About Channel '08  |  Blog Partner: PrezVid.com  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed  (What's RSS?)

John Edwards' Coulter-Related YouTube Efforts

On the same morning Elizabeth Edwards appeared on all the major national television morning shows, and the night after John Edwards himself responded to Ann Coulter's recent comments, it's perhaps no surprise there's now a Coulter-related YouTube item from the Edwards campaign.

Speaking Wednesday night from Goode's Armadillo Palace in Houston, Edwards congratulated his wife for standing up to Coulter Tuesday afternoon on MSNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews."

"I was very proud of Elizabeth standing up to Ann Coulter," Edwards says to cheers.

"When these hate mongers with their hate language continue to speak out, we're not going ot stand quietly by anymore," he continues. "We're going to stand up, we're going to speak up, we're going to show strength, and we're going to fight back."

Edwards makes clear that the Coulter issue isn't about he and his wife. "It's about millions of people in America who have no health care, millions of people who live in poverty everyday, and it's about men and women who are putting their lives on the line in Iraq everyday. We need to end this war in Iraq," he concludes as it fades to black.

And in addition to this new video, at this hour the Edwards YouTube channel also features Elizabeth's call to Coulter as its main video.

What do you think: Is the Edwards campaign exploiting Coulter's comments ahead of the second quarter fundraising deadline, or is the former senator and his wife justified in speaking out? Leave your thoughts in the comments section below.

By Ed O'Keefe |  June 28, 2007; 9:46 AM ET John Edwards
Previous: Dodd's Army, Armed With Cameras | Next: HillCam Debuts

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Yes but all the campaign would be doing the same thing

However, it is hypocritcal for Edwards to claim the "moral highground"

After all the theme of Edwards is hypocrisy. It really rubs me the wrong way that a guy who lectures about poverty all day lives in a completely different world.

Posted by: Edwards thy name is hypocrite | June 28, 2007 10:27 AM

Of course the Edwards campaign is entitled to speak out about Coulter. They don't come any more genuine than Elizabeth Edwards and they don't come much slimier than Coulter. It's tempting to say don't respond and give her comments credence, but John Kerry learned that's not a smart option. What galls me is that Chris Mathews gave her so much time on Hardball. (I don't know how much because I couldn't stomach her and didn't watch that particular show.) I can only hope (and vote) that this time around the proponents of hatred and divisiveness are left in the dust. It's mind boggling that man's base nature can be appealed to so successfully in the political arena.

Posted by: rybice | June 28, 2007 10:36 AM

It's ridiculous to suggest that there's anything wrong with Edwards fighting back on the one hand and asking his supporters to help pay for that fight on the other. People give money to candidates to support the candidates' message. Part of Edwards's message is that people like Ann Coulter are dragging down the level of debate in the country and should be engaged, not catered to. He should ask his supporters to give more to help fight that fight; his supporters probably believe in it as much as he does.

Posted by: Kate | June 28, 2007 10:49 AM

the first poster makes no sense...Because Edwards is wealthy (though probably not as wealthy as many of the other candidates) he is not allowed to care about the less fortunate?

Posted by: j33 | June 28, 2007 12:07 PM

It is sad that the American Democracy and Press is controlled by low IQ slime balls like Ann Coulter. The press has no right giving demagogues either from the left or right national coverage.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 28, 2007 12:09 PM

Oh please. Coulter is a viper. While I think she deserves no attention - the reality of today is that one must speak up to correct her venom.

Regarding those how attack Edwards for speaking up for the poor, I say what do you want of him??? to be against careing about the poor? or give his money away and live in poverty before he can try to do some good in the world? Grow up.

Posted by: Danna | June 28, 2007 12:11 PM

Ann Coulter has been allowed to spew hate and venom for too long. The fact that her books such as Treason are on the bestseller list speaks volumes about the discourse in America.

Democrats have been either too timid or felt that it wasn't worth their time to respond to attacks, so the attacks keep happening. The only way to stop a bully is to stand up to them.

I applaud Elizabeth and John Edwards stand.

Posted by: Betty | June 28, 2007 12:12 PM

Coulter is so full of self-hatred - maybe a little feminist consciousness-raising is in order So pathethic of Matthews to give her a platform to spew her hate. What exactly does she bring to the table in terms of intelligent discourse - absolutely nothing. But I guess if you don't have the brains to engage in a constructive discussion of the issues, this is where you end up if you're desperate for attention. Puts into question Matther's judgment as well. It's refreshing to see a Democrat with enough backbone to call her out. Can we clone the Edwards to replace the ignorant meanies?

Posted by: Bev | June 28, 2007 12:13 PM

Coulter is so full of self-hatred - maybe a little feminist consciousness-raising is in order So pathethic of Matthews to give her a platform to spew her hate. What exactly does she bring to the table in terms of intelligent discourse - absolutely nothing. But I guess if you don't have the brains to engage in a constructive discussion of the issues, this is where you end up if you're desperate for attention. Puts into question Matther's judgment as well. It's refreshing to see a Democrat with enough backbone to call her out. Can we clone the Edwards to replace the ignorant meanies?

Posted by: Bev | June 28, 2007 12:13 PM

Of course Mrs. Edwards had the right to call in and make her point! And if the Edwards team is using this as a fund raising opportunity, so be it. We should all fight against this kind of destructive rhetoric.

Ann Coulter is an example of what is wrong with the talking heads on both sides. Bill Maher made a similar comment about terrorists killing Cheney. Both Coulter and Maher (and others just like them) get rich off of these outrageous positions and at the same time polarize the rest of us to the extent that we cannot have honest debate about the real issues. Most Americans are in the middle, but the people with microphones are extremists and the worst of both sides.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 28, 2007 12:14 PM

Yes the Edwards campaign is exploiting Dan...err Ann Coulter to raise money. And I applaud them for doing so!

I would ask the first poster this question: Does one have to relenquish ones success and wealth in order to advocate for the poor?

Posted by: caneiac01 | June 28, 2007 12:16 PM

Yes the Edwards campaign is exploiting Dan...err Ann Coulter to raise money. And I applaud them for doing so!

I would ask the first poster this question: Does one have to relenquish ones success and wealth in order to advocate for the poor?

Posted by: caneiac01 | June 28, 2007 12:16 PM

Coulter should not be on any TV show period. ABC shows it's true colors by having her on Good Morning America. That's a real disservice.

Posted by: caneiac01 | June 28, 2007 12:20 PM

I think it's ridiculous that people think John Edwards is hypocritical. Here's a guy who actually came from nothing and made something of himself. Here's a guy who knows something about poverty -- job loss, being a step away from being homeless or hungry -- and he's doing something about it.

The fact that he is rich is absolutely irrelevant. One has to be successful -- and usually success leads to some wealth --to be qualified to run for president. So, are we supposed to ignore poverty?

FDR was rich.
JFK was rich.

They both fought poverty. John Edwards should be applauded for tackling these issues -- instead of tackling self-serving issues like a dividend tax cut or insisting on keeping health insurance a private thing.

Posted by: Teo | June 28, 2007 12:29 PM

So it's 'hypocritical' to be wealthy and populist after growing up working class like Edwards, but it's not hypocritical to be wealthy after growing up wealthy like Bush, then carve out an identify as a brush-clearing, word-mangling populist while dumping on working-class Americans day in and day out?

Hmmmmm. Yeah.

Get back to me when your logic is screwed on properly.

Posted by: dirrtysw | June 28, 2007 1:47 PM

The question itself is absurd. Coulter is a vituperative, hate-filled slime mouth who is notorious for her ad hominem attacks on anyone she disagrees with. To attack Edwards for defending himself and his wife from her insults is like attacking someone who is bitten by a poisonous snake for killing the snake. Anyone who has not spent the last few years on Mars knows that Coulter is a trash mouth. The real question is why television gives her so much air time to pollute the air waves with her vitriol.

Posted by: Matthew | June 28, 2007 1:53 PM

Anne Coulter is the Paris Hilton of Politics...fame through outrageous behavior, nothing more. Elizabeth Edwards was absolutely right to confront a person who makes her living by spewing hateful comments about those who are actually trying to make life better for Americans. History will long remember folks like the Edwards who are true advocates for the poor, and quickly forget these hatemongering Bush apologists who care only for the wealthy and privledged few.

Posted by: Lincoln | June 28, 2007 3:13 PM

In an email sent yesterday by Elizabeth Edwards--"Why I called Ann Coulter"--she used the phrase "...but pundits like Ann Coulter...". Ann Coulter is NOT a pundit. The word "pundit" comes from the Hindi word "pandit" which means "a wise or learned man in India --often used as an honorary title". She's not very feminine, ergo, I'll concede the "man" point. But she is not "learned", nor does she deserve an "honorary title." She's a bottom feeder, who gets her sustenance from the lowest levels of human discourse.

Posted by: xochil | June 28, 2007 3:40 PM

Ann Coulter,epitomizes the exact opposite position of love thy neighbor as thyself.
It is time to quit having her spew the hate that she does, and setting that horrible example for all the other bitter people like herself to follow. Surely, someone must have broke her heart and jilted her.

Posted by: Mary | June 28, 2007 3:49 PM

Let's flash back to the civil rights movement. Before the Movement it was perfectly acceptable to call a 60-year-old African American "boy", and to have absurd, racist jokes were not challenged if they happened to come up in every-day conversation.

One of the things the civil rights movement was addressing was this type of language and this mindset. Although we still have a long way to go, I don't think there are many folks who would argue that the Movement didn't help change the way African Americans are treated, and part of that was changing the national discourse.

Someone who really cares about this country knows that a democracy is not immune from vicious slander in our public discourse. Merely asking someone to stop the practice of making money off of their hate speech should be lauded. Mrs. Edwards showed considerable patience and fortitude, and in so doing got her point across in bold letters.

Posted by: Jen | June 28, 2007 6:27 PM

It's not a good question to ask, "Is the Edwards campain exploiting Coulter's comments," because the word "exploit" is ambiguous, with multiple meanings, one of which is pejorative. Given the context, I infer that what's being asked is, "Is the Edwards campaign unfairly and perhaps cynically using Coulter's comments, using feigned hurt feelings, moral outrage, and emotional appeals to beguile people into giving them money?" In other words, "Are the Edwards being insincere?" To which the unassailable answer is, "There's absolutely no evidence they're being insincere."

Posted by: David | June 29, 2007 10:57 AM

Every time Coulter attacks Edwards, I write him a check. John and Elizabeth Edwards confront Coulter, the primary spokesman for political hate speech on the airwaves and in the mass media. Email the FCC and complain about Coulter's indecent, obscene, and profane remarks on ABC and MSNBC.

Posted by: Marsha H | June 29, 2007 11:31 AM

Edwards has a little wealth, but as has been stated here, others have much more. It is very good that wealthy persons advocate for the poor and needy in basic needs, including health care for all. Remember Roosevelt and Kennedy were very wealthy and Kennedy gave his salary back.
Just who is behind this "get Edwards" campaign I ask myself. What are they afraid about exactly? Boru

Posted by: Boru | July 2, 2007 2:31 PM

Edwards has a little wealth, but as has been stated here, others have much more. It is very good that wealthy persons advocate for the poor and needy in basic needs, including health care for all. Remember Roosevelt and Kennedy were very wealthy and Kennedy gave his salary back.
Just who is behind this "get Edwards" campaign I ask myself. What are they afraid about exactly? Boru

Posted by: Boru | July 2, 2007 2:31 PM

When the discourse of media posturing(Not politics)hits this low ebb of immaturity and mudslinging, it only dumbs down the discourse of true issues.
In order to vote intelligently, how can truly unbiased American voters swipe away the debris of media hype and self serving promotion, when that's all there is?

Posted by: William | July 2, 2007 9:45 PM

I think John Edwards is the real front-runner. Hilary is being touted by the right. She is not electable and is too connected to the selling out of America over the past decades. My vote is with Edwards.

Posted by: M Bennett, OR | July 6, 2007 10:54 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2007 The Washington Post Company