Elizabeth Edwards Takes on the She-Pundit

Elizabeth Edwards called in to Hardball this afternoon to tell off the She-Pundit with Long Blond Hair.

Shorter version: Elizabeth rocked, the she-pundit did not.

Crooks and Liars (of course) and Think Progress have the video. From Think Progress:

During an hour-long interview with Coulter today on MSNBC, host Chris Matthews announced that Elizabeth Edwards was on the line. Edwards referenced the attacks above, saying, “I’m the mother of that boy who died. These young people behind you…you’re asking them to participate in a dialogue that is based on hatefulness and ugliness instead of on the issues, and I don’t think that’s serving them or this country very well.” The live audience cheered.

When her first two attempts to spin the situation faulted, Coulter then launched into another baseless, personal attack, accusing John Edwards of “bankrupting doctors by giving a shyster Las Vegas routine in front of juries…doing these psychic routines in front of illiterate juries to bankrupt doctors who now can’t deliver babies.”

Think Progress also has the transcript, reprinted here below the fold:

MATTHEWS: You know who’s on the line? Someone to respond to what you said about Edwards yesterday morning. Elizabeth Edwards. She wanted to call in today, we said she could. Elizabeth Edwards, go on the line. You’re on the line with Ann Coulter.

E: Hello Chris.

M: Do you want to say something directly to the person who’s with me?

E: I’m calling — you know, in the south, when someone does something that displeases us, we want to ask them politely to stop doing it. I would like to ask Ann Coulter to — if she wants to debate on issues, on positions — we certainly disagree with nearly everything she said on your show today — but it is quite another matter for these personal attacks. The things that she has said over the years, not just about John but about other candidates, lowers our political dialogue precisely at the time that we need to raise it. So I want to use the opportunity, which I don’t get much because Ann and I don’t hang out with the same people…

C: I don’t have enough money.

E: …to ask her politely stop the personal attacks.

C: Okay, so I made a joke, let’s see, six months ago, and as you point out, they have been raising money off of it for six months since then.

M: But this is yesterday morning, what you said about him.

C: I didn’t say anything about him, actually, either time.

E: But that — Ann, Ann, you know that’s not true, and once more, this has been going on for some time.

C: And I don’t mind you trying to raise money. It’s better this than giving $50,000 speeches to the poor just to use my name on the webpages. But as for a debate with me, yeah, sure. Yeah, we’ll have a debate.

E: I’m asking you politely to stop, to stop personal attacks –

C: How about you stop raising money on your web page then? No, you don’t have to because I don’t mind.

E: I did not start with that. You had a column a number of years ago where you suggested — wait till I finish talking please…

C: Okay, the wife of a presidential candidate is calling in asking me to stop speaking.

M: Let her finish the point. Let her finish the point.

C: You’re asking me to stop speaking? “Stop writing your columns. Stop writing your books.”

M: Ann, please.

E: You had a column several years ago which made fun of the moment of Charlie Dean’s death and suggested that my husband had a bumper sticker on the back of his car saying, “Ask me about my dead son.” This is not legitimate political dialogue.

C: This is now three years ago.

E: It debases political dialogue. It drives people away from the process. We can’t have a debate about the issues.

C: Yeah, why isn’t John Edwards making this call?

M: Well, do you want to respond? We’ll end the conversation.

E: I haven’t talked to John about this call. I’m making the call as a mother. I’m the mother of that boy who died. My children participate — these young people behind you are the age of my children. You’re asking them to participate in a dialogue that is based on hatefulness and ugliness instead of on the issues, and I don’t think that’s serving them or this country very well.


M: Thank you very much Elizabeth. You wanna respond? You have all the time in the world to respond.

C: I think we heard all we need to hear. The wife of a presidential candidate is asking me to stop speaking. No.

M: No, she asked you to stop being so negative to people individually.

C: Right, as opposed to bankrupting doctors by giving a schyster Las Vegas routine in front of juries based on science — wait, you said I’d have as long as I would have, then you instantly interrupt me.

M: Go ahead, go ahead.

C: As I was saying, doing these psychic routines in front of illiterate juries to bankrupt doctors who now can’t deliver babies, and to charge a poverty group $50,000 for a speech. Don’t talk to me about how to use language.

M: Elizabeth?

E: …the language of hate, and I’m going to ask you again to politely stop using personal attacks as part of your dialogue.

C: Okay, I’ll stop writing books.

E: If you can’t write them without them, that is fine.

M: Why do you call out Hillary’s chubby legs in your book? Why do you — this may fall under the category of personal attacks, I don’t know, but why do you do that? Why do you talkabout Monica Lewinsky’s chubbiness? If she were skinny, would it have been okay?

C: Um, I don’t know, read the sentence.

E: I read the whole sentence. I couldn’t feel the context.

C: Well you have to give it to me and I could explain.

E: Why do you make fun of Hillary’s chubby legs?

C: I don’t know, you’re going to have to give me the sentence.

M: It’s in the afterword of your book, I just read it this morning.

C: Then read the sentence.

M: We’ll be back and read the entire sentence. We’ll come right back. I don’t know why we’re reading — the full intellectual context will be coming in just a moment.
< Okla. Executes Inmate Dying of Cancer | "She's Funny That Way" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Long overdue (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Electa on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 08:10:03 PM EST
    the she pundit has gotten away with antagonizing people for far too long.  I admire Ms. Edwards and she shouldn't have wasted one precious moment of her life trying to reason with the likes of this serpentine spirit.  As a mother I can relate to why she stood up in defense of her husband and deceased son.  Who would defile the dead, only someone as barbaric as that woman.  Coulter is a coward, did you observe her body reaction starting immediately when she learned Ms. Edwards was on the line.  Kudos Chris Matthews for the hook up.  Ms. E. TKO.

    Sad (none / 0) (#1)
    by RustedView on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 07:32:35 PM EST
    I find it sad that Ms. Coulter's books, like the "debate" shows with Mr. O'Reilly, Mr. Hannity and the entire gaggle (including some liberals) can't engage in real, intelligent debate, but must always resort to ad hominem attacks.

    I find it sadder still, that people lap it up, believing that the scenes like Bill O screaming at Geraldo and Geraldo screaming back is actually debate.

    Oh, what Lincoln and Douglas must be thinking now.

    hmm... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Sumner on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 08:09:04 PM EST
    Those nostalgic times weren't all sans ad hominem attacks.

    Ann Coulter attracts much ad hominem flack herself.

    Elizabeth Edwards is certainly honing her chops by taking on the likes of sourpuss Ann Coulter, right out of the starting gate.

    Yet I suspect that there is no Pygmalion story here, as I think that Ms. Coulter is already quite set in her ways and indelibly a creature of habit.


    I'm very saddened (none / 0) (#2)
    by Stewieeeee on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 07:49:53 PM EST
    that anyone who may be faced with counting days or months or years to the end of their short life has to spend even one second in the company of such an ugly human being.

    when you've got tweety defending hillary to you, as he was at the end of the crooks and liars clip, that is when you know you only appeal to the most narrow (and most narrow minded) segment of the population left in america.

    i found that clip depressing.

    At least tweety (none / 0) (#3)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 08:07:07 PM EST
    corrected AC at least once and also gave her a verbal slap for interrupting Elizabeth.

    He actually sounded like a reasonable human being for a change. Although contrasted with AC even someone like Cheney looks rather friendly and grandfatherly, like some trustworthy.


    Why? Blame it all on Newt Gingrich (none / 0) (#6)
    by 1980Ford on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 08:16:32 PM EST
    No kidding.


    How Newt Gingrich used these techniques

    Don't give AC (none / 0) (#7)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 08:19:44 PM EST
    any more google hits than she already has.

    Spelling her name out in full in here helps her.

    AC or "the witch" or something else works and everyone knows who it means.

    That's why (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 10:44:13 PM EST
    I call her the she-pundit with long blond hair instead of by her name.  

    extremely disturbed grandaughter (none / 0) (#8)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 08:31:23 PM EST
    "We need to be less concerned about civilian casualties...we bombed more people in Hamburg in two days ... I'd rather have their civilians die than our civilians... we should kill their people."


    There are a few who comment here (none / 0) (#9)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 08:37:15 PM EST
    who say the same things in a variety of ways.

    I Know (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 08:47:18 PM EST
    Not as bad, though, Shemail pundit is beyond disgusting, measured by any standard.

    Yes (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 08:52:31 PM EST
    But they dream of it, and they would, except they'd probably be banned.

    The only crime is getting caught as far as they're concerned.


    Machiavellian (none / 0) (#12)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 09:02:23 PM EST
    The only crime is getting caught as far as they're concerned

    No, the only crime, as far as they're concerned, is doing time.


    Hah. You're right. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 09:03:18 PM EST
    I stand corrected!

    Pardon me! (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 09:03:37 PM EST
    Xactly (none / 0) (#15)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 09:05:22 PM EST
    Point well taken (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Sumner on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 09:17:32 PM EST
    That's why I daily check here.

    Why didn't John make the call? (none / 0) (#17)
    by beefeater on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 10:05:24 PM EST
    First Edwards sends Lizabeth to the Gay Pride parade, because he's not comfortable with those people, and now little johnny is hiding behind her skirts again saying "mommy make her stop! Make her stop mommy!!"

    So you're the Edwards gardener huh? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 10:29:20 PM EST
    And that is how you know all this?  I don't think you have the foggiest notion how these people operate or how they live and interact at all.

    Are you serious? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 10:46:48 PM EST
    How pathetic are you?

    Predictable response from the Daddy Party aka GOP. (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by aztrias on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 11:11:16 PM EST
    When a mother and wide speaks out the GOP Daddy Party attacks the spouse, John, as weak.  It's pathetic and attempts to appeal to the lizard brains out there who liked GWB's flight suit codepiece.  

    It might win elections had the USA not passed Women's Suffrage.  Too many swing voters are women.

    Southern men might not have a problem with a Mom speaking with a southern drawl defending her family from a fast talking Yankee.


    Oh about this much (1.00 / 3) (#24)
    by beefeater on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 11:13:41 PM EST
    But at least we know who wears the pants in the Edwards household.

    So marriage and households (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 11:18:04 PM EST
    are about power?  We share the pants in my house, it does get tricky sometimes and I think my husband should lose a couple of lbs so we can have a size smaller pants but he isn't exactly thrilled with the bootcut.  We share pants in our house though and I don't know how anybody has true love without pants sharing.

    Interesting. My marriage is a partnership. (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 08:32:03 AM EST
    I gather you want to be married to a door mat. Good Luck.


    so (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by Jen M on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:41:51 AM EST
    a mother of a dead child has no say when another.... woman starts to make fun of the death?

    Mothers aren't supposed to care when people use their dead children to joke about their families?

    You think mothers are weak, uncaring?


    aka the George Lakoff dialectic (none / 0) (#27)
    by Sumner on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 12:05:45 AM EST
    where there exists political extremes of

    the opposition between the conservative, strict-father family and the liberal, nurturant-parent family. (Note the contrast between the "father" in the first instance and the "parent" in the second.) It is his [Lakoff's] fundamental contention that the nation is understood on the metaphor of the family and that there are two deeply contrasting understandings of that family arrangement, and consequently, two contrasting understandings of the nation as a political entity.

    what else is there to say? (none / 0) (#18)
    by cpinva on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 10:07:10 PM EST
    i believe this clearly demonstrates a known truth, with respect to AC: she is thematically dull and morally bankrupt.

    this, of course, is pretty much reflective of her audience.

    My favorite part was when (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 10:23:27 PM EST
    said that she hadn't spoke to John about making the call and she was making it herself wearing the hats she described.  Not every married woman with a serious topic on her mind and finding the time to address it got the idea from or "permission from" her husband even if he is a candidate for President of the United States.  I just loved it and it was so genuine what she said and how she said it I just loved it some more.

    I got an ironic laugh out of (none / 0) (#26)
    by Nowonmai on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 11:29:05 PM EST
    Is AC's selective amnesia about insulting Mr. Edwards just a few hours earlier, and not recognising quotes from her own (dare I say) book.

    And AC complaining about not being allowed to say her piece, when all she kept doing was interrupting Elizabeth every few seconds. She should take her own advice once in a while.

    AC should also remember a few quotes:

    "It's better to keep ones' mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

    And from a plaque my grandmother had:

    Be careful of the words you say
    Keep the soft and sweet
    You never know from day to day
    Which ones you'll have to eat.

    her grasp of english (none / 0) (#31)
    by Jen M on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:44:14 AM EST
    seems tenuous

    "stop making fun of my dead child" = "Stop talking"

    is english her second language?

    Or does she simply think her fans aren't capable of understanding simple statements?


    Orwell at it's best (none / 0) (#33)
    by Nowonmai on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 07:04:24 PM EST

    Maybe her translator microbes are as dysfunctional as she is.


    but, and this is an important but, (none / 0) (#29)
    by cpinva on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:40:18 AM EST
    it doesn't matter what ms. edwards said, or that the facts are on her side. AC will twist this into a "liberal attack" on her, because she "speaks the conservative truth". she'll "write" another "book", sell a million copies to her loyal fans, be a guest on many shows, and make lots more money.

    that's what it's all about. she got a million dollars worth of free publicity because of that phone call, and it changed no one's mind.

    Big Deal! (none / 0) (#32)
    by MrGreyGhost on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 02:06:42 PM EST
    Seriously people can we take a break from the Coulter-bashing to look at the big picture here? I mean are we supposed to believe that Ms. Edwards supposed verbal "smackdown" on Coulter is going to make a dent in John Edwards campaign for Presidency? Should we just totally ignore that Coulter was clearly set up by Chrissyfit Matthews for Ms. Edwards "scolding"? Bottom line is that John "$400 Haircut, Mr. War on Poverty But He Lives In A $6 Million Dollar Mansion, Against The War He Voted For" Edwards is a hypocrite and the American people see him for what he is: a con artist (why else would he be languishing in 3rd place in every significant Democratic poll?) But I guess that's Coulter's fault too, right?

    This just reeks of envy (none / 0) (#34)
    by Nowonmai on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 07:32:19 PM EST
    He busted his butt and worked for, and earned what he has. Isn't that the "American Dream"?

    Funny that AC doesn't rip apart 'conservatives' or Republicans that have done the same, but equal treatment, or sanity, isn't her long suit.