First came the orchestrated “call for civility.” Then came tonight’s follow-up performance, in which a fawning Chris Matthews gave John Edwards the “forum” (read: campaigning platform) to raise money by playing off the right wing “crazy” folk.
The transcript of Edwards’ appearance is here.
For me, two points of the exchange between Matthews and Edwards — and let’s face it, this was less an interview than it was a coordinated effort on the parts of Matthews and the Edwards campaign to denigrate the “right wing wingnuts” (per Trippi) or the “crazies” (per The Weeping Haircut) by tying them Coulter while raising the profile of the Edwards campaign — are worth commenting on at some length. First, Matthews’ willingness to spread the falsehood that Coulter wished Edwards to be killed by jihadists, a charge that the transcript of her remarks show to be completely misleading (but which the AP, like Matthews does here, has now “reported” as if it were unquestionably factual); and second, Edwards and Matthews’ casual use of “hate speech” to define Coulter’s criticisms / attacks.
With Edwards, this penchant for re-defining terms to fit his own ends has become something of an early trademark of his mercurial campaign — beginning with his handling of the Marcotte / McEwan dustup (the “sentiment” of their anti-Catholic remarks “personally offended” Edwards, yet he simultaneously noted that he believed them when they assured him that their sentiment was not meant to offend); followed shortly thereafter by his newly-found belief that Bush “misled” us into war; then his self-serving attempt to redefine “patriotism”; and now this attempt to turn criticism — personal though it may be — into “hate speech,” which is a mode of speech that (sadly) carries legal weight and specific legal meaning, and so shouldn’t be thrown around loosely by a presidential candidate who also happens to practice law.
For (neo) “progressives” like Edwards, this move to silence or demonize criticism is a fundamental plank in a social platform that relies completely on being able to control and direct the cultural narrative — an ideological imperative that uses, as its rhetorical touchstone, an idea of “tolerance” that is inherently intolerant of all but that speech that has been culturally sanctioned by progressive elites and their handmaidens in the identity politics movement. In short, it caters to those who presume to set the parameters for what is “acceptable” to say about any given identity group, and in return, relies upon the political support of those groups in a kind of illiberal quid pro quo.
Edwards — far from being simply an insincere and opportunistic faux populist — also represents all that is worst about today’s progressive politicians: he is a slave to his base; a man whose sole political strategy is to suss out the latest bandwagon and hop aboard in his photo-op conductor’s hat — all while working to make sure that any criticism leveled against him is marginalized as the “personal attacks” of “crazies” and “right wing wingnuts,” and using a sympathetic media (whose natural inclination should be to abhor such attempts to stifle speech) to help him “shame” his political opponents into watering-down their discourse.
I had planned, when I began this post, to include the full text of Edwards’ and Matthews’ remarks tonight, interspersed, for effect, with some of the more hateful bile that’s been unleashed by those associated with the Edwards campaign.
But I decided against it. Instead, I’ll just ask you to read the transcript in light of my commentary and decide for yourself if Edwards — a transparent opportunist willing to take advantage of a sympathetic press (one willing to mischaracterize Coulter’s remarks for him, so that he can continue to profit from them) — is the kind of man you want anywhere near the levers of power.
His is the kind of slick conman schtick that woos old ladies and plucks at the heartstrings of juries; but I have no doubt that his ideological center is completely for sale — and that Edwards would adopt any position that he thought might help him find his way to the Oval Office.
He is a charlatan. And what’s worse, he is a charlatan with absolutely no compunction about supporting the kinds of measures that would amount to the policing of speech and the legislating of proportional “fairness” if he thought doing such would please his supporters and help insulate himself from the kinds of attacks he fears might weaken him politically.
(h/t Dan)
“MATTHEWS: Well, how do you explain that you see people with good educations walking around the streets of New York and Wall Street, people with big business jobs in equity firms — hedge fund people — all buying books by Ann Coulter? How do you explain the fact that even last night’s fight involving your wife Elizabeth and Ann Coulter probably helped her sell some more books to these kind of guys?”
Nicely done. I wasn’t sure how Edwards was going to manage to get his class warfare schtick into this, but Chrissy did it for him. Hardball, indeed.
“MATTHEWS: Well, you know we love her, or I love her personally, because she’s the greatest person in the world and she battles with you as to who’s the best of the two of you. She is a piece of greatness, I think. But that’s my opinion.”
Jesus. Is the video for this part safe for children? Was Edwards able to keep his pants on?
Was Edwards able to keep his pants on?
does Elizabeth let him wear the pants?
A. Hardball is still on the air? Who knew?
B. John Edwards is not going to be President.
Not if I can help it, at least.
From the comment thread over there:
If you’re reading this on the web (apparently you are) then it should be easy to go to the Huffington Post and read what Robert L. Borosage has to say about Coulter. It’s good.
Brad Spencer, Madison, WI (Sent Wednesday, June 27, 2007 7:22 PM)
I am starting to get a little worried, these guys don’t miss a trick, I tell you.
 and that Edwards would adopt any position that he thought might help him find his way to the Oval Office.
But not standing up, because that might lead to dancing?
Sorry, sorry. Wrong denomination, I know.
My take on this part,
 and that Edwards would adopt any position that he thought might help him find his way to the Oval Office.
is that he is trying to emulate Bill Clinton. But WJC was the tragedy, Edwards is the farce.
Hey wait, wasn’t Edwards one of those hedge fund/equity guys? Was Tweety slamming Silky’s former employer with that one? Nice loyalty there Johnny boy.
I didn’t notice Matthews giving Coulter the opportunity to call in on tonight’s show to speak with Edwards. Why is that? Is it because both Matthews and Edwards are too chickenshit for those fireworks or is the fundraising going well enough already that it’s not a risk worth taking?
He was fading too fast. Ann wants to keep him in the race for a while and so do I.He’s such a vicious little twit I’d like it if he could get close enough to Hillary in the polls to scare her.Seeing Hillary’s machine go after Silky with both barrels would be a thing of beauty.
No wonder Matthews is at the bottom of the greasy pole of cable talking-head shows.
Oh, you noticed?
Air America blew chunks and died. Now there has to be a substitute, and it looks like a great idea to retread an existing, fairly successful show. You get to leverage off the existing audience, and once the word gets out it can’t fail, right?
Heh (as the saying goes). Lefties that matter (in their own minds) don’t do anything so plebian as watch TV or listen to the radio — which is why AA failed in the first place — and their gooey-eyed admirers emulate their every move. What you are watching is Matthews committing ratings suicide.
As for Edwards — I’m with ck. Don’t attack him, prop him up. We shouldn’t be calling him “Silky Pony” or anything similar; “Oakland” fits. There’s no there there. He’s the canonical example of an empty suit. If he ever gets put in a position where he can’t be propped up by the Legions for John-Boy he’ll deflate like a pricked (!) balloon. And if he does get elected it will be proof positive that a country that went from “Pay any price, bear any burden” to “that’s too haaaaaard and too daaaaaaaaangerous and they don’t deseeeeeerve it anyway” in a generation deserves John Edwards as Maximum Leader.
Regards,
Ric
I think the most revealing thing about the repeated Edwards/Coulter dust-ups is the way they show a certain continuity with Edwards’ career as a trial lawyer. As a lawyer, Edwards became a success by turning his clients’ victimhood into cash, and when such victimhood was dubious or non-existent, he did his best to make it up (see: cerebral palsy cases, channeling for dead people, etc.). Likewise, in his candidacy, he has repeatedly shown a crass propensity to monetize victimhood at every turn, from the explicit “Coulter Cash” appeals to the mining of Elizabeth’s well-wishers’ email addresses for donations.
So, what troubles me isn’t that Edwards is so easily cowed by someone like Coulter. What troubles me is that someone who hopes to be the leader of the free world apparently has only one club in his bag, and a really lame one at that.
This is shocking. Not. Apparently Chris did not even bother to take a look at the quote from his own show last night. If he did read it, he ou and out lied about what Anne said, and allowed He of the Flowing Mane to completely distort it as well.
Anyone find it odd that Ms. Edwards just happened to have the call-in number handy while watching this show? It is incredibly hard for me to believe that anything she heard in that interview, up to the point where she called in, pushed her over the edge, to where she felt compelled to confront Anne.
Anybody ever recall any other ambush type call ins on Mathews’ show?
using a sympathetic media (whose natural inclination should be to abhor such attempts to stifle speech)
Maybe they would have been inclined fifty years ago, but activist journalists who got into the business to “make a difference” are perfectly happy to stifle speech that they disagree with. They’re only for free speech when they’ve got the floor.
Argh. How many times does this have to be repeated before it doesn’t need to be repeated anymore? I guess it’s like sweeping the floor: you can’t just do it once really well and be done with it.
What are the chances that they would have let Anne call in tonight while the former Senator was being given his free campaign advertising?
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about how you explain this kind of — it wouldn’t be a tit for a tat — this nastiness the other night, to your older daughter, your college-age or actually law school-age daughter, Kate. How do you explain these kinds of things that happen in politics?
ELIZABETH EDWARDS: “She’s overreacted to this and treated it as if it’s shameful to have this discussion. I think that’s a very sad state of affairs… I think that it indicates a certain degree of shame with respect to her daughter’s sexual preferences… It makes me really sad that that’s Lynne’s response.”
I have a particular revulsion for people who cynically play victim, especially after launching an attack.
It’s like a spoiled child who snaps at their parents then turns on the waterworks and pretends they didn’t do anything wrong when the hammer comes down.
So when I see a successful, rich trial lawyer playing innocent bumpkin, it’s time to bring that hammer down. Thanks, Ann, for the hammering.
JOHN EDWARDS: THE SECOND BLACK PRESIDENT.
was that in poor taste? Coulter dared me to post it. I said “hey bitch, it’s the internet. Grow a pair of adams apples or something.”
Then she kicked my ass with the bottle of Patron we stole from them dam cabrons.
Seriously, Tijuana has gone to shit since the Terminatah got elected.
I’ll stick with Coulter, let the progs keep Digby.
I saw a promo on ABC for tomorrow’s GMA, and guess who’s going to be on to discuss Coulter’s comments? Yep, it’s Miz Liz. The promo had Coulter’s quote (and I paraphrase) about how she’ll have to say that she hopes Silky is killed in a terrorist plot. Anybody want to guess the odds of Maher’s name even coming up during the interview?
I would hope that an adult, presumably educated, person would be able to understand that politics is a contact sport.
Although I guess it’s a good thing he didn’t ask how they’ll explain it to their dead kid.
Beware the politician who wants it TOO much. Fine writing Jeff.
“And what’s worse, he is a charlatan with absolutely no compunction about supporting the kinds of measures that would amount to the policing of speech”
New york times! bombs away!
And “softball”? thats good one.
That’s true. Relative to private business, the pay for public service leadership is mediocre. Most of those who run for office are wealthy attorneys anyway. What these clowns really want is power–raw power. They’re egomaniacs.
Oh, shine? Feel free to fuck off.
And guess who was on the Today Show this morning with Howdy Dood…er, David Gregory?
Hey, shine? Did it occur to you that there’s a difference between a sarcastic pundit and a guy who intends to be POTUS? Prolly not, huh?
“Hey, shine? Did it occur to you that there’s a difference between a sarcastic pundit and a guy who intends to be POTUS? Prolly not, huh?”
I know. Like there’s also a difference between bombs and treason prosecutions and broadcast ownership rules.
From the list of questions Chris Matthews didn’t have enough time to ask
Chris Matthews: Mr. Preside… errr, Senator Edwards, your opponents think you’re too qualified for the job of president, what do you say to that?”
“The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep’s throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty.” – Abraham Lincoln
…
Anyone have any idea what this is supposed to mean?
I sure don’t, Bmoe.
But of course, by saying that, I might be offending shine and so committing an act of “hate speech”.
Which is why I’ll institute my own Fairness Doctrine right now and say, “You’re such a DICK, Jeff!”
Dunno. But it sounds like actus has found a new pseudonym.
[…] I really haven’t paid much attention to the Edwards/Coulter dust up on Hardball. But, I found this today on Protein Wisdom, and I think it describes Edwards and the rest of the “Fairness […]
LOL, I, too, was trying to figure out what the hell shine was talking about. So, it’s not just me?
I know. Like there’s also a difference between bombs and treason prosecutions and broadcast ownership rules.
Nope. I have a feeling it’s a reference to something — probably something Coulter said — but without any details, it’s hard to make sense of it.
Hey, the blog ate half of my post!
And lollipops and basketballs and road salt! Hizzildy flibbergit.
OK, is it just me or is shine the return of alphie/monkyboy/Neville Chamberlain?
It’s still a long way to the finish line and with the Silky Pony choking on the dust of the Hillary/Obama race I’m really looking forward to his next moves. Hell hath no fury like a horse’s ass scorned and his only hope is to heap major mud on the leaders of the race. That ought to be interesting..
I just can’t help stop wondering what the reaction would be if the Bushes reacted to comments about them the way the Edwards have. Hell, when the White House press secretary said “people need to watch what they say” after 9/11, in a discussion including the remarks of a Republican congressman, the line was that they were “suppressing dissent”.
Does anyone really want someone so thin-skinned to be President?
Come to think of it, if I had to be tied to a right wing wingnut I’d take Ann Coulter over say Hugh Hewitt any day. Just make it a nice velvet rope..
It also occurs to me that Silky isn’t running against Coulter and the right wing wingnuts, so this sort of attack seems a cheap way to get his face in the news without incurring the wrath of Hillary/Obama. Perhaps he’s hoping to come in second again?
If he wins, he should just have the White House moved into his rumpus room.
There may be two Americas, but that doesn’t mean he should have to, you know, live near the bad one.
Plus, JENGA!
Shine is reminding me of some of our other previous incoherent visitors.
[…] wrote a week or so back about the Edwards campaign’s attempts to turn pointed criticism into “hate speech,” a designation that carries with it the stigma of criminality thanks to the (unfortunate) existence […]
[…] bad enough that we live in a culture where criticism — even of presidential candidates — is being labeled “hate speech”; what we can’t afford to do is to compound […]