident side, of the Wal-Mart divide. With that second thought I realized the Wal-Mart divide is a reflection of the larger, even deeper, mars/venus gulf of culture and experience that divides city and country people. I realized that I live in that divide every day, and that I wish people would start listening to the country-side. Talk with them, not just about them, and certainly not for them.

But there’s a LOT MORE so read it in full.

The U.S. Support Of A Pakistani Militant Group Invading Iran has come under fire. TomDispatch looks at it and includes the controversial Noam Chomsky’s piece “If Iran Had Invaded Mexico” HERE. (This will be sure to spark lots of discussion in comments. Hold onto your seats..)

Has Hillary Clinton Failed An Important Big Test? Dick Polman (one of the best political writers in any universe) looks at Barack Obama Versus Hillary and concludes yes:

The plain truth is that the Clinton campaign has failed its first big test. The early ’07 goal was to blow Obama (and John Edwards) out of the water by demonstrating implacable money mastery. Instead, Obama in particular has served notice that the rookie is fully capable of slugging it out, over the long haul, with the Friends of Bill and the other well-wired inhabitants of Hillaryland. We don’t yet know officially that Obama has outraised Clinton in primary season money, but ABC News, citing inside sources, reported last night that he collected $23 million, and Clinton $20 million. Her campaign has declined to confirm or deny.

The bottom line is that, at least for now, she has lost the right to be considered the preemptive Democratic favorite.

And, indeed, Polman is correct. This seems to be the year of the un-preemptive preemptive. Wasn’t it only a few months ago that some pundits said John McCain seemed on his way to be the preemptive nominee? Perhaps he still is but he has to campaign now with a lot of body armor. And Giuliani? He was Mr. Up And Coming. But now on the GOP side Mr. Up And Coming seems to be Fred Thompson. This is actually enjoyable, because the ever-certain talking heads are more and more looking like sources of entertainment than people who can be relied on for predictions. Perhaps in this race anyone being crowned the likely “preemptive favorite” ought to run for cover, hire more staff and triple their campaign efforts.
Read the rest of this entry »

RJ Matson’s cartoon for Roll Call “Lady MacHillary Regrets Iraq Vote.“

And his (Ann Coulter) cartoon for the New York Observer “Wicked Witch Of The G.O.P.”

Commentator Ann Coulter was reportedly going to appear on CNN last night but cancelled the appearance and instead appeared on….you guessed it…Fox News’ Hannity And Colmes. Think Progress has the video here.

But yours truly did see the interview where when Alan Colmes read an email from a viewer Coulter immediately said it was a typical liberal reaction…and Colmes pointed out that the viewer was a conservative…and that Coulter was seemingly losing part of her base. Her response was essentially: fat chance:

“This is the same thing we go through every six months. I say something, the same people become hysterical, and that’s the end of it. I mean I think the lesson young right-wingers ought to draw from this is: it’s really not that scary to attack liberals.�

She noted that people keep saying her career is over and that’s not what has happened.

She also responded directly to her critics on Fox News:

“‘Faggot isn’t offensive to gays; it has nothing to do with gays,” Coulter said on “Hannity and Colmes” Monday night. “It’s a schoolyard taunt meaning ‘wuss,’ and unless you’re telling me that John Edwards is gay, it was not applied to a gay person.”

What’s fascinating about the latest Coulter controversy is that it truly has drawn a line in the sand. Do conservatives want people in the middle or left to take their ideas seriously? Or do they want some prospective voters to conclude that anyone who thinks its just absolutely hysterical for Coulter to use the word “faggot” in referring to a Democratic presidential candidate should not be taken seriously.

In our previous posts here we quoted extensively thoughtful conservative weblog writers who see what’s at stake and have roundly condemned her. The disturbing part about Coulter’s Fox interview is that she was almost sneeringly contemptous of those who felt she crossed the line and supremely confident that she won’t suffer a bit for it in terms of stature or (implied) book sales.

And perhaps she is right. Read the rest of this entry »