Last week marked another round in the seemingly endless feud between conservative firebrand Ann Coulter and Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards. Many on the Left view this as a one-dimensional morality play pitting Good (Edwards) against Evil (Coulter). I have a much different take on it.
Ann Coulter has made her mark on the political landscape as a conservative “shock jock,” sort of a blonde Howard Stern in a mini-skirt (am I dating myself with that term?). Her comments about radical Muslims would have gotten her beheaded (or worse) in Copenhagen or Amsterdam, and her personal invectives against the widows of 9-11 victims known collectively as the “Jersey Girls” were so incredibly cruel and insensitive that even Michelle Malkin and Laura Ingraham distanced themselves from them.
Why does she do this? The cynic in me says it’s just to sell books. Since many of her media appearances are in conjunction with the release of a new book (or the paperback edition of an old one), and since she has had a fairly large number of best-selling works, the easy conclusion to draw is that there’s a cause and effect. The old adage that there’s no such thing as bad publicity may hold true in the short run, but Coulter’s books wouldn’t consistently sell like they do if they weren’t well written and meticulously researched. The gratuitous barbs that are thrown in get her the attention, but the quality of her work gives her the staying power.
Another reason may be because her outrageous comments tweak the Left. Like the Right’s visceral reaction to Rosie O’Donnell and Michael Moore, if Ann Coulter’s comments are designed to send liberals into fits of apoplexy, she does not disappoint. She can play the Left like a fiddle any time she opens her caustic mouth.
How does Coulter get away with all this? I believe there are at least two reasons: 1) Her physical attractiveness. Like the villians in the movie ”Mean Girls,” Coulter may be cruel, but at least her svelt body, long legs, flowing locks and pleasant face are easier on the eyes than a Rosie O’Donnell or Michael Moore; and 2) Her timing. Unlike Rosie, Ann knows how to sneak on the scene, throw her bomb, and high tail it into the tall grass before the public tires of her. O’Donnell’s constant exposure on the TV show “The View” and her inability to shut up were her ultimate undoing.
Coulter has taken on her share of liberal icons over the years, but no one person has been the brunt of more of Coulter’s scathing attacks than John Edwards. Whether it’s his penchant for capitalizing on personal tragedy or his near obsession with his personal appearance, Coulter has pulled no punches in her attacks on Edwards. The context of two recent swipes (the “faggot” comment and the assassination wish) each contained a meta-message that was at once ignored and/or discounted by the media and the Left. In the former, Coulter was poking fun at the ridiculous promise of actor Isaiah Washington to go into rehab to deal with his “homophobia” (Washington recently admitted that the whole thing was made up to put him back in the good graces of politically correct Hollywood). In the latter, she was alluding to the Bill Maher’s comments that had the jihadists’ attempt to assassinate Vice President Cheney, it might not have been a bad thing. The latter meta-message was clearly expressed by Coulter in the context of her comments; the former was so obtuse that even many conservatives missed it.
This time, faced with a floundering campaign, the Edwards camp decided to fight back. During an appearence by Coulter on MSNBC’s Hard Ball, Elizabeth Edwards called and all but told Coulter to stop exercising her First Amendment rights. Coulter asked her a very important question, for which Mrs. Edwards didn’t have a believable answer. Why was it she, and not her candidate husband, who called?
The answer is obvious: In the public’s eye, Edwards could have been perceived as the male bullying the female. He also could have run the risk of giving Coulter’s comments more importance than they should have had for someone who would be leader of the Free World. But Elizabeth Edwards was the perfect foil for Coulter. Not only was this the kind of female-to-female cat fight that plays well in venues like mud wrestling, in the eyes of the Left, Elizabeth had the same unassailability as Cindy Sheehan and the Jersey Girls before her. How dare anyone engage poor Mrs. Edwards in a fair exchange of ideas? After all, she has the double whammy of losing a loved one and suffering from cancer.
But the Edward campaign didn’t stop there. Coulter was too good an opportunity so close to the end of the second quarter of political fundraising. So he did what he knows best from his days as a medical malpractice plaintiffs’ attorney: he played to the sympathies of the “jury” of potential contributors for his campaign’s financial gain. Coulter played the role of the arrogant doctor to his “client’s” (Elizabeth’s) pain and suffering. They even posted video clips of Coulter on their website to drum up contributions.
Why was this so important? Because the Edwards campaign is in deep trouble. Hillary Clinton has gravitas, but her political baggage of eight years as co-president is a liability. Obama is a political lightweight, but at least he has the charisma to inspire potential voters. Edwards has neither gravitas nor charisma. And to make matters worse, Bill Richardson, the candidate with the most impressive resume in the field from years of legislative, executive and diplomatic experience, was breathing down the neck of Edwards. When the fundraising numbers came in, Edwards had raised around $9 million to Richardson’s $7 million. So depending on who’s rating these things, Edwards hung on by his finger nails to the bottom of the first tier, and Richardson had to settle for the top of the second tier.
Would Richardson have outdone Edwards were it not for the Coulter bounce in contributions? Will sales of the paperback version of Coulter’s “Godless” benefit as a result of the publicity she received? We may never know for sure. But both Coulter and Edwards are playing off of each other in a classic example of codependency.
In a recent interview with the New York Times, Elizabeth Edwards said the following:
“It was Nietzsche or Kierkegaard who said you have to believe in something so strongly that you don’t acknowledge another’s point of view: That’s what real belief is.”
There was a moment of silence on the telephone. “Now I don’t go that far,” Mrs. Edwards said.
You and John had better not, Elizabeth. That would be biting the hand that feeds your coffers.
