The HuffPo disallowed comments from its story about Cheney's bloodclot today.

I think that's a crappy way to do business, but I guess that's how Arianna feels she has to deal with the "gotcha" conservatives.

I think Ms. Coulter used remarkable restraint. I mean she didn't use the "D" word to describe Hillary; didn't use the "N" word to describe Obama; and further refrained from uttering a number of racial epithets that could have been used to describe Bill Richardson. Plainly she remains the darling of so many Republicans because her own maturation and personal growth reflects the maturation and growth of the big tent Republican party itself. So why all the fuss?

I think that's a crappy way to do business, but I guess that's how Arianna feels she has to deal with the "gotcha" conservatives.

Yeah - even though I understand what I think is driving that choice, I think she's making a mistake by doing that, too. For one thing, if you start closing down comments or deleting them at times, it can create the reasonable suggestion that you approve of comments that you don't delete.

Additionally, she's almost lending credence to the notion that anonymous comments are meaningful, and she therefore needs to conceal them. Anonymous comments on a blog can come from anyone, and the number of people who comment on any given blog - especially larger ones like hers - is a minute fraction of the people who read the blog.

But I guess she has a brand to protect and a well-funded blog to safeguard and doesn't want to give anyone ammunition to attack her. I say that not to be derogatory, just descriptive. I think that's what is motivating her.

Isn't that nice. A petition. Gosh. Obviously, they don't like the negative publicity that "raghead" or "faggot" or her vile comment about 9/11 widows garners, but none of these right-wingers have any problem at all with Ann Coulter's everyday sleaze, since the hate she spews is no different than theirs. They're not about to disavow stuff like this:

"Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do."

"The FBI allowed thousands of Americans [in the WTC] to be slaughtered on the altar of political correctness. What more do liberals want?"

"Liberals are up to their old tricks again. Twenty years of treason haven't slowed them down."

"Liberals become indignant when you question their patriotism, but simultaneously work overtime to give terrorists a cushion for the next attack and laugh at dumb Americans who love their country and hate the enemy."

"Liberals have made themselves incapable of feeling hate for the enemy."

"We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too."

Etc. ad nauseum

But I guess she has a brand to protect and a well-funded blog to safeguard and doesn't want to give anyone ammunition to attack her. I say that not to be derogatory, just descriptive. I think that's what is motivating her.

-- GlennGreenwald

I agree with you. Along those lines, some have speculated that Arianna has gotten pressure from her advertisers to keep things "cleaner." I have no evidence for this, but it sounds reasonable. Other theories include that she is trying to keep conservatives from posting nasty things while pretending to be "liberals."

But, either way, what you're saying is true. She is trying to protect her brand, reputation, revenue, etc. And, as a private actor, she is not required to allow comments.

A related conservative talking point appears to have surfaced already. It's along the lines of, "Arianna's so afraid of her hateful, angry, Bush-deranged liberal readers embarrassing her that she had to shut down comments on the Cheney thread." She can't win. I guess it just comes down to what her advertisers concerns are. She needs to balance that (and keeping the site open and functioning) against the "noise machine."

In the past, she has advocated for the murder of Supreme Court Justices, blowing up buildings in NYC, and shooting at Bill CLinton. Since no big name Conservatives disavowed her after she said these things, yet they are disavowing her "faggot" comment, doesn't that mean they think the other positions are okay?

I'd love to hear them explain why it is that (a) they need to ask a "respectable" organization like CPAC to keep a hate-spewing bigot off its stage, and (b) whether they think a petition will do anything to diminish the popularity of Coulter's views, as manifest in cheers, heavy booking on college campuses, as well as astronomical book sales?

What does all this mean about their conservative movement? The idea that they could get around that issue with some cheap and easy "repudiation" on their blog or something is absurd. I'm not saying they don't deserve a bit of credit for the petition effort, but there are bigger questions about their brand that ought to be occurring to them.

Did you really have to type that link?

Does it add anything to the discussion.

Gees

Kristin wrote: A related conservative talking point appears to have surfaced already. It's along the lines of, "Arianna's so afraid of her hateful, angry, Bush-deranged liberal readers embarrassing her that she had to shut down comments on the Cheney thread." She can't win.

So true-it is always a damned if you do, damned if you don't proposition. If she had allowed comments and someone posted something negative-the talking point would then be "Liberal Huffington Post still allows angry/hateful comments from deranged left". I really don't think there is anything the left can do that doesn't have the potential to be be ripped apart by some on the right just to generate a "talking point".

the Daily Howler for today. He makes the excellent point that Maureen Dowd is Coulter Lite, and more dangerous because her drivel is taken more seriously.

You just proved my point.

By deleting all references to a website that used obscene language in association with Ann Coulter's name, you've denied people the right to judge the actual content for themselves.

Content that happens to be extremely funny, brilliant, and relevant to this particular situation.

I've been sticking up for you, but your knee-jerk reaction to "offensive" speech proves that your editorial staff is actually NOT at all progressive.

Rather, you're mimicking the behavior of the worst kind of RE-gressives.

One of the worst things, for instance, about Wal-Mart is its hair-trigger eagerness to pander to the lowest common denominator.

They once stopped selling a t-shirt that said "Someday a Woman Will Be President" because "customers" complained.

That's exactly what you just did.