It Was Indeed Criminal

With thanks to Tom Tomorrow and Illusory Tenant.

"I don't know if the number is 30%, 60%, 80% or 90%. I'm unaware of any study that contradicts those numbers." -- Mike Gableman





Click on cartoon to enlarge.

Another Offering from that King of Comedic Writing, John

Our friend John, the right-wing commenter strikes again with more humor, grammatical errors and unrelenting rant over at Rick Esenberg's Shark and Shepherd.

Rick and our very own hero, the unpatriotic, LIBERAL, lose at all costs villain, Jay Bullock (folkbum's rambles and rants) are engaged in a fine discussion on waterboarding (is it torture or a fun summer activity) and whether or not waterboarding (the tortuous kind) was really effective in getting Abu Zubadayh to confess to vicious plots against American citizens, or to the location of his favorite hot dog stands on the east coast.

John decided to take matters into his own hands and he came up with this gem ... nay, masterpiece (note the exquisite use of the sticky caps lock key).

Rick, whether waterboarding has been effective "enough", is specious and unrelated to the question of whether it is TORTURE or not.

To wit, Jay et al, will NEVER acknowledge a rough technique as being "effective", as long as Jay, et al, are "invested" in discrediting President Bush, and as such are "invested" in our countries "discredit or failure" in terms of political discourse.

It's far beyond obvious. Jay Bullock, will NEVER, accept any victories by our Country, so long as HIS, party/friends, are not responsible for said victories.

That is pretty much the emblematic definition of being a traitor,(yes I am questioning Jay's patiotism or lack thereof).

Rick, I'm confident that you agree, but as usual, I recognize that you are above most of this rancor.I'll end with this.

Jay Bullock sais the following:

((No one has been able to demonstrate that a single life has been saved or a single attack prevented through the use of the technique}}

Rick, if you do not recognize how far Jay Bullock and his like, will go to deny what is obvious, then you too are nuts.

John's confidence that Rick will agree with him may or may not be founded in fact. I'd bet the house John's confidence is misplaced, however, it does beg another question. Most of us would agree that a large percentage of conservative writers are well-meaning and thoughtful (stop laughing back there, it's the season for generosity). Truly though, most do not stoop to John's level. The question being begged is when does Rick, and even Jessica McBride (whose blog John frequents) who has famously decried anonymous commenters though John has no blog and anyone could set up with the name John to make comments, say something about this clown?

I see all the time where liberal voices will disagree with each other and even call out someone for something said. Heck, in one of my more sleepy moments I once wrote something untrue about James Wigderson as a comment at Jay's blog. James caught it and wrote a gracious denial, even suspecting that I had to have been tired. Jay jumped on it and told me quite frankly it wasn't true.

I offered my apologies to James, which he accepted. We all make mistakes, but Jay stood up for a - gasp – conservative. Frankly, other than James who is always fair (and perhaps Dean Mundy, though I read his blog less often, to my shame) I have never seen another do the same.

It's really not that big of a deal. John's comments do provide comic relief and fodder for more Whallah posts, but it would be nice to see it happen just occasionally.

What? It Could Happen

With apologies to Tom Tomorrow.

In McBride World, where non-objectivity in journalism is a virtue, where one can be on the faculty of a major university even though they are not, and where down is up and she broadcasts a radio show from her bed ... well, anything is possible.

McBride, Again

Good grief. Jessica McBride has a post, entitled "Big Surprise," about Milwaukee Journal Sentinel columnist Laurel Walker. She says of Walker:

The Journal Sentinel's lefty Waukesha columnist Laurel Walker adorns her "Christmas" tree with "secular baubles." Why am I not surprised?

This is what Walker actually wrote:

My tree (once it's up and decorated) is a Christmas tree, decorated with mostly secular baubles, souvenirs, a lot of "Sesame Street" characters (dating to the boys' childhoods), a handful of angels and a tiny hanging crèche - maybe even two.

So, if one had only looked at McBride's post, as at least two commenters obviously did, one would get the mistaken idea that Walker's Christmas decorations are all secular.

It's a pathetic game of gotcha by McBride. Some might even say she was being disingenuous (you know, lying). In any case, it was incredibly petty and beneath a "professional journalist."

Why is she teaching at my alma mater anyway?

Save Us from Fools

I've been trying to stay away.

Other than the minor fact that abortion is still a legal medical procedure in this state when performed by a licensed physician and with the concurrence of the woman , is there anything about this post by Jessica McBride that even resembles logical thought ... oh hell, how about adult thought?

An Appleton man is correctly charged with "first-degree murder of an unborn child."

So why aren't women who abort their unborn children charged with the same offense?

The only difference is who's taking the life. But the life is the same no matter who's taking it. If it wasn't a life, he wouldn't have been charged. So, logically, if it's a life, as the system has thus conceded, why do some people have the right to take it? Can you think of any other crime where the victim is the same, and there is the intentional taking of life, but there's different legal consequence for different perpetrators? The only analogy I can think of is for mentally ill defendants or juveniles - same victim, different punishment.

Another example of the “brilliance” and “genius” of the right side of the cheddarsphere, I guess.

I Object (continued)

The continuing saga of Peter DiGuadio and the chattering chihuahuas. Capper at Whallah and the Brew City Brawler have taken up the slack and kept up the heat on some very objectionable blogging. Below are links to four additional posts.

Very interesting, indeed.

Blogger who called Mexicans "chihuahuas" stands by his words

Why does the Journal Sentinel's McIlheran link to a blogger who calls Mexicans "chihuahuas" part two

Why does the Journal Sentinel's McIlheran link to a blogger who calls Mexicans "chihuahuas"

Time For Some More Satire

The Headline Was Telling

I continue to be astounded by Jessica McBride.

Her most recent leap into looniness is titled: Isn't this headline telling?

The headline in question tops a front page article in the Journal Sentinel: Residents of south side divided on whom to blame.

All right, I thought, let's start with how the headline is telling. So I linked over before reading the rest of her post and I read the story. I discovered that the headline is an accurate decription of the story. The story includes a number of interviews with local residents about the recent shootings on southside. Each of the residents interviewed shares personal horror stories and their different views of the shootings and the reasons why. Also part of the article are statements from District Attorney John Chisholm, Police Chief Nannette Hegerty and Mayor Tom Barrett. In other words, the writer, Linda Spice, did her job as a professional journalist. She did not try to ascertain right or wrong. She remained neutral and objective. She reported. It's a good article.

I returned to McBride's blog. All right, why is the headline telling, I asked myself? This weird ramble from the golden-haired one followed:

This is an open question? Why is it a tough question? The people to blame are the shooter(s). THE SHOOTER SHOT 2 COPS.

Both sides play the blame game - it's the gun! it's the culture! it's poverty!I don't even blame gangs. A person has to choose to join a gang.

I would apportion some blame to the parents; however, not as much blame as the shooter deserves. The shooter was allegedly 15. The parents should have made sure their underage child wasn't roaming around the street, possibly with a gang, shooting at cops. Period.

Okay. What was that all about? The headline did not ask a question. The rest read like something my 12-year old would put together. At least he is learning to reread what he writes and work with rough drafts before submitting a final copy.

Now I know that she is just writing on a blog. And I know she's probably writing bits and pieces between the times she spends with her daughter, or looking at the television, or scheming ways for her husband and herself to keep their name in the limelight (you know, like lawyering up for the Sheboygan One). But still, you would think she had a little more self-respect and would attempt to at least make some sense.

Please, why is she teaching journalism?

Shallow Hal's Sister?

Is it possible for Jessica McBride to be any shallower?

She links to a story about a child that miraculously survived an attempted abortion and wonders why there isn't any condemnation of the original decision to abort.

Of course, it matters not to her that it was a joint decision of doctors and mother. The doctors believed the child would die in the womb and his death could cause the twin to die as well.

Happily the child survived.

What is there to condemn?

If I were the mother, I know what I would call McBride for her insinuation that anyone, doctor or mother needs to be condemned for what was a heartbreaking decision based on the best medical evidence. But I would keep it to myself or the conservative blogosphere would be all over it.

We Will Persevere

James Wigderson of Wigderson Library & Pub, doesn't get it.

I like James. He has a wonderful wife, cute kids, a beautiful mother and an always interesting father who keeps sending me the weirdest stuff imaginable via e-mail (keep it up, Bill ... I do look at every one of them). James' politics are diametrically opposed to mine, but we can talk. Sometimes it gets a little hot. Most often, though, humor defuses the tense situations and we come to an understanding.

However, in this instance, his defense of Jessica McBride, while expected and applauded (he is, after all, a friend of hers), is wrong on many levels.

The key point he misses in his lengthy and rambling defense is this: McBride should not have asked the question in the first place.

One would have thought a journalism lecturer (you know, a professional) would have known better than to write such an ill-advised and questionably bigoted statement. One would have thought she would have waited for more facts rather than making flippant remarks. If after the fact it had been determined that the people murdered were indeed gangsta rappers, then perhaps a story about the dangers inherent in that musical profession, with links to the Tupac shooting and other incidents might have been relevant.

But McBride didn't do that. That's the shame of McBride and the reason her exploits are exposed. The right would rather that their words were ignored, while they are allowed to attack with reckless abandon. Why do you think they are so against the Fairness Doctrine and so obsessed with "liberal" bias?

It's because they can't win the argument. And now that liberals have caught on to conservative tactics and are again winning the public opinion war, conservatives are fretting.

Fret away and never fear, the McBride, Fred Dooley, Peter DiGaudio and right-wing watch will continue unabated.

A New Crandon Murder Theory

Jessica McBride has a new post up regarding the Crandon murders. Under the title, Open Comment Thread", McBride asks this:

OK, post your theories.

How do you think the Crandon killer managed to shoot himself three times in the head?

I left a comment but somehow think it won't be printed. My theory is this:

Because he read this blog?

All right, it was snarky.


UPDATE: OMG! She did. Free speech lives.

A Little Accuracy Would Be Nice

Jessica McBride really should be sure of what she is posting before doing so. In this case McBride, as an update at the end of a rant about Columbia University inviting the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to speak, informs us that Hitler once did visit Columbia University. She gives a hat tip to that intellectual, Michelle Malkin (though no link) for leading her to that fount of accurate info, Little Green Footballs. It is there, she says, where the truth of the University's dalliance with the enemy is revealed.

Well, not exactly. Little Green Footballs reveals that it was the German ambassador to the United States, Hans Luther, who was invited to speak, not Hitler. In fact, the closest Hitler ever came to the United States was probably in some trench during WWI. Something the eternally clueless McBride could have discovered if she had checked. Something, you know, a lecturer in journalism at a major university might have done.

What gets me the most, though, is not this yet-another-example of McBride's sloppy writing, it's the fact that she really does not understand how a free society operates ... you know, that marketplace of ideas thing that she should be promoting as (I shudder to write this again) a lecturer of journalism at a major university. Let's look at the facts for a moment.

When the offer to speak was extended to Herr Luther in 1933, Germany was still ostensibly a democratic nation and the elected president, Paul Hindenburg had just appointed Adolf Hitler chancellor in January. It would have been considered a coup then (as today) to have the ambassador of a major country speak at any university. And make no mistake about it, Germany was considered a major player in the world and its recovery from the Great Depression was looked upon as a marvel. A recovery, by the way, that had almost nothing to do with Hitler and had almost everything to do with the democratically-elected government, sound fiscal policies and a hard-working citizenry.

Hitler's political success would come later at the expense of a cowed parliament that rubber-stamped everything he and his thugs proposed, and citizens who were exquisitely deluded by the propaganda machine of Joseph Goebbels in a manner not unlike how talk radio is used to misinform and promote GOP talking points and hysteria today.

So, it's easy for wing-nuts to condemn Columbia University, in hindsight, but the fact is in 1933 the excesses to come of the future dictatorship were as yet unknown. That there were some protesters who were prescient enough about Hitler still says nothing about the university's decision.

Inviting the president of Iran to speak is not a condoning of his nation's policies. It is an opportunity to hear what he has to say, and perhaps to ask tough questions, where he will learn first-hand what freedom of speech really means. It will be a remarkable opportunity for students. They should not be denied the chance to hear, unfettered of propaganda from either govenment, what a major actor on the world stage has to say.

In the end, it's just another stupid gotcha attempt by the right and Jessica McBride.

McBride Strikes Again

Sheesh. I've not been posting because I've really been trying to enjoy what remains of the summer. That means spending time with the kids, my wife (the woman of my dreams), visiting friends and celebrating birthdays. But, today, I made the mistake of traveling to Jessica McBride's world. Hers is one I have been avoiding mostly because of the mendacity of her posts, but also because it's become somewhat boring to pick at her every written word. However, this entry took the cake. She wrote:

Bill Clinton was, at worst, slightly right of center.

Bill Clinton was incredibly popular.

So, if Bill Clinton was slightly right of center, and he was incredibly popular, the liberals are finally admitting that conservative ideals are incredibly popular with the public, right? They are the mainstream ideals, even if the media won't admit it.


Reading this was enough to cause some bile to rise uncomfortably into my throat. Little did I know she would later surpass herself in utter illogicality.

I should have left well enough alone, but I returned and discovered she had written this response to a comment about her post claiming that her reasoning was a bit off (realism: Correlation does not imply causality.). McBride replied that her piece had been an example of deductive reasoning and laid out this argument.

It's deductive logic.

Bill Clinton was slightly right of center.

Bill Clinton was incredibly popular.

Thus, being right of center must be incredibly popular.

She's right, to an extent. What we have here is a categorical syllogism, though better written if the conclusion had been: "Thus, being right of center was incredibly popular.

Aside from that, the thought occurred to me that her argument was less than one would expect from a 30-something woman, who astonishingly enough teaches at the university level. Her argument barely rose to the level of adolescent playground banter.

If that had been the end of her comment, one might have let it go, saddened that a mind is so misused. Alas, for her, she continued to put finger to keypad and produced a truly remarkable mudpie.

Or, perhaps, that the power of personality matters so much to liberals that they will reject their principles, if you buy that Clinton was slightly right of center and incredibly popular but still argue that the public is not.

To wit, one can only say, "Huh?"

UPDATE: Professor Putnam would probably say my writings on logic need improvement. Illusory Tenant and capper at Whallah need no corrections.

Mark Belling v Margaret Farrow

Jessica McBride tantalizes us with this five word reportage of a Mark Belling and Margaret Farrow debate. She says, "Who do you think won?" Such in-depth reporting.

Somewhat surprisingly, dad29, a decidely right-wing kind of guy (btw: I thought McBride said anyone not using their own name was gutless and she wouldn't allow their posts), steps in and says this about Belling:

"It is not unusual for Belling to make asinine and uninformed statements to keep interest/ratings in his show. If it's a 'sliming contest,' Belling wins. Not the first time."

In retrospect, daddio's response doesn't really surprise me. I will say this, he is a straight shooter. McBride's response is not a surprise either, alas:

"I don't agree with your description of Belling at all. I think he calls it like he sees it and acts from principle not partisan allegiance."

I wonder what sort of principles Belling employs when hanging out at Victors and ogling the young girls, many who are of an age to be his daughter, if he had managed to have any. Thankfully, he has not reproduced.

However, saying Belling is not a partisan hack is precious. In the world of McBride, down really is up.

UPDATE: After the fact, McBride adds this. Apparently she reads other blogs.

(My take? Belling won hands-down. Arguing for the legal defense of racial preferences isn't an easy sell.)

Why We Love Jess

"What's with the weird obsession most of the Lefty Blogger Guys in Milwaukee have with Jessica McBride? By comparison John Hinckley had a take-her-or-leave-her attitude about Jodie Foster. I really don't get it. "

This question was broached by Tom McMahon in a previous post and I thought it deserving of an answer because, unlike what J-J-J-Jeff Wagner said about those of us who follow McBride ("the kook fringe ...insanely jealous of her..."), we are all relatively sane individuals.

So why the attention?

For myself, McBride deserves the attention because she is an embarrassment claiming to be a professional journalist. She mocks the history and the role of the press every time she puts fingers to keyboard. She disregards Thomas Jefferson who said: "Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost." She misses the point of Napoleon Bonaparte who said: "Three hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets."

Journalists are not here to cater to the party line, which McBride unfailingly does; they are the bulwark of our freedom. That's why she annoys me so much when she so freely besmirches this respectable institution and yet claims to be a card-carrying member. Her forays into commentary contain a disregard for fact and decency that begs for attention.

Bill Christofferson and Mike Plaisted also agreed to comment. Christofferson said:

"It's why Willie Sutton said he robbed banks; "that's where the money is." McBride is an easy and inviting target because she is so wrong so often. You might disagree with (Charlie) Sykes, for example, and challenge him on his view on issues, but you won't catch him making inane comments or stupid mistakes on a daily basis. That is what sets McBride apart.

"She is in a class by herself -- a self-centered ditz, with very little knowledge, who got built up and promoted way beyond her ability and capacity. Her commentary might be tolerable from a teen, but not from someone who presents herself as an insightful adult."

And from Plaisted:

I agree with Bill that one reason she gets so much negative attention from us is because she is such an easy target. Much more so when she had the radio show -- she was such an outrageously bad radio personality, listening to her was like watching a train wreck -- horrible, but somehow engrossingly bad.

I try to give her as little thought as possible. However, when I do, I envision her as Margaret Holihan, played by Sally Kellerman in the original M*A*S*H. Donald Sutherland as Hawkeye described her as a "typical Army clown". I think that's as apt a description for McBride -- inserting wing-nut for Army -- for the same reasons.

We do have to be a bit cognizant, it seems to me, that part of her target-worthy status is because she is a woman. Although the WISN radio geeks don't have vanity blogs, a minor nitwit like Jay Weber is just as insignificant, intellectually offensive and politically vapid as McBride.

But somehow, the same sort of nonsense coming from a smug, elitist woman has much more of a fingernail-on-the-chalkboard quality to it and is so much more fun to criticize. I don't think this is sexist -- she just stands out from the white-boys who usually run the GOP talking points. Her (literally)air-brushed self-image wrapped up with her nose-in-the-air sanctimony and the fact that she is so marvelously wrong all the time just makes her too wonderfully bad for words. It would be blogger malpractice not to take on her glamour-puss at every opportunity.

Now Tom, are you going to ask the same question of those who find every word written by Eugene Kane fodder for comment?

Shallow Jess

Jessica McBride's lack of intellectual depth is really sometimes stunning. Her most recent plunge into the shallow end of the pool regards an article in the New York Times, written by Adam Liptak, and titled, "For Libby, Bush Seemed to Alter His Texas Policy." She claims in her post titled, "The Libby False Analogy," that Mr. Liptak has provided a false analogy in the article by comparing Bush's pardon of Libby to a lack of pardons in capital crimes when Bush was governor of Texas. She huffs:

The critics say that Bush's action in the Libby case is wrong becaus he didn't commute the sentences of many death row inmates in Texas.

For starters, obviously, the death row inmates committed capital crimes. Actually, that's the end of the argument. They are murderers with special circumstances.

So: No story.

She concludes by saying the New York Times finally comes up with reasons that prove the analogy doesn't hold water, but these are buried ... bad New York Times.

I have read and reread the article and can only come to one conclusion ... McBride's treading water and barely staying afloat when all she needs is to put her feet down to touch bottom.

The article had nothing to do with what critics of the Libby action may be saying. The article is entirely a discussion about the history of Bush's policy toward clemency, which has been (essentially) if you're guilty of the crime, you pay the consequences. Liptak writes:

In Mr. Libby’s case, Mr. Bush expressed no doubts about his guilt. He said he respected the jury’s verdict, and he did not pardon Mr. Libby, leaving him a convicted felon. And Mr. Bush acted before the courts had completed their review of his appeal.

Liptak then ponders whether Bush has changed his standard for clemency because it has been documented that clemency, for Bush, was reserved for cases of "demonstrable actual innocence," a far different cry from his decision in the Libby case. The article concludes with this:

In June, before the Libby commutation, The Austin American-Statesman reviewed Mr. Bush’s record on clemency as president and governor in a front-page article. The headline said, "Bush history gives Libby little hope for a pardon."

The article simply explores this seeming discontinuity of Bush's action towards Libby ... at no time making a statement about the right or wrong of Bush's decision.

That is a far cry from the insinuations by McBride ... insinuations that have no basis in fact. But then, McBride has never been one to let facts get in the way of a partisan hack piece. Quick, someone throw her an inflatable doll, she's sinking fast.

She's So Silly

How stupid and annoying is this woman? Jessica McWitless notes this paragraph from the British Newspaper website Telegraph.co.uk, from an article titled "45 Muslim doctors planned US terror raids":

The three "cyber terrorists" - a British national and two who had been given the right to live in Britain - are facing lengthy jail sentences after admitting using the internet to spread al-Qa'eda propaganda inciting Muslims to a violent holy war and to murder non-believers.

They had close links with al-Qa'eda in Iraq and believed they had to fight jihad against a global conspiracy by kuffars, or non-believers, to wipe out Islam.

You mean Iraq is part of the global war on terror? Who knew.

Well, we know now. They weren't and wouldn't have been there but for the actions of this incredibly corrupt administration. Gee, who would have known they would go where it was easiest to strike at Americans.

McWitless and her fellow co-travellers in lunacy (i.e. most conservative bloggers) are like little kids confronted with an empty cookie jar. They ate all the cookies, but having discovered that someone else might have had a cookie, once upon a time ... well, you know who's to blame for eating the cookies.

Jessica Mcpocrisy

Oh heck, I just commented over at Jessica McBride's (first time for everything), but really should have posted it here. Here is what poor Jessica has to say about Scooter Libby:

Remember that Libby was convicted of lying in a politically-motivated investigation into something that wasn't a crime. In other words, he covered up something that wasn't criminal.

Hmmm. Replace the name Libby with Clinton and you get a healthy dose of understanding into conservative hypocrisy.

Puff the Magic Commenter

This post is in response to comments made by that master debater, Fred Dooley, author of the hilariously named Real Debate blog. Fred responded first to my post titled "Wrong Again", in which I chastised local former radio host, Jessica McBride, for comparing herself to that tub of malprofundity, Rush Limbaugh, and to man puppet, Ann Coulter. Fred took issue first with my comments that Limbaugh's inelegant spoof of David Ehrenstein's "Obama the Magic Negro" op ed was inherently racist. He asked why I did not condemn Ehrenstein's piece in the same manner as I condemned Limbaugh, reminding me that Ehrenstein is black.

Hmmm. Let me type this slowly for Fred and his friends so they can understand (mind you I type slowly anyway). Ehrenstein's piece was indeed provacative. He spoke of white liberal guilt and its need to replace the "highly sexualized black man" with a benign figure, someone like Scatman Crothers or Will Smith.

But for goodness sake, it was an opinion piece ... and fyi, well written. Make up your own mind, but don't dance around and tell me that Ehrenstein and Limbaugh are somehow related in matters racial.

Limbaugh and his parody ... it had nothing to do with opinion. It had everything to do with satisfying that little itch that can't be scratched publicly, so distract the viewers with a little song and dance. Digby said it best back in April 2007.

He [Limbaugh] knows his audience and what they are thinking. And that little ditty "Barack the Magic Negro" will stick --- not in the minds of the liberals whom Ehrenstein claims see him as the great assuager of liberal guilt, but by racist creeps who just love to snigger and snort over the word "negro." Dittoheads know exactly what Rush is about here no matter what kind of patently absurd nonsense he spews about liberals putting African Americans up on auction blocks. Everybody's in on the joke.

And that's exactly what it was ... a sordid, awful and petty little joke by a petty (in stature, not girth) little man. It did not contribute anything to society. Racists never do.

I'll let another, the Illusory Tenant (who is fast becoming a fan favorite), tackle the McBride issue (which I thought I did well, but you know the old saying about short people, Fred). He lays bare McBride's silliness and abject inability to make a coherent point because she fails to do the leg work.

Regardng my other post, titled "Oh, the Injustice" ... Fred accused me of being silly for searching for a gotcha moment. The moment, in his mind, the juxtaposition of Oshkosh gun shots and Juneteenth violence. They're not the same he roars.

Again, his argument, while welcomed because blogs are for the most part compiled of opinion pieces with invitations to comment, missed the point. Hmmm. Follow the keystrokes again. I was not comparing the degree of violence, I was comparing the coverage. The post had nothing to do with the amount of violence that occurs in the respective counties, it had everything to do with white conservative bloggers spending an incredibly inordinate amount of time on black issues. I understand why ... it plays to the dittoheads among you.

Wow, Limbaugh really was a trailblazer. Even as far back as the 1970s when he once told a black caller: 'Take that bone out of your nose and call me back."

Fred, if the shoe fits ....

Don't Spare the Bombs

Jessica McBride and Ann Coulter have much in common. Both are women. Both conservative. And both wish the war in Iraq to continue, damn the consequences to the people of Iraq. More here from Coulter (from Tuesday "Hardball" edition), whom McBride has been defending of late.

"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."

Cluck Cluck

Elizabeth Edwards called into MSNBC's "Hardball" on Tuesday to speak with Ann Coulter and ask her to discontinue her personal attacks on her husband, John Edwards ... and discontinue her personal attacks in general. Coulter's response was to belittle Edwards for calling and accused her of stopping her from speaking.

Typical of Coulter and conservatives in general. Asking for civility from them is akin, in their minds, to shutting them up. Following is an interesting part of the exchange between the two, with Chris Matthews moderating:

Edwards: I'm making this 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's based on hatefulness and ugliness instead of on the issues and I don't think that's serving them or this country very well.

[Applause from the crowd]

Matthews: Thank you very much Elizabeth Edwards. (Turning to Coulter) Do you want to -- you have all the time in the world to respond.

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

That's the best Coulter could do. When confronted by someone, rather than enjoying the security of long distance attacks, Coulter is like our local former radio host, Jessica McBride ... a clucking chicken.