Here's a question for you:

In light of the complete quote, do you think that it was a reasonable explanation for Joan Walsh to say this;

"Coulter picked the fight when she called Edwards a "faggot" at the Conservative Political Action Committee meeting in January and cruelly accused him four years ago of hyping his son Wade's death."

On the latter point, we know that even John Kerry got creeped out by Edwards' casual and bogus storytelling about 'never having before revealed to anyone' that wierd little bit about him hugging his dead son's coffin or whatever it was that Edwards told Kerry when Edwards was auditioning for Veep?

Now as for your question to me, I think it is pretty clear that Ann Coulter was not seriously accusing Edwards of being a homosexual man. Is that the way that any of you took it? Are the Salonistas that humor-impaired? What Coulter was doing, first and foremost, was making fun of the msm kerfuffle over Isiah Washington and the ridiculous handwringing among the Hollywood elites who so richly deserve any ridicule that is sent their way. Secondly, she was making (in what was probably a highly oblique way) fun of Edwards' calculated, prissy, self-absorbed persona. Rightfully so. Look, I hate Edwards. You might not. You're going to like a lot of rude anti-Bush humor. I happen to like humor that trashes Edwards. It doesn't make Ann Coulter a racist or a homophobe.

The difference is that Bill Moyers is occupying time on my public broadcasting station, and Ann Coulter isn't. Anything I can do about Moyers' offensive speechifying?

The mere mention of "hanging chads and Katherine Harris" as reason to become apoplectic.

Friends, remember that practically all of the screwed-up recount counties were ones in which Democrats not only had good representation, THEY WERE THE MAJORITY PARTY, IN CONTROL OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT, AND, MOST OF THE ELECTION APPARATUS.

Katherine Harris did little other than to certify the election exactly when and how the law directed her to do so.

As for the hilarious hysteria propounded in the UK GUARDIAN (now there's a credibble news source -- couldn't somebody have quoted from Pravda or Izvestia, or one of the dailys in Beijing, Havana or Tehran?) the provisional balloting components in HAVA were designed to LET VOTERS CAST BALLOTS. They were to be regarded as provisional ballots that might be challenged later, but they COUNTED. It is just stupid and misinormed to say otherwise. But what would you expect from someone from a leftist British newspaper to say about American elections? They are just pissed off because they can't vote for Democrats in our elections. My suggestion to them is that if they want to do that, and lower their income taxes by about half, then they should just apply for statehood. And pledge allegiance to the United States of America. We'll still let them sing God Save the Queen. It's a good song. And it's a free country.

Finally, on felons voting in Florida. Just what they need. Hundreds of thousands of poor black ex-cons helping to shape state and federal policy.

So, whaddya think; can the Mets' bullpen hold up in the second half of the regular season?

I know many of you are righteously hateful when it comes to Fox.

Now, let's compare to Mr. Keith "Flamemail" Olbermann.

So tell me, based upon their respective resumes, who is the more "qualified" as an "anchorman", Sheppard Smith? Bill O'Reilly? Brit Hume? How about baseball-guy Rush Limbaugh? Compared to Keith Olbermann, the dubiously-qualified Shepp Smith might have more newsgathering experience. Bill O'Reilly, shockingly, has more schooling in public affairs. Brit Hume is beyond any question the more-qualified "news anchor"; Brit Hume was a major player at ABC News when Olbermann was trying to get a gig on "Sportscenter."

Because Hollywood has always been so expert when it comes to morality.

I remember - what was it, fifteen years ago? - that Hollywood was the place where HumVees became fashionable.

Now I guess it is the Prius that they want us to think of as fashionable. For me, the Prius is the ugliest mutt of a car I have ever seen. But if they really do go 100, I might have some new respect for them.

As for the Intra-Salon debate about the availability of certain kinds of recreational drugs, I suggest you all let Al Gore's kid settle it.

... for equating the Islamic terrorism problem with Tim Mcveigh, Paul Hill and Jim Jones.

Prof. Cole isn't attempting to make a statement about physicians and terrorism. Rather, it is his way of talking about "Western Terrorism."

This kind of moral equivalence seems to be Prof. Cole's curious specialty. Which is a lot easier to do when you are sitting in a quiet office in Ann Arbor, Michigan with tall leafy trees shading your view and the protection of faculty tenure.

I always wonder; Salon devotes so much space to the condemnation, in every imaginable form, of the Bush Administration. Where is the slightest condemnation of the murderous subhumans who are daily planting bombs in Baghdad neighborhoods and driving explosive-packed vehicles into crowded markets? Or the ones lobbing unguided rockets into Israel? Or the ones blowing up train stations in London and Madrid? Or the Bali nightclub? Or, how about the ones, before there was a war in Iraq, who flew planes into the World Trade Center?

Clearly it is not about poverty, or social justice or any other leftist pablum. The doctors and terrorists in question, Professor Cole acknowledges, came from stations of relative privilege. No, it is about a murderous philosophy that enjoys some perverse level of state sponsorship. It is a fever swamp in need of drainage.