Elizabeth Edwards jabs insipid Coulter

This is a pretty good piece of footage, and it illustrates the character of both Ann Coulter and Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic Presidential Candidate John Edwards.

Really, the footage speaks for itself, and I can't add anything more pithy than what Edwards herself says, other to to reinforce what she said. We really do need to elevate the political discourse in this country, and people like Coulter do nothing to debase and defile the entire process by never missing an opportunity to personally savage anyone with a "D" after his or her name.

Coulter really is pathetic and sad. There's really not much else that can be said in a classy way, so I'll just stop there. I ceased being angry about her diatribes a long time ago, but I'll never stop pointing them out, because the last thing we need in the face of her silly slander is apathy.

Two more quick thoughts - I have absolutely no problem with Edwards making money off of her remarks, no matter who she is slandering, and she's beyond hypocritical to lamely try and call out John Edwards for doing so. Isn't Coulter making millions off of her own blarney? So, why shouldn't Democrats?

Anyone who believes that Republicans don't send out fundraising letters to their base when a Democrat says something ill-advised should be awarded a doctorate in naïveté. It's part of the political fundraising game, Ann. But, of course, she thinks that most of us are naïve enough to believe that only Democrats do it.

Honestly, the moron in Chris Matthews' audience who shouted, "Why isn't John Edwards making this call?!?" made me as angry as Coulter did. Ridiculous, but something I'd expect from a Coulter sycophant. That's overtly stating that the wife of a presidential candidate doesn't have the right to express her views, or that hers are unimportant.

I'm happy that Elizabeth Edwards did what she did. It's probably best to ignore people like Ann, but sometimes, enough is enough, and they need to be called out.

CNN Obama piece a dog's breakfast

Wolf Blitzer and Bill Schneider are two of the very few left at CNN who I can stomach, but this piece is very misleading and selective.

First of all, as Media Matters has reported, this report leaves out that Obama acknowledged in the introduction of his book, Dreams of My Father, "that [Obama] created composite characters, presented dialogue that 'is necessarily an approximation of what was actually said or relayed to me,' and changed the names of most of the 'characters ... for the sake of their privacy.'"

This one minute drive-by shooting of Obama by Schneider, another one of the few CNN reporters I respect, sounds more like a Fox News strategy session, or for that matter, a RNC strategy video (Wait - those two are the same thing. Never mind.)

A few of my thoughts...

First off, I'm sick to death of hearing about the anti-Hillary Clinton Apple Computer ad. To me, this non-story story was all over the news for three or four days. Then, a week later, it was revealed that the ad had been created by an employee of a firm the Obama campaign hired to do some work. Immediately upon his being "outed," the guy was fired, a fact that Schneider neglects to mention in the disingenuous report above.

Secondly, as Media Matters so adeptly points out, Schneider takes the title right from The Politico, which seems sort of lame. There are no true ideas left in journalism, Bill, but you can't come up with your own title?

Just a quick thought about The Politico and The Drudge Report - it would be nice if the mainstream media did a little reporting of its own for once, instead of taking the word of GOP shill Matt Drudge, a journalistic hack who has admitted that a. "He's not a real journalist" and b. Never even attended college, from what I can tell. Not that college is a pre-requisite for being intelligent, but it always helps.

It's pretty funny how quickly the "news" networks will pick up just about anything on Drudge and report it as fact. The most shining example of this is the recent announcement by John and Elizabeth Edwards that her cancer has returned. A few hours before the announcement was made that Edwards would stay in the campaign, The Politico ran a one-source story that Edwards was withdrawing from the race. Of course, then Drudge ran with it, as did CNN, Thom Hartman on his radio show, etc. So, these two very popular Websites have a lot of sway over the mainstream media, and they shouldn't.

The only mistake in the Bill Schneider piece at the top of this page is that he's even reporting stuff like this in the first place. Even at this early stage of the campaign, this is broadcast filler and little else.

Katie BOORic out of line with Edwardses

I haven't been this angry about a 60 Minutes piece since Leslie Stahl interviewed Nancy Pelosi about a week before the 2006 election and focused on her clothes and appearance with superficial, irrelevant and insulting questions and comments. However, Couric trumped that disgrace ten-fold with her interview of John and Elizabeth Edwards on Sunday night.

One of the things that annoyed me most about this interview was Couric's use of the Fersatz News Channel's well known tactic of beginning questions with "some would say" and "many are saying." That's just euphemism for "I think you should be home, Elizabeth" or "Are you sure you want to continue the campaign?" or "Should you be doing this?"

I guess I sound like a paranoid, whining Republican, many of whom have made calling the media "liberal" a cliché.

Before I take off on a serious rant, I understand that Katie Couric has a fair amount of expertise and personal experience with cancer. I'm certainly not without sympathy or empathy for all that she's endured as a wife and mother after her husband Jay Monahan passed away from colon cancer in 1998. She also lost her sister, Emily, to pancreatic cancer in 2001. And, from all that I've seen and read, she's been a wonderful mom to her children, especially in light of them losing their father at such a tragically young age.

Couric also deserves unequivocal praise for her work on behalf of cancer. She's had a mammogram and also a colonoscopy on the air while hosting NBC's Today Show. She's brought a lot of visibility, attention and awareness to cancer.

Aside from all of that, though, I still don't see how that gave her the right to be a bulldog to John and Elizabeth Edwards like she did on Sunday night.

Couric falls just short of openly criticizing Elizabeth Edwards for not being at home with her kids. From what I've read, Couric didn't leave her job for any length of time at The Today Show when her husband was diagnosed with cancer. It's a wonder what nannies can do, huh Katie? Why should the Edwardses be held to a different standard, because they both committed to public service? They shouldn't.

I wonder how Couric would have felt if a reporter asked her similar questions when her husband was diagnosed with colon cancer. Picture reporters sticking microphones in her face, asking her all sorts of questions about why she wasn't home with her husband and children. She would have resented it, and rightfully so.

What's more, John and Elizabeth Edwards are certainly setting out to do more by serving their country as opposed to doing a morning show with Matt Lauer for 15 years. I see footage like this, and it's little wonder Couric's CBS Evening News is tanking.

What irked me most was how Couric openly questioned whether Edwards could run the country while distracted [with Elizabeth's illness]. Couric might want to pick up a history book.

Here are just a few off the top of my head...

If Elizabeth Edwards' health is such a concern, how about Dick Cheney's? He was recently hospitalized for blood clots in his leg, and he has a history of heart attacks and coronary problems. Let's not forget that Cheney is without a doubt the most powerful vice president in modern times, maybe ever. And he's one tragedy away from the presidency.

Where's Couric with a question about Cheney's health? Keeping up with all of the scandals that are plaguing Dick's administration has got to be taking a toll on his health, so maybe it should be a concern.

President Reagan had three major operations while in office, including an operation for colon cancer. Yes, there were stories in the press about it, but not the kind of media attention that Elizabeth Edwards is getting. Funny how the press didn't question whether he should remain as president or not.

President Nixon had a very serious phlebitis that could have killed him while he was president, but admittedly those health problems occurred late in his presidency, when the nation's attention was on Watergate.

Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Lyndon Johnson had a record of serious health problems before and during their presidencies, and none, save FDR, affected the presidency. In FDR's case, he was clearly dying even before the election of 1944, but the nation was reluctant to change leaders during World War II, and his health was hid from the nation during that election.

But, the cases above were pre-Watergate, after which just about anything has been fair game to report in the media.

Having said all of that, it's absurd and insulting to believe that John Edwards could not effectively function as a leader while dealing with his wife's illness if he were to win the 2008 election.

If anyone's health should be speculated on and raised as an issue in this campaign, it's John McCain's. He's been treated for recurrent skin cancer, including melanoma, in 1993, 2000, and 2002. What's more, he will turn 72 in 2009, the year he would take the oath of office if he wins the 2008 presidential election. I'm not saying McCain's health should be an issue in this campaign, but it most certainly should be more of an issue than Elizabeth Edwards'.

To his credit, since his interview with his wife on 60 Minutes, John Edwards has come out and publicly stated he didn't have a problem with the questions. But, keep in mind he's running for office, and he wants to demonstrate that he can handle the tough questions.

The Couric interview was inexcusable - CBS should have known better.

Not much time to write 'til tonight...

But in the meantime, a few hard hittin' cartoons to start your week. I found some good ones today.

I can think of 500 billion reasons why this 'toon hits painfully close to home.

Speaks for itself. "If you're losing the argument, change the argument." -- Somewhere on Karl Rove's desk, there's probaby a granite stone with those words chisled into it. He's turned changing the argument and coming up with effective distrations into an art form. Karl Rove - the modern-day Rasputin.

A homerun. And yes, Newt really did send his wife divorce papers while she was recovering from cancer. If there is a hell, the presidential suite there is named in his honor. I'll have more on Edwards' decision to stay in the race later tonight.

This is another cartoon that is painfully apropos. I've been reading and listening to a great deal of stories in the media lately about a possible economic collapse. There are lots of signs, and one of the biggest is the rate of foreclosures, which is skyrocketing. I was just telling Vandra last night that we need to get rid of our variable rate mortgage, immediately. We're looking into it. More on this later, too. I've got lots to write about tonight.

Limbaugh's addiction just for ratings

Sources have told CMB that right-wing political commentator Rush Limbaugh's confession of drug addiction to Oxycodone and subsequent rehab were just to get a spike in his increasingly poor ratings. I'm told that Limbaugh probably could have kept his addiction secret, but he felt that if he went public, it would give his sagging ratings a much needed kick in the pants, since his contract is up for renegotiation in less than 18 months.

Seem ridiculous? That's because it is - I just made it up. What I just did - completely fabricating a story, is the same thing that Limbaugh does every day before he takes to the airwaves to spread his lies, hatred and intolerance.



Anyway, this time Rush has truly outdone himself. Keith Olbermann in the clip above probably puts it best - this dirt bag couldn't even give it a day before attacking Democratic Presidential Candidate John Edwards and his wife?

What's more, to even suggest that a presidential candidate from any party would use his wife's cancer for a boost in poll numbers is so idiotic that it should almost qualify as a hate crime. But, we live in a country where even drug- and Twinkie-addicted, impotent slobs like Limbaugh get to spread their hate.

Someday, hopefully soon, people, even radical Repubes, will stop listening to him. That day can't get here quickly enough. First with Michael J. Fox, now with Elizabeth Edwards. Who's next? No word yet on whether he's planning on attacking Ann Coulter for her rumored bipolar disorder as a ploy to just sell books. Wait...

Is it a bad thing for me to wish an STD on Limbaugh? Nothing fatal, like HIV, but something incredibly uncomfortable, like genital warts. Herpes would be the best - he'd have to go on the air with a big red growth. He's a Republican, so he could accessorize with a red blister. I guess a big blue blister would be too much to ask for.

My point here, made in a mildly vulgar way, is that some day, Limbaugh will realize that all of the evil he spreads will come back to haunt him. I guess the same could be said of me for typing what I just typed about him, but hey, somebody's got to say it.

It angers me that he's so successful. And he's only as successful as he is because there are people out there who have bought into his ridiculous, hateful tripe.

For those of you who missed it, here's the Edwards' press conference announcing that Elizabeth Edwards' cancer has returned...