July 3, 2007Thanks, Sis
I may have learned this week what it would have been like to have a big sister who fought battles I wanted to, but couldn’t. My “big sister’s” name was Elizabeth Edwards, and the battle she fought was the fight to focus political discussion on the issues rather than personal attack. Edwards graciously asked Ann Coulter to stop making such attacks on her husband after Coulter confessed to wishing John be killed in a terrorist assassin attack.
It’s not the first time Edwards took on this cause. She once made a similar request of a liberal blogger who wished harm to a right-wing radio host.
Edwards said, “We can put an end to this type of dialogue the same way we put an end to racist dialogue in the South: because decent people objected.”
Let’s be decent people and object.
2 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
| TrackBack URI
You can also bookmark
this on del.icio.us or check the cosmos
I’m going to be a little picky here.
Ms. Coulter did not say she wished that Mr. Edwards was dead. She was quoting a talk show host. She inserted Mr. Edwards name where another name was used. Ms. Edwards did not rebuke that man for wishing another man dead. I’m sure Ms. Edwards has her own reasons for rebuking one person and not the other, beyond the selfishness of her husband’s name being the one used.
Was it a gender issue? Was Ms. Edwards unwilling to take on a man using such inappropriate language?
Will Ms. Edwards be rebuked for stating the Ms. Rodham-Clinton is not an advocate for women? that her campaign is theater?
Speaking out with strength is good, but it seems weak if only done sporadiacally for personal reasons.
Comment by Jenni — July 17, 2007 @ 5:37 pm
I checked out the context, and you’re right. Coulter was complaining that when she implied Edwards is a “faggot” she got flack, and when comedian Bill Maher made a comment about Cheney getting caught in a terrorist attack no one seemed to mind. I mind and I do apologize for misrepresenting Coulter’s remark.
However, the context doesn’t change how I feel about Ms. Edwards request that personal attack be replace with a discussion of the issues, and I don’t agree that she needs to address Maher’s comment if she’s going to go address Coulter’s. First, Coulter made her initial “faggot” comment on the platform of a Republican Conference, and Maher made his on a comedy show. (That is not intended as a pass for putting a hateful meme out anywhere.) Second, Coulter has a history of attacking the Edwards personally, and Maher doesn’t. I think Edwards request that they keep it to the issues was both appropriate and needed. However, I think most people don’t recognize the difference between personal attack and well spoken criticisms and requests. I don’t believe Coulter did, since her response to the request was to make a personal attack.
I do know Ms. Edwards has crossed the isle and requested that liberal bloggers not wish right wing talk show host Laura Ingram ill when Ingram battled breast cancer. So she hasn’t limited her plea to those who attack her husband. As for gender, I don’t know.
I thought Ms. Edwards was very gracious in how she addressed Ann Coulter, and had Coulter felt unfairly attacked, she had the opportunity to graciously respond. From what I read, Ms. Edwards’ comments toward Hillary were gracious as well.
This is the distinction we talk about every week in my newsletter. It’s the distinction between saying what you mean and meaning what you say without being mean when you say it, and saying something that is intended to attack the messenger instead of addressing the issue. To my ears, Ms. Edwards makes relevant observations and Coulter makes personal attacks. You may hear it differently. Relevant observations CAN be critical. They CAN’T be gratuitous or exaggerated. I don’t claim to always know the difference myself, but I believe Ms. Edwards generally does and Coulter either doesn’t or she chooses not to follow the standards of communication I advocate because her style works so well for her. I hope that we’ll become more conscious and personal attacks will become less accepted.
I appreciate anyone who asks for both candor and civility in communication - particularly political communication. I appreciate what happened last night on Keith Olbermann’s show, when he apologized for a story on his Countdown show that focused on Sen. Vitter’s wife’s attire. He acknowledged that his show (he was out that day) had crossed the line. I’m glad for anyone who knows there is a line. Many seem to have forgotten.
Comment by merylrunion — July 24, 2007 @ 8:08 am