Electionsjohn Videos

During the December 18 edition of his nationally syndicated talk show, conservative radio host Mark Levin said, "I see on the home page of our friend Drudge -- the Drudge Report -- Developing, National Enquirer: John Edwards love child scandal. They actually have a side view of the woman on the Drudge Report." After asserting that "[s]he definitely looks pregnant," Levin added, "Now, I don t know if this is true or not." As Media Matters for America documented, Slate.com blogger Mickey Kaus and Internet gossip Matt Drudge touted a December 19 National Enquirer article that reports former Edwards campaign worker Rielle Hunter is six months pregnant and that according to the Enquirer, "she s told a close confidante that Edwards is the father of her baby!" As Media Matters further documented, neither Drudge nor Kaus has noted that the Enquirer story to which they link states, "[Edwards confidante Andrew] Young -- a 41-year-old married man with young children -- now claims HE is the father of Rielle s baby!" The article also states, " Andrew Young is the father of Ms. Hunter s unborn child, declared his Washington, D.C.-based attorney." During the segment, Levin speculated about whether the story was "another Hillary Rotten [sic] Clinton Plant" and asked, "Who else would leak this to the National Enquirer, whether it be true of false. It would be the Clintonoids with their hemorrhoids, because this is the kind of game they play." From the December 18 edition of ABC Radio Networks The Mark Levin Show: LEVIN: I see on the home page of our friend Drudge -- the Drudge Report -- "Developing, National Enquirer: John Edwards love child scandal." They actually have a side view of the woman on the Drudge Report. She definitely looks pregnant. Now, I don t know if this is true or not. For all I know, this is another Hillary Rotten Clinton plant. I mean, they are trying to dig up dirt on everybody, aren t they? Who else would leak this to the National Enquirer, whether it be true or false? It would be the Clintonoids with their hemorrhoids, because this is the kind of game they play. The Republicans are too busy battling with each other. They re not focused on slip-and-fall lawyer John Edwards. In fact, they could care less about John Edwards, because he won t be the nominee. Certainly unlikely. Hillary is desperate to win in Iowa, if not the first spot, the second spot. If she comes in third, that s a big-time loser. And that s what some people in Iowa are predicting -- not me, I have no idea. Anyway, the fact of the matter is -- you know, I wonder if any reporter will ask Hillary Rotten, her thighness, if her campaign s behind this, too. "Mark, how can you -- " Listen, folks, to dig up kindergarten records on Barack Obama and to have drug questions planted, you know, why wouldn t they plant something like this, whether it be true or false? I don t know. Time will tell. Drudge has up there that it s developing. The baby -- I mean the story.

During the September 26 Democratic presidential debate at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire, moderator and NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert asked former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC): "Your campaign has hit some obstacles with revelations about $400 haircuts, half-million dollars working for a hedge fund, $800,000 from Rupert Murdoch. Do you wish you hadn t taken money in all those cases or hadn t made that kind of expenditure for a haircut?" Russert s question about Edwards haircuts marks the second time a moderator from NBC News has asked about the topic during a debate since the story "broke" in April. As Media Matters for America noted, NBC s Nightly News anchor Brian Williams asked Edwards about the haircuts during an April 26 debate, despite having acknowledged three days earlier that the story was "silly." Politico senior political writer Ben Smith first highlighted Edwards haircuts in an April 16 blog entry. A July 17 post on NBC News First Read blog -- an analysis of the day s political news, from the NBC News political unit -- advised readers to "look for Edwards supporters to use this as a test to see if the MSM covers [Republican presidential candidate Mitt] Romney as harshly as Edwards was." However, as Media Matters documented, NBC seized on the Edwards story but completely ignored disclosures that Romney s presidential campaign spent $300 on makeup. From MSNBC s 9 p.m. ET broadcast of the September 26 debate: RUSSERT: Sen. Edwards, you mentioned candor with the candidate -- a president -- with the American people. Your campaign has hit some obstacles with revelations about $400 haircuts, half-million dollars working for a hedge fund, $800,000 from Rupert Murdoch. Do you wish you hadn t taken money in all those cases or hadn t made that kind of expenditure for a haircut? EDWARDS: Well, first of all, I think if you look at my entire life, I am proud of what I ve spent my life doing. I m not perfect. There s not a single person on this stage who s perfect. But I came from a family -- I was born into nothing. I was brought home to a two-room house in a mill village. I have spent my entire life fighting for the kind of people that I grew up with, that worked in a mill with my father, and I don t apologize for the fact that I ve worked hard and built a life, which I hope will make life easier for my children. I m proud of that. I m not ashamed of that. And I m proud of having stood up for the people that I grew up with. It s what I have done my entire life. I did it for 20 years as a lawyer; it s what I ve done every minute that I ve been in public life. It is the reason that I ve been walking -- going around the country helping organize workers into unions. It is the reason we started a college-for-everyone program for low-income kids. It is the reason Elizabeth and I started an after-school program for kids who otherwise would have no chance to go to an after-school program, having access to technology. I m proud of what I ve done from -- with my life, and I do not apologize for it.

On the September 17 edition of CNN s The Situation Room, discussing the fallout from a September 16 Associated Press article which reported that "Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who has long identified himself as an Episcopalian, said this weekend that he is a Baptist and has been for years," CNN correspondent Tom Foreman reported that "McCain has said for years that he doesn t advertise his faith." Foreman then aired a clip from 2000 of McCain telling an audience, "I am a man of faith, but I also have to tell you that I believe that my relationship with God is a private one." But Foreman left out other relevant information from the AP article: Notwithstanding McCain s denial that he "advertise[s] his faith," he was quoted by the AP saying that he has publicly expressed his faith "hundreds of times." The article also noted that McCain "does discuss faith on the campaign trail." From the article: McCain, at a campaign stop at a Veterans of Foreign Wars post in Anderson [South Carolina], said he has made plenty of public expressions of his faith. "I ve done that hundreds of times," McCain said, adding he has spoken at length with his pastor at the church and has been told there is no need for him to be baptized to be a full member of the church. The Associated Press asked McCain on Saturday how his Episcopal faith plays a role in his campaign and life. McCain grew up Episcopalian and attended an Episcopal high school in Alexandria, Va. "It plays a role in my life. By the way, I m not Episcopalian. I m Baptist," McCain said. "Do I advertise my faith? Do I talk about it all the time? No." McCain does discuss faith on the campaign trail. He regularly tells crowds about a North Vietnamese POW guard who would loosen his bindings while he was a prisoner. One Christmas, the man surreptitiously signaled his Christian faith, McCain says, by making the sign of a cross with his toe in the dirt. In a July 18 speech to the national convention of Christians United for Israel, McCain told the audience: "As some in this audience may know, I spent several years as a prisoner of war, a time when all my freedoms were rescinded. And yet it was my very faith in a Supreme Being that sustained me and strengthened me while at the hands of my captors." He concluded by saying that "today I stand as I believe so many of you do: a Christian, proudly pro-American and proudly pro-Israel." Furthermore, McCain s campaign website links to a June 11 McClatchy Newspapers article that discusses how his campaign "is reaching out to conservative Christians." The article describes McCain s "rich and fulfilling spiritual life": Learned in childhood. Deepened in Vietnam. Nourished today by a redemptive Baptist church, daily prayer, generally in the evening, sometimes holding hands with wife, Cindy, occasionally reading a family Bible, always seeking "guidance, comfort and wisdom in almost every aspect of my life." From the 4 p.m. ET hour of the September 17 edition of CNN s The Situation Room: BLITZER: Is he a Baptist or is he an Episcopalian? That s the question some people are asking about Senator John McCain. Let s go to CNN s Tom Foreman. He s here in The Situation Room, he s watching this. So what s the answer? FOREMAN: Well, the answer is, this is a nutty story here, but the answer is both. [begin video clip] McCAIN: There s been some talk about my religious persuasion. FOREMAN: John McCain in South Carolina referring to an Associated Press article this weekend that has some people talking. The senator from Arizona and Republican presidential hopeful told the AP that he was a Baptist, but Episcopalian is the faith listed in his biography in the latest guide of members of Congress and in the most recent edition of the Almanac of American Politics. And, in an interview with McClatchy Newspapers in June, McCain said he still called himself an Episcopalian. We ask him about his faith. McCAIN: I was raised in the Episcopal Church and attended high school at a high school called the Episcopal High School. I have attended North Phoenix Baptist Church for many years. And the most important thing is that I am a Christian. And I don t have anything else to say about the issue. FOREMAN: McCain says his wife and two of their children have been baptized in the Baptist church they attend, but that he has not, telling AP, "I don t find it necessary to do so for my spiritual needs." McCain s campaign says none of this is new and that the issue was given a thorough vetting when McCain first ran for president in 2000. McCain says religion plays a role in his life, but he said for years that he doesn t advertise his faith. McCAIN: My religious belief is clear. I am a man of faith, but I also have to tell you that I believe that my relationship with God is a private one. And I am not ashamed of my religious beliefs or my faith, but, at the same time, I believe that that relationship is generally a private one. [end video clip] FOREMAN: The only reason this is getting any headlines is where he made these comments. He did it in South Carolina. That holds the first Southern primary. It s a state dominated by Baptists. So some people are saying he s pandering with this, trying to get votes. But McCain says he was Baptist the last time he ran for president, and it didn t help then, because then-Governor George Bush defeated McCain in the South Carolina primary. Wolf, as we would say on "Raw Politics," this kind of has the smack of a cheap shot. It s not like he said he was a devil worshipper. Like a lot of families, people have different influences of different faiths, and McCain is explaining it away, but explaining it well. BLITZER: And he says he s a man of faith -- FOREMAN: Exactly. BLITZER: -- and he s a Christian. All right, thanks very much, Tom Foreman.

On the August 29 edition of CNN s The Situation Room, while discussing an earlier interview by CNN senior national correspondent John King with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), host Wolf Blitzer said to King: "There was some straight talk from the Straight Talk Express," the latter being the name of McCain s campaign bus. Blitzer added that, although McCain "dodged some of your questions ... he also was pretty candid when it came to a very sensitive subject -- the future of Senator Larry Craig [R-ID]." King agreed, replying: "He certainly was, Wolf. He was blunt on a number of the pressing controversies of the moment." On August 8, Craig pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct charges following his June 11 arrest during an investigation of "lewd conduct" in a restroom at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. During the Situation Room segment, on-screen text read: "Frank Talk with Sen. McCain: Presidential Candidate Turns 71." Similarly, on the same day s edition of MSNBC s Hardball, host Chris Matthews noted that McCain had called for Craig s resignation and said that McCain "goes his own way and is very much the maverick, as we know." But neither Blitzer, King, nor Matthews explained what made calling for Craig s resignation "straight talk" or why they considered it the "maverick" position-- given that, in the days since Craig s guilty plea was first reported, Republicans such as Sen. Norm Coleman (MN) and Rep. Pete Hoekstra (MI) have also called on Craig to resign, as Matthews noted. Additionally, the Republican Senate leadership has recommended that the Ethics Committee mount an investigation, releasing a statement saying, "In the meantime, Leadership is examining other aspects of the case to determine if additional action is required." Think Progress has identified five additional Republicans who have since reportedly called on Craig to resign. As Media Matters for America has noted, media figures frequently call McCain a "maverick" or cite McCain s "maverick reputation" -- sometimes apropos of nothing -- including Chris Matthews and Blitzer, without noting the numerous instances in which McCain has fallen in line with the Bush administration or the Republican Party establishment on issues large and small. Media Matters has further noted that Blitzer, Matthews, and many other media figures have called McCain a "straight talker" despite several flip-flops. From the August 29 edition of CNN s The Situation Room: BLITZER: There was some straight talk from the Straight Talk Express. He dodged some of your questions, but he also was pretty candid when it came to a very sensitive subject -- the future of Senator Larry Craig. KING: He certainly was, Wolf. He was blunt on a number of the pressing political controversies of the moment. Let me digress for a second to say he is back in Phoenix at this hour going to his favorite Mexican restaurant tonight so he will have a birthday celebration beyond our interview -- but it came at a very difficult time for John McCain. At this time last year, he was viewed as a favorite for the Republican nomination, if not the favorite. From the August 29 edition of MSNBC s Hardball with Chris Matthews: MATTHEWS: Who else do we have joining us? I forgot. Who else is -- Mike Viqueira! MIKE VIQUEIRA (NBC News congressional correspondent): It s me, Chris. Yes. MATTHEWS: I think that -- haven t you just gotten promoted to something big lately? I ve been listening to the blogs. VIQUEIRA: No, I m not going anywhere near that, sir. MATTHEWS: No, I think you re going to greatness land. Let me ask you, Mike, about this hill. I just sat here today collecting the press releases from people like Norm Coleman of Minnesota, who s up for re-election, John McCain, who goes his own way and is very much the maverick, as we know. Pete Hoekstra -- is it "hook-stra" or "hock-stra" from Michigan. VIQUEIRA: "Huck-stra." MATTHEWS: Huck-stra. They are growing -- the number of people calling for this fellow, Larry Craig, to walk. VIQUEIRA: Yeah, Chris, it s almost as if Republicans suddenly had an epiphany this afternoon after being stunned into silence over the last 24 hours over these revelations of Larry Craig. It s not that many people didn t suspect that he had -- that he engaged in gay sex. Those rumors have been going around for at least 25 years. MATTHEWS: Really?

On the August 20 edition of Fox News Hannity Hannity s America by stating that "The Wall Street Journal reported that [former Sen.] John Edwards [D-NC] had invested in and worked for a company that is foreclosing on residents of New Orleans," adding: "The Edwards campaign has since announced that the senator will divest from the company. But we wanted to hear from the actual people who are losing their homes in foreclosure." Hannity was referring to an August 17 Wall Street Journal article that reported that "subprime-lending units of Fortress Investment Group LLC" had filed foreclosure actions against New Orleans homeowners. While Hannity did note that Edwards said he would divest from the any Fortress Investment Group funds "that have a stake in the subprime lenders that filed the foreclosures," according to the Journal article, he did not note that the Journal also reported that Edwards "pledged that he would personally provide financial assistance to New Orleanians who are facing foreclosure by Fortress-affiliated businesses or have lost their homes already." According to the washingtonpost.com blog The Trail, Edwards campaign spokesman Eric Schultz stated on August 17 that Edwards "has taken personal responsibility by cleansing his portfolio of any investments that may have ties to these practices, and he [is] also personally committing to helping people who may have lost their homes." From the August 20 edition of Fox News Hannity s America. What s going on? HANNITY: Yeah, thanks, Alan. Listen, last week, The Wall Street Journal reported that John Edwards had invested in and worked for a company that is foreclosing on residents of New Orleans. Now, considering that Edwards spends so much time talking about, quote, "two Americas," and even launched his presidential campaign with a speech in New Orleans, the story came as a shock to most of America. The Edwards campaign has since announced that the senator will divest from the company. But we wanted to hear from the actual people who are losing their homes in foreclosure. So we sent our cameras to New Orleans and found some of the people whose homes are in foreclosure, thanks to John Edwards company. Take a look. SHERLENE ROBINSON [video clip]: Due to the storm, we wasn t able to pay the mortgage down here. We were living in Texas, off housing out there. And they sent us a foreclosure letter. We started picking back up, paying the loan. It was $700 a month. They broke it down to $421 a month. And we have been paying that. We can t do anything, because we re still in foreclosure. They have us in foreclosure on our credit account. I called and asked them, could they get that off my credit, and they told me no, even though I m paying them every month. I m still in foreclosure with them. HANNITY: Two Americas, $1,200 haircuts, 28,000-square-foot mansions, and $55,000 speeches on poverty. We re going to have more of that interview on a very special edition of Hannity s America this Sunday night at 9 p.m. Eastern, so don t miss it. From the August 17 Journal article: As a presidential candidate, Democrat John Edwards has regularly attacked subprime lenders, particularly those that have filed foreclosure suits against victims of Hurricane Katrina. But as an investor, Mr. Edwards has ties to lenders foreclosing on Katrina victims. The Wall Street Journal has identified 34 New Orleans homes whose owners have faced foreclosure suits from subprime-lending units of Fortress Investment Group LLC. Mr. Edwards has about $16 million invested in Fortress funds, according to a campaign aide who confirmed a more general Federal Election Commission report. Mr. Edwards worked for Fortress, a publicly held private-equity fund, from late 2005 through 2006. Asked about the matter, Mr. Edwards yesterday pledged that he would personally provide financial assistance to New Orleanians who are facing foreclosure by Fortress-affiliated businesses or have lost their homes already. "I intend to help these people," the former North Carolina senator said. He also promised to cleanse his portfolio of any investments that may be profiting from their losses. "I am going to divest" from any Fortress funds that have a stake in the subprime lenders that filed the foreclosures, he said in a telephone interview. "I will not have my family s money invested in these firms." From the August 17 entry on The Trail: Edwards campaign spokesman Eric Schultz sought today to frame Edwards latest response to his Fortress link as proof that he cared for the people of New Orleans. He "believes that nobody in New Orleans should lose their home because of Hurricane Katrina," Schultz said. "Edwards has taken personal responsibility by cleansing his portfolio of any investments that may have ties to these practices, and he [is] also personally committing to helping people who may have lost their homes. For John Edwards, the tragedy in New Orleans is not just about politics. They have been abandoned by the federal government and deserve a strong advocate. As president, he will be that fighter, but he s not waiting until then. He s taking responsibility, because for him that is the meaning of leadership."

During the August 7 edition of Fox News The O Reilly Factor, after playing a clip of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards asserting that "Fox News ... has a clear and long history of bias against Democrats," host Bill O Reilly responded that "John Edwards has been on the Fox News Channel 33 times," and that, in reviewing those interviews, "[n]ot once could I find anything insulting, demeaning, or disrespectful to the senator." O Reilly then asked Fox News contributor Kirsten Powers, "So he s actually lying, is he not?" When Powers responded that Edwards was "making a broader claim against Fox," O Reilly repeated that "he was on 33 times and treated with complete respect." Similarly, on the August 9 edition of The O Reilly Factor, discussing how "some of the Democratic candidates have been attacking Fox News," O Reilly questioned why they "want to make enemies -- particularly a guy like John Edwards, who is treated very well here, 33 times he was on." O Reilly continued: "We pored over the transcripts. There was never one time that this guy was unfairly treated while he was on this network." O Reilly went on to assert that the Democrats attacks on Fox News "might come back to bite them in the you-know-where." But beyond the question of how Edwards was "treated" during his various appearances on Fox News, O Reilly himself and numerous other Fox News personalities have repeatedly made "insulting, demeaning, or disrespectful" statements about Edwards and other Democrats. Additionally, during the August 9 program, O Reilly referred to Fox News as "far and away the highest-rated cable news outfit," and asserted, "[W]e re growing while the others are disintegrating." In fact, a recent comparison by the blog TVNewser of the three cable news channels ratings in June 2006 and June 2007 found that CNN and MSNBC s audience grew at a greater rate over that period than that of Fox News. According to TVNewser s analysis, CNN s prime-time viewership increased (across all age groups) by 17 percent and its all-day audience by 10 percent. MSNBC s prime-time viewership increased by 38 percent and its all-day audience by 34 percent. Meanwhile, Fox News prime-time viewership increased by 10 percent and its all-day audience by 8 percent. Media Matters for America has documented numerous instances of O Reilly and other Fox News hosts, correspondents, or guests making "insulting, demeaning, or disrespectful" statements about Edwards and other Democrats. O Reilly on Edwards On the June 8 edition of Fox News Your World, in response to host Neil Cavuto s false claim that Edwards used the controversy surrounding celebrity heiress Paris Hilton s recent jail sentence to accentuate his "Two Americas" campaign theme, O Reilly referred to him as "the biggest phony in the world." O Reilly later asserted: "[H]e doesn t really want to chase down the bad guys in Iraq, but he wants to put Paris Hilton in jail." On the June 4 edition of The O Reilly Factor, O Reilly asserted that "John Edwards looks dopey" for his statement during the June 3 Democratic presidential debate: "What this global war on terror bumper sticker -- a political slogan, that s all it is, all it s ever been -- was intended to do was for George Bush to use it to justify everything he does." O Reilly commented: "The good news here is that most Americans in both parties understand that Muslim extremists want to kill us and will if they get the chance." In fact, just before making that statement, Edwards stressed the threat of terrorism and discussed his strategy for preventing it. O Reilly on other Democrats In an August 1 interview with Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Chris Dodd (CT), which aired on his August 2 radio and cable television shows, O Reilly called Dodd a "propagandist" and stated, "I don t have any respect for you," after Dodd noted that O Reilly previously "talk[ed] about Al Qaeda attacking San Francisco and blowing up San Francisco." On the May 7 edition of The O Reilly Factor, O Reilly cited a flawed poll to assert that "35 percent of Democratic voters believe that President Bush stood by and allowed 3,000 Americans to die on the streets." O Reilly repeatedly referred to this as "madness," and claimed, "Sane people do not make that kind of leap." On the January 30 edition of The O Reilly Factor, O Reilly stated that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) "just look[ed] like a zombie" during part of President Bush s 2007 State of the Union address. Fox News on Edwards On the August 3 edition of Fox News Radio s The John Gibson Show, the program s executive producer, known on air as "Angry Rich," claimed that Edwards "whored his wife s cancer as a fundraising gimmick." He also went on to call him "a fraud" and "a pansy." Host John Gibson referred to Edwards as "the Breck Girl," "Silky," and "the biggest fraud running for president." On the August 7 edition of the program, "Angry Rich" described the statement as "a poor choice of words," although he did not apologize for the remark and went on to say of Edwards: "That doesn t mean he s not duplicitous, which he is." On the May 24 broadcast of Hannity s being waged against us." As evidence, Hannity pointed to a video of Edwards fixing his hair prior to a televised interview and the fact that Edwards recently spent $400 on a haircut. Hannity t offensive to gays. It has nothing to do with gays. It s a schoolyard taunt, meaning wuss. And unless you re telling me that John Edwards is gay, it was not applied to a gay person." Fox News on other Democrats On the July 22 edition of Hannity s America, teasing a segment on "the mysterious death of [former deputy White House counsel] Vince Foster," host Sean Hannity asked: "Did a close friend of Hillary Clinton commit suicide, or was it a massive coverup?" During the segment, Hannity asserted that on July 20, 1993: "Vince Foster got in his car and drove to Fort Marcy Park in Virginia. And he supposedly walked through the woods, and depending on which version of the story you believe, he took his own life." He also claimed that "[i]n the minds of some," questions regarding the contents of Foster s files following his suicide "may have provided a motive for foul play." In fact, Foster s death has been conclusively determined by several investigations to have been a suicide. On the July 2 edition of The Big Story, Kellyanne Conway -- the CEO and president of the polling company inc., who, according to the biography posted on her company s website, "has provided commentary on over 1,000 ... television shows" -- suggested that Clinton would take "revenge" against the more than 250,000 people who have donated to Sen. Barack Obama s (D-IL) presidential campaign. Conway said: "[T]hese are 250,000-plus people who are willing to publicly go against the Clintons. That s remarkable to me because, you know, Hillary Clinton ... puts a lot of energy into revenge." On the January 17 edition of The Big Story, host John Gibson addressed an InsightMag.com article which asserted that Sen. Clinton was responsible for spreading information that Obama "spent at least four years in a so-called Madrassa or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia." After claiming that Clinton "has reportedly outed Obama s madrassa past," Gibson told Republican strategist Terry Holt: "Now, we have heard about dirty politics before. Republicans aren t involved in this one." Holt responded: "This was either a despicable act by an absolutely ruthless Clinton political machine -- we know that they are capable of doing this. But I also thought, you know, it wasn t directly linked to Hillary Clinton." Holt then speculated that Obama himself could have been behind the story, saying that "if you took a page out of the Clinton book and you are really shrewd and you were Barack Obama, you might want to put this out yourself so that you could deal with it early in the political campaign and get it over with." On the October 31, 2006, edition of Hannity You get one shot at a facelift. If it doesn t work the first time, let it go. " On October 1, 2004, chief political correspondent Carl Cameron posted a fake news story on FoxNews.com which falsely attributed quotes to 2004 Democratic presidential nominee and Sen. John Kerry (MA) in an attempt to ridicule him over a manicure, which Cameron reported he received the day before. The quotes included statements from Kerry asserting that "Women should like me! I do manicures," and referring to himself as a "metrosexual." Later that day, Fox News issued a retraction and an apology, and the fake story was removed from the website. From the August 7 edition of Fox News s The O Reilly Factor: O REILLY: Now for the top story tonight: attacking Fox News as a political strategy -- smart or dumb? Listen to this. EDWARDS [video clip]: Fox News, I think, has a clear and long history of bias against Democrats. We have to stand up to them. I mean, hey, it s time to put a stop to this. RETIRED GEN. WESLEY CLARK [video clip]: According to O Reilly, diplomacy is like having a chat. But of course, then, he s never done diplomacy. DODD [video clip]: It means standing up, by the way, when things get tough. Standing up to Bill O Reilly, by the way, when he comes after Daily Kos. O REILLY: Joining us now from Chicago, Laura Schwartz, and here in the studio, Kirsten Powers. Both are Fox News analysts. You know look at --- this is so hollow, I have to laugh. [Slurred Dodd imitation] You stand up to me every week. You re not that tough, are you? POWERS: I know, I know, it s -- It is kind of -- that s kind of silly. You re not that important, Bill. Why would anyone care about you? O REILLY: Of course, I m not that important. John Edwards has been on the Fox News Channel 33 times -- 33, all right? -- before he became Mr. Far Left Guy. He used to be Mr. Moderate Guy, but now he s Mr. Far Left Guy. Thirty-three times. Not once could I find anything insulting, demeaning, or disrespectful to the senator. So he s actually lying, is he not? POWERS: Well, I think he s making a broader claim against Fox -- O REILLY: But he was on 33 times -- POWERS: I know. O REILLY: -- and treated with complete respect. From the August 9 edition of The O Reilly Factor: O REILLY: In the "Campaign 2008" segment tonight, as we reported earlier this week, some of the Democratic candidates have been attacking Fox News. [begin video clip] EDWARDS: Fox News, I think, has a clear and long history of bias against Democrats. DODD: It means standing up, by the way, when things get tough, standing up to Bill O Reilly, by the way, when he comes after Daily Kos. CLINTON: Now, I was very proud of my campaign, standing up and really calling O Reilly out. [end video clip] O REILLY: Yeah. Now, the question is: Is all of that a wise thing to do? Here now, a wise man, Dick Morris, the author of the best-selling book Outrage, doing very well. OK, now -- MORRIS: If she wanted to call you out, she could show up on your show. O REILLY: Sure. She could do a whole bunch of stuff -- MORRIS: This chair is available. O REILLY: -- rather than pandering to those people. But we re going to remember all that. You know, I understand what they re doing, trying to get the far-left people to like them and vote for them in the primaries. I mean, it s obvious. But you know what s interesting? The only one who didn t do it -- Obama. Obama has not trashed Fox News. MORRIS: Obama is kind of more of a class act. The big problem that Hillary has got right now is that she has to go after special interests, because she is awash in their campaign contributions. And she s getting flayed for that by Edwards and Obama. So she can t attack drug money, because she s taking it. She can t attack insurance money, because she s taking it, but she can attack you and Fox News. O REILLY: But where does that get her? I mean, this is by far and away the highest-rated cable news outfit. OK? And we re growing while the others are disintegrating. Why do they want to make enemies -- particularly a guy like John Edwards, who is treated very well here? Thirty-three times he was on. We pored over the transcripts. There was never one time that this guy was unfairly treated while he was on this network. Why do they want to do that? Don t they understand that that might not -- that might come back to bite them in the you-know-where?

On the August 7 edition of MSNBC s Morning Joe, MSNBC political analyst and nationally syndicated radio host Monica Crowley referred to Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards as "the metrosexual in the race" and said he is "the prettiest one of the Democrats." In response, co-host Mika Brzezinski said: "I think he and [Republican presidential candidate] Mitt Romney are taking a spa day." As Media Matters for America has documented (here, here, here, and here), media have repeatedly echoed conservatives characterizations of Edwards as effeminate. From the August 7 edition of MSNBC s Morning Joe, guest-hosted by MSNBC correspondent Willie Geist: GEIST: I think, John Edwards -- we ve been paying so much attention to [Sen. Barack] Obama [D-IL] and [Sen.] Hillary [Rodham Clinton] [D-NY] over the last couple of weeks -- he s got to be feeling a little left out here -- I mean, the third-place guy. Do you think he s going to take advantage tonight and try to -- maybe he engages Hillary, maybe he picks a fight with her? CROWLEY: Yeah, the metrosexual in the race is really lagging. Not a lot of traction here for John Edwards, much to his surprise and chagrin, I think, because he s the prettiest one of the Democrats. BRZEZINSKI: I think he and Mitt Romney are taking a spa day. Is -- GEIST: No. You know, why are you objectifying men? I hate when you do that. CROWLEY: The one time! BRZEZINSKI: The one time! Whatever -- I m sorry. GEIST: Talk about the issues. CROWLEY: You know what? I think that John Edwards is trying to get headlines wherever he can and, a couple of days ago, he criticized News Corporation -- Rupert Murdoch s company -- and urged all Democrats to boycott everything News Corp., and to return money if they ve got it from Rupert Murdoch, or any of his top executives. And, look, I think at this point, even though Edwards is leading in Iowa, his lead there is slipping, and he s grasping at some straws here, which might make for some great fireworks tonight because he s got to try somehow to upstage both Hillary and Obama.

On the August 3 edition of Fox News host John Gibson s nationally syndicated radio program, the show s executive producer, who goes by the name "Angry Rich" on the program, claimed Democratic presidential candidate former Sen. John Edwards (NC) "whored his wife s cancer as a fundraising gimmick." He also went on to call him "a fraud" and "a pansy." Gibson referred to Edwards as "the Breck Girl," "Silky," and "the biggest fraud running for president." Gibson and "Angry Rich" were attacking Edwards for saying that Democratic candidates should give back campaign contributions from News Corp., the parent company of Fox News Channel, while accepting advance and expense money from HarperCollins, another News Corp. division that had published a book written by Edwards; Gibson played an audio clip of Edwards stating that money was donated to charity. They also attacked Edwards for his refusal earlier this year to participate in a debate co-sponsored by Fox News. From the August 3 edition of Fox News Radio s The John Gibson Show: GIBSON: Fraud alert. Fraud alert. This is Angry Rich s favorite subject, and it s getting to be mine as well. AUDIO CLIP: Fraud alert. GIBSON: Our John Gibson program fraud alert today focuses on the biggest fraud running for president, and that takes some doing. We re talking about the Breck Girl, Silky, the former senator from North Carolina, the baron of a 28,000-square-foot manse, the protector of the poor while ensconced on a pillow of 100 million dollars. ANGRY RICH: A man who whored his wife s cancer as a fundraising gimmick. GIBSON: John Edwards today was going after other Democratic candidates, and by other he meant Hillary Clinton, for taking money as political contributions from Rupert Murdoch or from certain employees or executives of either the Fox News Channel or News Corporation, which owns the Fox News Channel. Edwards has a real kind of problem about Fox. He just -- well, actually he doesn t have a problem about Fox. He realizes there are a whole bunch of really far-lefters who hate Fox and he s busy sucking up to them. [...] EDWARDS [audio clip from August 3 edition of CNN s The Situation Room]: Well, I had a book called Home that HarperCollins published -- ANGRY RICH: That sucked. EDWARDS [audio clip]: There was an advance from HarperCollins. Every dime of they money they gave to me has gone to charity, which I committed to do, and I met my commitment. It s gone to things like Habitat for Humanity, helping low-income kids go to college, the International Rescue Committee, so the money is all gone. Not to me, but to important charitable causes. But that s not the point, Wolf. The point of this is that I don t want to see Rupert Murdoch, or anybody else for that matter, owning every newspaper in America. What we ve seen with the consolidation of the media is not healthy for this country. GIBSON: Give me a break. Oh my God. ANGRY RICH: What a fraud. GIBSON: Unbelievable. All right, if you re not going to give back the money because it went for charity, how about giving back the money you got on your tax breaks for filing for those charitable contributions? You know, when you hand over a half a million dollars to a charity, you get a quite healthy tax break. Fraud alert. Fraud alert. Fraud alert. [...] [audio clip from March 13 edition of The Situation Room] WOLF BLITZER (host): The Democratic Party in the state of Nevada was going to host the debate together with the Fox News Channel, but you ve pulled out, they subsequently canceled that whole debate. Why did you decide to pull out, given the fact that over the years you have appeared as a guest on Fox many, many times? EDWARDS: Well, first of all, we ve got a whole series of debates planned in this -- GIBSON: Bull. EDWARDS: -- presidential campaigns. Debates, forums -- GIBSON: Bull! EDWARDS (SOUND CLIP): -- I ve been through this before, as you know, Wolf -- GIBSON: Bull! EDWARDS (SOUND CLIP): -- and I think we had 35 or 40 of these debates and forums in the last -- GIBSON: Bull! EDWARDS (SOUND CLIP): -- presidential campaign, and we have a bunch of debates in Nevada, not just in general -- GIBSON How -- EDWARDS: -- and I didn t see any reason -- GIBSON: How on earth? EDWARDS: -- under the circumstances to give Fox a special forum. GIBSON: How on earth did he -- EDWARDS: I think they have a long history in how they deal with Democrats -- GIBSON: What? EDWARDS: -- and how they talk about Democrats, and I saw no reason to give them a specialized forum. BLITZER: So, are you still going to be a guest on their various programs? EDWARDS: I ll make that judgment as the campaign goes on as the occasion arises, but on this particular case, I thought it was important for me to say I m not going to be there. [end audio clip] GIBSON: Bull, bull -- AUDIO CLIP [from the movie My Cousin Vinny]: Everything that guy just said is bull(bleep). GIBSON: -- bull, bull, bull. I mean, first of all, he won t come on Fox. ANGRY RICH: Because he s a pansy. GIBSON: Because he s afraid. He s afraid of a question. He s afraid of the questions that might be asked of him, like, "Say, Senator, about your poverty program, which would raise the minimum wage to nine dollars and 50 cents an hour, what exactly would that do to small businesses? Say, Senator, how come half of your contributors are lawyers? Would you be in the pocket of trial lawyers who rape the economy?"

In a July 29 article, Los Angeles Times staff writer Doyle McManus asserted: "It s easy to tell the difference between the two parties on foreign policy in this presidential campaign. The Democrats all want to talk about getting out of Iraq, but not so much about Al Qaeda or terrorism. The Republicans all want to talk about terrorism, but not so much about Iraq." McManus also reported a "chasm between the two parties worldviews, one focused on battling the threat of radical Islam, the other on ending the war." McManus claimed that this was a "problem" that both parties face because "most Americans want answers to both questions, not just one or the other." But later in the article, McManus undermined his own statement that the Democratic presidential candidates "all want to talk about getting out of Iraq, but not so much about Al Qaeda or terrorism": He acknowledged that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) "talks about terrorism as a priority"; that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) "also talks about terrorism, but puts his emphasis more strongly on diplomacy"; and that former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) "has staked out distinct positions on both Iraq and terrorism." From the Times article, headlined "Foreign policy is central in 2008 presidential races: Parties candidates are all talking about ending the Iraq war or fighting terrorism -- but Americans want answers to both.": It s easy to tell the difference between the two parties on foreign policy in this presidential campaign. The Democrats all want to talk about getting out of Iraq, but not so much about Al Qaeda or terrorism. The Republicans all want to talk about terrorism, but not so much about Iraq. Although fireworks erupted last week among the leading Democratic candidates, those differences are narrow compared with the chasm between the two parties worldviews, one focused on battling the threat of radical Islam, the other on ending the war. The problem each party faces, polls show, is that most Americans want answers to both questions, not just one or the other. But after suggesting in the lead paragraph that Democrats avoid talking about terrorism, McManus went on to report that the three leading Democratic candidates have all addressed the issue: Among the Democratic candidates, last week brought a dust-up in which Illinois Sen. Barack Obama derided New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as "Bush-Cheney lite" after Clinton called Obama "irresponsible and frankly naive." But there s also a rough consensus: Combating terrorism is important, but the war in Iraq is weakening the United States and the next president should exert more diplomacy and less military muscle. [...] Clinton talks about terrorism as a priority, and she was the last of the three leading Democratic candidates to turn against the war in Iraq. Obama also talks about terrorism, but puts his emphasis more strongly on diplomacy -- leading to his statement in last week s debate that he was willing to meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, North Korea or Cuba without preconditions. That was the position Clinton called "naive." [...] Edwards, by contrast, has staked out distinct positions on both Iraq and terrorism. He has called for an immediate withdrawal of at least 40,000 troops from Iraq, and a complete withdrawal within a year. And he has said it is time to abandon the idea of a "war on terror." Indeed, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards have regularly "talk[ed] about ... al Qaeda or terrorism." For instance, they all responded critically to the intelligence community s assessment in the July 17 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that Al Qaeda "has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability" and established a "safehaven" in Pakistan. In a July 18 speech on the Senate floor, Clinton asserted that the "threat of al Qaeda is persistent and evolving," according to the NIE: Our involvement in Iraq continues to erode our position. It has damaged our alliances and it s limited our ability to respond to real threats. The unclassified key judgments of the recent National Intelligence Estimate, called the Terrorist Threat to the U.S. Homeland, says that the threat of Al Qaeda is persistent and evolving. The report states that Al Qaeda will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of Al Qaeda in Iraq, its most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the homeland. In a July 17 press release on the NIE s findings, Edwards asserted that "the next president will need a bold new strategy that will attack the root causes of terrorism, rather than wait for the problem to get worse." From the release: Today s new National Intelligence Estimate demonstrating Al Qaeda is expanding their reach is proof positive that George Bush s "Global War on Terror" Doctrine is more of a bumper sticker than a strategy to eliminate terrorism. This Administration has failed America - 6 years after 9/11, Bin Laden is still alive, Al Qaeda is more powerful now than ever before, and we have fewer allies. As the NIE shows, the next president will need a bold new strategy that will attack the root causes of terrorism, rather than wait for the problem to get worse. We need an anti-terror strategy that tailors our force structure to the threat; puts the military, not politicians, in charge of operational decisions on the ground; and creates a new "Marshall Corps" of 10,000 professionals to stabilize weak and failing states. In a July 17 press release, Obama said, "It is deeply troubling that more that nearly six years after 9/11, al Qaeda maintains a safe haven, an intact leadership, and the capability to plan further attacks. It is time to act to correct those mistakes." From the release: This morning s declassified NIE is a chilling reminder of what we have feared all along. After almost six years, awesome sacrifices by our brave men and women in uniform, and hundreds of billions of dollars spent, we are no safer than we were on 9/11. This is a consequence of waging a misguided war in Iraq that should never have been authorized, and failing to seize the opportunity to do lasting harm to the extremist networks that pose a direct threat to our homeland. It is deeply troubling that more that nearly six years after 9/11, al Qaeda maintains a safe haven, an intact leadership, and the capability to plan further attacks. It is time to act to correct those mistakes, and the first step is to get out of Iraq, because you can t win a war when you re on the wrong battlefield. As blogger Steve Benen noted at Talking Points Memo in response to McManus article, the Democratic candidates have also thoroughly discussed how they would "handle both questions" during the Democratic debates: And second, I think McManus is simply mistaken about the Dems rhetorical emphasis. The leading candidates seem to be going out of their way to, to borrow McManus phrase, "answer both questions." At a recent Democratic debate, for example, Barack Obama said, "[W]e live in a more dangerous world, not a less dangerous world, partly as a consequence of this president s actions, primarily because of this war in Iraq. ... What we ve seen is a distraction from the battles that deal with al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We have created an entire new recruitment network in Iraq, that we re seeing them send folks to Lebanon and Jordan and other areas of the region. And so one of the things that I think is critical, as the next president, is to make absolutely certain that we not only phase out the Iraq but we also focus on the critical battle that we have in Afghanistan and root out al Qaeda." Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and [Sen.] Chris Dodd [D-CT] all had similar assessments, but according to the LA Times piece, Dems are reluctant to talk about al Qaeda or terrorism. Discussing the article, Atlantic associate editor Matthew Yglesias wrote: "The point, of course, is that ending the war in Iraq isn t something contrary to improving the country s ability to reduce its vulnerability to terrorism, nor is it something other than improving the country s ability to reduce its vulnerability to terrorism, rather, it s a constitutive part of improving the country s ability to reduce its vulnerability to terrorism." [Emphasis in original] McManus characterization of the Democratic candidates as avoiding discussion of "Al Qaeda or terrorism" reflects a pattern in the media of asserting that Democrats are not adequately addressing the threat of terrorism. Most recently, on the July 29 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co. s Fox News Sunday, Fox News Washington managing editor Brit Hume asserted that "a lot of Democrats and those who support them" believe that "the war on terror is some kind of a political scam in which the administration is -- which is using to try to undermine civil liberties and expand the power of the executive branch of the government." Hume added: "They do not treat it particularly seriously," as the blog Crooks and Liars noted. Further, on the July 24 edition of MSNBC s Tucker, A.B. Stoddard, associate editor of The Hill, claimed that "The Democrats have an Al Qaeda problem" and accused Democrats who advocate withdrawing from Iraq of "refusing to talk [apparently about Al Qaeda]." MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan then stated that Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) had recently addressed the very issue of how to fight Al Qaeda in Iraq even while withdrawing most U.S. troops. In response, Stoddard said that "a lot of times" the issue of dealing with Al Qaeda in Iraq "is dodged." In addition, on the July 22 edition of NBC s Meet the Press, Weekly Standard writer Stephen F. Hayes said: "I think for a long time administration critics had begun to make the argument that really this Al Qaeda threat is overblown, that they misled us into the war in Iraq, they re misleading us about the seriousness of the threat from Al Qaeda." From the July 29 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co. s Fox News Sunday: CHRIS WALLACE: Well, as we talked about with Senator [Russ] Feingold [D-WI], there s a new issue on Capitol Hill about rewriting the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. And the administration, in the person of Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, said at this point we have great difficulties intercepting a conversation between a foreign terrorist in one foreign country and another foreign terrorist in another foreign country because of the fact that it might go in a fiber-optic cable through this country. Democrats, including Feingold, say this is a power grab, that, in fact, it s like the Patriot Act. They want to have a wholesale rewriting of our civil liberties. Brit. HUME: Well, first of all, the question that Senator Feingold didn t answer was the one you put to him. And that is, if they don t like the kitchen sink, as they call it, that the administration is offering along with this proposal to fix this particular problem, then all they need to do is just pass the simple fix. And there s been no good answer as to why that hasn t happened. Now, my guess is it will. But the answer from [Rep.] Anna Eshoo [D-CA] in that hearing was instructive as well. In other words, not, "Oh, my God, we really do need to fix this." No, she was lamenting the fact that she thought the administration was trying to scare the American people, which is -- make no mistake about it -- this is what a lot of Democrats and those who support them think. They think the war on terror is some kind of a political scam in which the administration is -- which is using to try to undermine civil liberties and expand the power of the executive branch of the government. They do not treat it particularly seriously.

As Media Matters for America has documented, NBC News and MSNBC programs have repeatedly referred to former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) $400 haircuts, which were originally paid for by his campaign. In a July 17 post, NBC News First Read blog highlighted the disclosure that former Gov. Mitt Romney s (R-MA) presidential campaign spent "$300 on makeup" and advised readers to "look for Edwards supporters to use this as a test to see if the MSM [mainstream media] covers Romney as harshly as Edwards was." NBC News itself, however, seems to have failed this "test." The July 19 edition of NBC s Today featured a report on candidates "shell[ing] out cash for pizzas, booze, and even baseball," mentioning specifically that Edwards reimbursed his campaign for the haircuts, but left out the Romney makeup expenditures. In fact, despite First Read s admonition -- with the exception of MSNBC s Tucker -- through midday July 19, NBC and MSNBC have yet to mention Romney s makeup purchases during prime time or on NBC s Today. MSNBC host Tucker Carlson did briefly mention the Romney makeup story on the July 17 edition of his show, adding: "I would mock him, but I wear makeup for a living, so that would be hypocritical, so I m not going to." By contrast, Carlson has repeatedly attacked or joked about Edwards haircuts. For instance, on the May 16 edition of Tucker, Carlson told Democratic strategist Steve McMahon that it is "even worse" that the barber made a trip to Edwards to cut Edwards hair. On the May 22 edition of Tucker, Carlson said, "The $400 haircut is a staff problem. But this goes to the very core, not only of this campaign, but of who he is." Teasing a segment on the July 5 edition of Tucker, Carlson said that Edwards "spends at least $400 a pop for his Hollywood hairstylist. Sometimes even four figures. We ve got the details. Yes, they are hair-raising." After Politico senior political writer Ben Smith "broke" the Edwards haircut story in an April 16 blog entry, the media -- including NBC and MSNBC -- seized on it. In the months since the story first surfaced, media figures on both NBC and MSNBC have repeatedly brought up Edwards haircuts: As Media Matters noted, a Nexis search of the 11 days following Smith s original blog entry found that NBC reported on Edwards haircuts twice and MSNBC reported on the story at least three times. For instance, on the April 24 edition of MSNBC Live, host Norah O Donnell told Republican strategist Alex Johnson: "I know Republicans are already making fun of it. They ve been making fun of it on the Fox News Channel, for instance, but you know, John Edwards has been trying to present this message of the two Americas, you know, where there is gap between rich and poor. I mean, how much does it hurt him that he himself is getting a $400 haircut?" On the June 28 edition of NBC s Today, guest host and NBC News chief White House correspondent David Gregory said during an interview with Edwards wife, Elizabeth: "If you strip away some of the inflammatory rhetoric [by right-wing pundit Ann Coulter] against your husband and other Democrats, the point she s trying to make about your husband ... is in effect that he s disingenuous, especially on the signature issue of poverty, whether it s a $400 haircut or taking big money to speak in front of a poverty group." As Media Matters senior fellow Eric Boehlert noted, on the April 23 edition of CBS The Late Show with David Letterman, NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams agreed with host David Letterman that the Edwards haircut story was "silly" and there was "no reason for us to continue talking about it." But while moderating an April 26 Democratic debate, Williams asked Edwards: Senator Edwards, you ve spoken with great passion and energy and eloquence about the issue of poverty in the United States, your "two Americas" theme. And yet I want to read you a quote from the political journalist Roger Simon: "Many people miss the point about the haircuts. The point is not the cost. John Edwards is a very rich man and could afford even a $4,000 haircut. But why did he pay for his haircuts out of campaign funds?" Senator? After the April 26 debate, MSNBC host Chris Matthews told NBC News chief foreign correspondent Andrea Mitchell: "You guys jumped around for a week about poor, what s his name, John Edwards haircut, you know. Cosmetics are a part of this game." Mitchell responded: "That wasn t cosmetics. ... That was authenticity." During a May 1 speech before the Rhode Island Business Expo, NBC chief Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski said that "Edwards is a loser for trying to defend a $400 haircut," according to The Providence Journal. As Media Matters documented, between 4 p.m. and 10 p.m. ET on July 5, MSNBC devoted approximately 15 minutes, 28 seconds to discussing Edwards haircuts and only 1 minute, 20 seconds to Sen. Pete Domenici s (R-NM) July 5 press conference on the Iraq war, at which he called for "a new strategy that will move our troops out of combat operations." In a July 16 article, Politico staff writer Kenneth P. Vogel wrote that the Romney campaign had confirmed that its $300 payment to Hidden Beauty of West Hills, California, represented "two separate $150 charges ... for makeup." A July 17 Associated Press article also noted Romney s $300 makeup charges (as well as the paid leave received by Jay Garrity, "the personal aide who shadowed Romney until he was accused last month of impersonating a law enforcement officer in two states.") From the July 17 First Read entry titled "First Thoughts" and written by NBC political director Chuck Todd, NBC deputy political director Mark Murray, NBC News Political Unit researcher Domenico Montanaro, and Carly Zakin: *** The Tour Continues -- As Well As The Scrutiny: On the second day of his poverty tour, Edwards makes stops in Ohio and Pennsylvania, where he will unveil a proposal to diversify schools in the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision. This morning, his tour gets plenty of coverage -- and so do the peccadilloes that have hurt his image, including that now-famous $400 haircut. "Voters vote mainly on who the person is. He s trying to communicate a message about who he is, a person who does not forget where he comes from," Democratic pollster Mark Mellman tells the Washington Post. "The haircut issue is significant in that context; it cuts against the story." Also, now that the Politico has uncovered that Romney s camp spent $300 on makeup, look for Edwards supporters to use this as a test to see if the MSM covers Romney as harshly as Edwards was. From Madden s July 17 First Read entry, titled "We Dig the Fun Campaign Emails": Politics -- particularly in a presidential cycle -- can be a nasty, divisive, and cynical business. That s why it s refreshing to see some of the front-runner campaigns show off some humor in their email memos (both morning and weekly) to the press. We re definitely fans. The pioneer of these emails was ubiquitous Romney spokesguy Kevin Madden, who sends out the daily "Romney Rundown," which lists Romney s schedule and other important info. But the best part is the good humor -- like this from earlier in the month: "Good morning, folks- TGIF. By the way...I know for a fact that Terry Sullivan down in our South Carolina office only pays $12 for his haircut. And you can tell just by looking at him." From the July 17 edition of MSNBC s Tucker: CARLSON: Speaking of made up, Mitt Romney -- 300 dollars for a make up company called Hidden Beauty. I would mock him, but I wear makeup for a living, so that would be hypocritical, so I m not going to. From the July 19 edition of NBC s Today: VIEIRA: And now to the race for the White House. If you ve ever contributed a few dollars to your favorite presidential candidate, you ever wondered what they do with your cash? Well, you might not want to know. NBC s White House correspondent Kelly O Donnell is honoring that old Watergate adage "follow the money" this morning. Kelly, good morning. O DONNELL: Good morning, Meredith. Well, we ve all heard plenty about the staggering millions 08 candidates are able to raise and now we re learning a little bit about how they spend some of it. And it turns out trying to get here to the White House means they ll shell out cash for pizza, booze, and even baseball. UNIDENTIFIED MALE [video clip]: Nice to meet you, too. O DONNELL: Candidates can t get far without deep pockets. [video clip] MITT ROMNEY: Hey, Tagg? TAGG ROMNEY (Mitt Romney s son): Yeah? MITT ROMNEY: Can I borrow some money? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, no, don t worry about it. [end video clip] O DONNELL: Campaigns beam when the cash rolls in. GOV. BILL RICHARDSON (D-NM) [video clip]: We raised 7 million dollars this quarter. O DONNELL: How they spend some of that donor dough may surprise you. EDWARDS [video clip]: By the way, I m buying you guys lunch. O DONNELL: Lunch, and then some. All the candidates must report their spending each quarter. Their war chests cover much more than pricey TV ads and staff salaries. RUDY GIULIANI (former New York City mayor) [video clip]: I don t think voters care about the money. O DONNELL: Well, check out the bar bills. Giuliani s campaign spent $3,900 for liquor. [Sen.] Hillary Clinton s [D-NY]: $2,650. And while Romney, as a Mormon, does not imbibe, his campaign spent more than a hundred bucks on beer. Called a rockstar in fundraising ... SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL) [video clip]: We re so far ahead of everybody in else in terms of the number of donations that we don t need to be playing with the numbers. O DONNELL: ... Barack Obama spent 1,700 of those donated dollars on a band called, "Double Funk Crunch." And his campaign has a sweet tooth -- $695 on ice cream and cookies. Experts say those treats are needed to attract more donors. ED ROGERS (Republican strategist) [video clip]: What it s really about is courting, caring, and feeding donors, opinion leaders, media, et cetera, et cetera. O DONNELL: And there s care and feeding of volunteers and staff. MITT ROMNEY [video clip]: Thank you. O DONNELL: Romney doled out $143 on doughnuts. Clinton s campaign spent $400 on pizza. STEVE McMAHON (Democratic strategist): There are events that appear on campaign finance reports that voters might look at and say, "Well, gee, that doesn t seem like a campaign expense. It seems like a party." O DONNELL: How about a party at Boston s Fenway Park? Renting the field cost Romney s team more than 30 grand. Not all fun and games. Remember, Edwards had that expensive haircut. EDWARDS [video clip]: So embarrassing, by the way. So embarrassing. O DONNELL: And reimbursed his campaign $400. Experts say political opponents are checking the books and looking for ammunition. ROGERS [video clip]: Now it s part of your opposition research to try to catch the other campaigns by spending money on frivolous matters. O DONNELL: As you d expect, presidential campaigns spend really big on things like travel, office space, and political consultants, but even when they spend just a little bit, they have to report it to the Federal Elections Commission. So when they re buying bottled water and fresh flowers, that goes in the report. And collectively, they spent thousands on those simple items.

After Internet gossip Matt Drudge posted a headline that read "GENDER BENDER: WIFE EDWARDS SAYS HILLARY BEHAVING LIKE A MAN," several media figures trotted out gender stereotypes about the leading Democratic presidential candidates while discussing comments former Sen. John Edwards wife, Elizabeth, made about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton during an interview with Salon.com Editor-in-Chief Joan Walsh. In the interview, which was posted on Salon.com on July 17, Edwards said: Look, I m sympathetic, because when I worked as a lawyer, I was the only woman in these rooms, too, and you want to reassure them you re as good as a man. And sometimes you feel you have to behave as a man and not talk about women s issues. I m sympathetic -- she wants to be commander in chief. But she s just not as vocal a women s advocate as I want to see. John is. And then she says, or maybe her supporters say, "Support me because I m a woman," and I want to say to her, "Well, then support me because I m a woman." The question is not so much how she campaigns -- that s theater. The question is, what does her campaign tell you about how she ll govern? And I m not convinced she d be as good an advocate for women. On the July 18 edition of ABC s Good Morning America, ABC senior national correspondent Claire Shipman claimed that "[t]here is striking gender role reversal on the campaign trail" because "Hillary Clinton [is] by far the toughest politically and stylistically," while Edwards and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) "are emoting like crazy." Shipman later said that "[s]ome political watchers argue that voters are ready to move beyond gender clich s." On the July 17 edition of MSNBC s Tucker, host Tucker Carlson asserted, "Edwards said she understands why sometimes Hillary has to campaign like a man in order to make up for the fact that she s not," before asking The Hill s A.B. Stoddard: "I mean, let s take this critique seriously -- is Hillary Clinton too manly to be president?" In the July 17 edition of his "Best of the Web Today" column, OpinionJournal.com editor James Taranto asserted: "Yet another ultraliberal woman has been won over by John Edwards s womanly charms: his spouse, Elizabeth Edwards," before falsely claiming that Elizabeth Edwards "suggest[ed] that Mrs. Clinton is more mannish than Mr. Edwards." On the July 17 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, host Rush Limbaugh asserted that "Well, now Mrs. Edwards has confirmed it today. Elizabeth Edwards has said Hillary is just -- she s -- well, let me get it up here. I don t want to paraphrase this because it s too important. Hillary is behaving like a man, unlike her husband. So vindication, ladies and gentlemen." Limbaugh was claiming "vindication" for an earlier smear of Edwards. As Media Matters for America noted, on the March 8 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Limbaugh referred to a March 8 New York Sun article, "Could John Edwards Become the First Woman President?" to repeatedly mock Edwards as "the Breck Girl," who is "on tap now, according to one of the nation s largest abortion rights supporters, to become the first woman president in the United States." Limbaugh played a parody of "I Am Woman" as a lead-in to the segment on the July 17 broadcast, which, as Media Matters noted, he promised during the March 8 edition that he would use for "any further John Edwards news," calling it one of the "official update theme [songs] for the Breck Girl." From the July 18 edition of ABC s Good Morning America: SHIPMAN: And there is striking gender-role reversal on the campaign trail. Hillary Clinton by far the toughest politically and stylistically. CLINTON: Let s focus on those who have attacked us and do everything we can to destroy them. SHIPMAN: Obama and Edwards, meanwhile, are emoting like crazy. JOHN EDWARDS [at hospital bedside]: Your hair is being fixed. You already look very pretty. OBAMA: There s nothing more difficult than me being on the phone hearing about their soccer game. SHIPMAN: Some political watchers argue that voters are ready to move beyond gender clich s. ARIANA HUFFINGTON (Huffington Post co-founder): We as a culture don t need to be buying the stereotype that men are tough, women are emotional. In a way, she s giving into the cultural stereotype if she does that. [end video clip] SHIPMAN: The Clinton campaign was uncharacteristically quiet on all of this, but the two women are quickly developing an acrimonious history. From the July 17 edition of MSNBC s Tucker: CARLSON: Mrs. Edwards told Salon.com she doesn t think Hillary is a strong enough advocate for women on issues like health care and abortion. Edwards said she understands why sometimes Hillary has to campaign like a man in order to make up for the fact that she s not. Two questions: Is Hillary Clinton s sex and her femininity still an issue in the presidential race, and would John Edwards be well served to get as publicly tough as his wife is? Here to answer those questions, associate editor of The Hill A.B. Stoddard and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey [R-TX]. Welcome to you both. A.B. Stoddard, is -- I mean, let s take this critique seriously -- is Hillary Clinton too manly to be president? From the July 17 edition of Taranto s "Best of the Web Today": Yet another ultraliberal woman has been won over by John Edwards s womanly charms: his spouse, Elizabeth Edwards. In an interview with Salon, Mrs. Edwards suggests that Mrs. Clinton is more mannish than Mr. Edwards: When I worked as a lawyer, I was the only woman in these rooms, too, and you want to reassure them you re as good as a man. And sometimes you feel you have to behave as a man and not talk about women s issues. I m sympathetic -- she wants to be commander in chief. But she s just not as vocal a women s advocate as I want to see. John is. And then she says, or maybe her supporters say, "Support me because I m a woman," and I want to say to her, "Well, then support me because I m a woman." The question is not so much how she campaigns -- that s theater. The question is, what does her campaign tell you about how she ll govern? And I m not convinced she d be as good an advocate for women. Taking a slight liberty with the quote, the Drudge Report ran (and later changed) the banner: GENDER BENDER: WIFE EDWARDS SAYS HILLARY BEHAVING LIKE A MAN This put Salon editrix Joan Walsh, who conducted the interview, on the defensive: I knew Edwards was making news when she criticized Clinton, but she was definitely not calling her a man, which is one of the GOP s favorite slurs against Hillary Clinton. This is the last, best hope of the Republicans to hold onto the White House: To brand the leading candidate, who happens to be female, as too mannish, while slurring the leading men -- John Edwards and Barack Obama -- as girly. We remember reading such slurs in an article just last week: In a few words, this Iowa voter had epitomized the struggle now playing out between the top two Democrats nationally. They are fighting for undecided female voters who are attracted by Obama s feminine appeal, but still drawn to the macho performance of the only woman to ever have a real shot at the Oval Office. May the best woman win. The author of that piece, Salon s Michael Scherer, didn t even hazard a guess as to whether Edwards was male or female. If you believe what you read in Salon, it takes a chicken sexer to keep the Democrats straight. From the July 17 edition of Premiere Radio Networks The Rush Limbaugh Show: LIMBAUGH: I ll tell you what, folks, we wanted to go back and play this update because Mrs. Edwards, Elizabeth Edwards, has confirmed all of this. You remember back in March, The New York Sun -- Josh Gerstein did a story in The New York Sun in which he had talked to -- what was her name? Oh, Kate Michelman. Kate Michelman, former abortion-leader babe, said of all the candidates, that John Edwards was the most sensitive to women. Of all -- not Hillary Clinton, not Barack Obama. John Edwards was the guy, first female president. Just like Clinton was the first black president, John Edwards was going to be the first female president. And so we put together this update having seen that. And then, of course, Media Matters for America got all upset that I would dare stoop this low. Well, now Mrs. Edwards has confirmed it today. Elizabeth Edwards has said Hillary is just -- she s -- well, let me get it up here. I don t want to paraphrase this because it s too important. Hillary is behaving like a man, unlike her husband. So vindication, ladies and gentlemen.

During an interview with presidential candidate and former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) that aired during the July 13 edition of NPR s Morning Edition on the topic of Edwards "Road to One America" tour, which highlights the issue of poverty, co-host Renee Montagne asked: "[V]oters rank the war in Iraq at the top of their list of concerns right now. Why make fighting poverty a central theme of your campaign?" In response to Edwards assertion that "there s a difference between looking at a poll to see what voters care about and only talking about those issues and leading," Montagne said: "I realize this is an ongoing issue, poverty in America, but it isn t just a poll with the Iraq war. It is a hugely momentous feeling across the country. It s not just a poll. It s a big issue for many, many, many people." Despite Montagne s suggestion that the war in Iraq is not a "big issue" for Edwards, while Edwards tour focuses on poverty, he has issued numerous statements about the Iraq war and has a "Plan to End the War in Iraq" on his campaign website. According to "John Edwards Plan to End the War in Iraq": "Senator John Edwards believes that every day this war goes on it is worse for Iraq, worse for our troops and worse for our country. We cannot wait for the next president to end the war in 2009, we must act today." The website states that Edwards has offered a "comprehensive proposal to end the war in Iraq," which "calls on Congress to use its funding power to block President Bush s escalation, immediately begin withdrawing troops by capping funding and requiring complete withdrawal of all combat troops in 12 to 18 months." Edwards has also issued a series of press releases concerning the Iraq war and his position on it, including three statements in July alone before kicking off his poverty-focused tour on July 15. Most recently, on July 12, in response to President Bush s press conference, Edwards released a statement criticizing Bush for "trying to link Iraq and 9/11 - a rationale for the war that virtually everyone except Dick Cheney has now recognized was false." On July 10, Edwards released a statement calling on Congress to "to exercise its constitutionally mandated funding power, force an immediate drawdown of 40,000 to 50,000 troops and require withdrawal of all troops within about a year." Edwards also issued a statement on July 7 "urg[ing] all Americans to ask their Congressional representatives to take actions to end the war and bring our troops home to the heroes welcome they deserve." As Daily Kos diarist chuckles1 noted, Montagne "simply brought up in order the right-wing talking points about ... John Edwards." From the July 13 edition of NPR s Morning Edition: MONTAGNE: Just finally, voters rank the war in Iraq at the top of their list of concerns right now. EDWARDS: Yep. MONTAGNE: Why make fighting poverty a central theme of your campaign? EDWARDS: Well, there s a difference between looking at a poll to see what voters care about and only talking about those issues and leading, and trying to -- MONTAGE: Well, let me -- I realize this is an ongoing issue, poverty in America, but it isn t just a poll with the Iraq war. It is a hugely momentous feeling across the country. It s not just a poll. It s a big issue for many, many, many people. EDWARDS: As it is for me. It s a huge issue for America. It s a huge issue for the world. I wasn t for a second downgrading the importance of the war in Iraq and ending the war in Iraq. My point was that you can t just focus on one issue. The person who s running for president of the United States has to focus on the things that they believe should be the priorities of America. The war in Iraq is certainly at the top of the list. Universal health care. So is addressing what I think is a crisis in climate change. And including millions of people who live in poverty. And because New Orleans has faded from some people s memory and because I believe it s important for America to focus on this issue, I just want to make sure that this is among the things that we, as a nation, are addressing.

On the July 15 broadcast of Fox Broadcasting Co. s Fox News Sunday, NPR national political correspondent Mara Liasson claimed that during a July 14 New Hampshire town hall meeting, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) "took questions for an hour and a half and answered them all, you know, with the same kind of candor and honesty that people come to expect from John McCain." Later in the program, Liasson claimed that McCain "is a candidate who always says, you know, he puts principle above politics." However, Media Matters for America has documented instances in which McCain -- whom the media have routinely described as "honest" and "authentic" -- has made contradictory statements or otherwise equivocated on a variety of issues, such as the Iraq war, Christian conservatives, ethanol, tax cuts for the wealthy, the Confederate flag, and abortion rights (see here, here, here, and here). McCain has also made a number of dubious statements in 2007 regarding the Iraq war. As Media Matters documented, during a visit to Baghdad, McCain responded to a question from a reporter about his statement that he "could walk through" neighborhoods in Baghdad today by stating: "Yeah, I just came from one." McCain was apparently referring to his trip to Baghdad s Shorja market, during which he and other members of his delegation were accompanied by more than 100 troops and several helicopters. On the April 8 edition of CBS 60 Minutes, McCain admitted that he had "miss[poken]" when he declared the market safe. In addition, as Media Matters has also noted, during a June 5 GOP presidential debate in New Hampshire, McCain stated: "I am convinced that if we fail and we have to withdraw, they will follow us home. It will be a base for Al Qaeda." McCain made a similar prediction during the May 3 GOP presidential debate at the Ronald Reagan presidential library. When he was asked what he would need to win the war in Iraq, McCain responded: "We must win in Iraq. If we withdraw, there will be chaos; there will be genocide; and they will follow us home." Yet, as Media Matters has noted (here and here), numerous media outlets have reported assessments of a wide range of U.S. intelligence officials, security experts, and military analysts disagreeing with the view that terrorists in Iraq will attack Americans inside the United States if U.S. military forces exit Iraq. From the July 15 broadcast of Fox News Sunday: BRIT HUME (guest host): Well, that s one way of looking at it, I suppose, if you re Senator McCain, that the campaign is fine. But a bunch of his aides -- top aides -- bailed out this week, and the campaign is thought to be all but broke. So, whither Senator McCain? Mara, you were with him in New Hampshire yesterday for what was thought to be a major speech. How does he seem? What s going on? LIASSON: Well, he seems fine. I mean, it was the strangest campaign trip I ve ever been on. I mean, the campaign staff are just walking around shell-shocked. A lot of them are not going to be around more than one or two more days. He is out of money. This has been a spectacular implosion. I don t know of any campaign that s kind of fallen this far this fast. From front-runner a year ago -- less than a year ago -- to underdog today. But what he s going to do is go back to the beginning, go back to his roots. He s going to campaign in New Hampshire, hold a lot of town meetings, kind of face-to-face encounters with voters, which he is great at. And he was in Claremont having a town meeting yesterday morning, where he took questions for an hour and a half and answered them all, you know, with the same kind of candor and honesty that people come to expect from John McCain. [...] HUME: Can he ever recover, though, from the opprobrium that he brought on himself among Republicans with his immigration stance? CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER (Washington Post columnist): I don t think so. But I think if the war emerges as the overriding issue, as it is, and immigration fades into the past, in some sense -- and it s going to be a dead issue now -- and it s all about the war, I think he has a chance. LIASSON: Well, I don t know if he has a chance, but certainly the campaign that, at least, Bill [Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard] has outlined for him, it s a campaign that -- HUME: It s doable. LIASSON: -- is doable and also something that he would enjoy. This is a candidate who always says, you know, he puts principle above politics. In this case, he did that. And you know what? Voters only reward you for that if you agree with them on a sufficient number of issues.

On the July 10 edition of MSNBC s Hardball, discussing that day s shake-up in Sen. John McCain s presidential campaign -- in which several high-profile aides left the campaign -- host Chris Matthews said, "Let me -- let me be -- let s get into the really worst part of my job, which is to talk about what happens if he does continue to sink." Matthews went on to assert, "You know, if you look at it on paper, here s a guy who s more seasoned than the current president, President Bush. He s got more military experience. He s been around a long time in terms of national responsibility. He s been a patriot, of course." Matthews added: "He served his country brutally as a POW. He s always been honest and respected in the media. He has all the pluses in the world of a sort of a, you know, an Audie Murphy, if you will, a real war hero. It s not working." Matthews said that during Republican debates, McCain was "miniaturized by standing among 10 Republicans, a man of his seasoning and vintage to have to go out there and stand between [Tom] Tancredo and Duncan Hunter and all these new guys." NBC chief foreign correspondent Andrea Mitchell agreed, adding, "You re on to something, Chris. If he was standing with Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, you know, just a handful of guys, stacked up against them, his experience in foreign affairs, his experience in the Senate, I think, would really dominate a debate." From the July 10 edition of MSNBC s Hardball with Chris Matthews: MATTHEWS: I ll try it with Andrea. You know, if you look at it on paper, here s a guy who s more seasoned than the current president, President Bush. He s got more military experience. He s been around a long time in terms of national responsibility. He s been a patriot, of course. He served his country brutally as a POW. He s always been honest and respected in the media. He has all the pluses in the world of a sort of a, you know, an Audie Murphy, if you will, a real war hero. It s not working. MITCHELL: It isn t working. And I wouldn t count him out if -- except for the money factor because now, everything has piled up. And this race is so extraordinarily expensive that it s hard to imagine how he can compete. We ve seen already how Mitt Romney was able to pull ahead of some of the others just by putting ads up. And John McCain -- MATTHEWS: Well, one of his top guys was talking to me -- MITCHELL: -- doesn t have that kind of money. MATTHEWS: I m sorry. One of his top guys was talking to me on the phone today, and we -- it was off the record, but I think he s out elsewhere making the same point, which is this burn rate. He s using up his money too much. Is that a problem? MITCHELL: And that could have something to do with what we saw today, the staff shakeup. These are the people who were in charge of the money, and they were obviously spending it on the wrong things or spending too much, or there s another story there. But there s some concern, clearly, about the way this campaign is organized. CRAWFORD: You know, they rejected -- MITCHELL: -- I do know that -- CRAWFORD: They rejected this, but I think the idea of him quitting the Senate and showing he s fully in this race is not such a bad idea. Now, that was rejected -- MATTHEWS: Didn t help Bob Dole any. MITCHELL: Oh, I don t know. This -- CRAWFORD: That was rejected, but -- MITCHELL: This man s life is in public service. How could you imagine him quitting the Senate? MATTHEWS: He s not giving up -- [crosstalk] MITCHELL: I mean, he s such a long shot for the presidency. [crosstalk] MATTHEWS: Andrea, you and I are in the same boat. This man wants to be Barry Goldwater, a senator for life from Arizona. He does not -- it s one of the reasons why he wants immigration reform. He wants to get some Latino votes down there. He doesn t want to be known as the Republican Party that doesn t like Latinos. MITCHELL: And he believes in it. MATTHEWS: He s taken a very liberal position. Well, he does believe in it. But also, it s good politics for a guy like him. CRAWFORD: My point is there s a real feeling he s not fully in this race. He only held two fund-raisers in the first quarter. That s been part of his problem. He hasn t really been committed to fundraising. So his commitment to the campaign is in question. MATTHEWS: There he is. Look what we re watching -- this is so instructive. Andrea, we re watching him just a moment ago, sort of get -- do one of -- what they call the mike check for one of these debates. I think he s miniaturized by standing among 10 Republicans, a man of his seasoning and vintage, to have to go out there and stand between Tancredo and Duncan Hunter and all these new guys. MITCHELL: You re on to -- MATTHEWS: I don t think it works. MITCHELL: You re on to something, Chris. If he was standing with Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, you know, just a handful of guys, stacked up against them, his experience in foreign affairs, his experience in the Senate, I think, would really dominate a debate. MATTHEWS: Yeah. MITCHELL: But by having to, you know, debate everybody else in that lineup, it becomes much more difficult to stand out. CRAWFORD: Well, he s going to New Hampshire this weekend, so we ll see if he shows us something a little different. MATTHEWS: Let me -- let me be -- let s get into the really worst part of my job, which is to talk about what happens if he does continue to sink. Andrea, who wins? Who picks up the McCain vote? Does it all go to Fred Thompson, his friend? Does it go to his fellow maverick, Rudy Giuliani -- or not exactly fellow maverick, but a man who he has some things in common with, Rudy Giuliani?

On the June 28 edition of MSNBC Live, anchor Chris Jansing interviewed Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, about her exchange with right-wing pundit Ann Coulter on the June 26 edition of MSNBC s Hardball, in which Edwards asked Coulter to stop making "personal attacks" against her husband and others. At one point during the interview, Jansing said to Edwards: "There are people who support your opinion, I m sure you know, who say, Why even dignify it with a response? Why give Ann Coulter more publicity? " Jansing followed up her question by asking Elizabeth Edwards: "Was this about fundraising? Was this about provoking an argument to get publicity for your husband s campaign?" Edwards responded: "Well, I think that you can check with the NBC bookers that I had nothing to do with booking Ann Coulter before the end of the fundraising quarter." Meanwhile, the June 28 broadcast of Today featured National Review White House correspondent Byron York suggesting an equivalence between Coulter s rhetoric and the Edwards campaign s response to it, claiming that people "outside of the political world" would be as upset with the fact that the Edwards campaign highlighted Elizabeth Edwards confrontation with Coulter in their fundraising effort as they would be with Coulter s remarks. According to York: "As they say in the business world, there was a revenue component for both sides about this. If anybody on the outside of the political world were to look at it, I think they might just look at it and say, you know, a pox on both your houses." From the June 28 edition of MSNBC Live: JANSING: Joining me now, the woman who took on Ann Coulter, Elizabeth Edwards. Good morning, Mrs. Edwards. EDWARDS: Good morning, Chris. JANSING: Ann Coulter has said so many controversial things about your husband for years, really. Why did you decide to call in? Why now? EDWARDS: Well, you know, when she said some things back in maybe March about John and a lot of people pulled their -- a lot of newspapers pulled her column from their papers, then we had some silence, and I thought, well, perhaps the economic consequences would make a difference, finally, in this hate speech. And then, apparently, it didn t. She spoke on ABC, I heard about it. And then, when I found out she was going to be on Hardball, on a call-in show, I thought, you know, maybe it s time, finally, for someone simply to do what maybe no one ever asked her to do, which was just to stop and to think about the effect she was having on the political dialogue. Not her alone, mind you -- JANSING: But did you really think she was going to stop? EDWARDS: Well, I really thought there was a chance, and still hope that there s a chance, that what will happen is that people will be inspired to say, "I agree," and to speak out against it, to have the same kind of impact they had on their newspapers when they wrote in and said, "We re not interested in reading her anymore." If people will call the radio stations, the television stations, the newspapers, and say, "We don t want hate speech," we ll be able to rid ourselves of it. We actually did it in the South, you know, people speaking out against racist language. Decent people taking the time and using -- having the courage to speak out when someone used racist terms made a difference. Racist language is no longer part of the dialogue -- civic dialogue in the South. JANSING: There are people who support your opinion, I m sure you know, who say, "Why even dignify it with a response? Why give Ann Coulter more publicity?" EDWARDS: Well, I completely understand that, but if being quiet about it, if being submissive about it meant that she would eventually stop and go away, that hasn t worked. I actually wrote a letter which I -- the campaign in 2003 said I shouldn t send, and I did not -- I wrote it in November of 2003 about her making fun of the moment of Charlie Dean s death, of our own son s death, of the murder of Senator Kennedy s brothers, and even of the cancer of Dick and Jane Gephardt s son. This is intolerable, it s been going on a long time. Someone needs to say "stop." I hope that I m not alone in doing it. JANSING: Well, skeptics, as you know, also have said that this is nothing more than a fundraising ploy, that after all this happened, an email went up on your website, and, in fact, as I understand, you got one of the best responses so far to any email campaign. Was this about fundraising? Was this about provoking an argument to get publicity for your husband s campaign? EDWARDS: Well, I think that you can check with the NBC bookers that I had nothing to do with booking Ann Coulter before the end of the fundraising quarter. I was simply listening to what was said, and, I mean, everybody gets to the point where they ve had enough. Now, we are asking people to get engaged, you know, honestly in our campaign, or in another campaign, or in an effort to speak out against this kind of language. The point we made in the fundraising campaign -- and if it s been successful, which I don t actually know, but if it s been successful, it s been because people are making a choice between -- about what it is they want. Do they want campaigns if substance where we talk about real policies and real ideas, or do they want this kind of name-calling? And if it s been successful, it s been successful because that s what people want. From the June 28 broadcast of Today: DAVID GREGORY (NBC chief White House correspondent): But on Tuesday, Elizabeth Edwards called in to MSNBC s Hardball to say enough is enough. For the Edwards campaign, it was a calculated step to speak out against what it calls hate speech. And it seized on the exchange immediately for a fundraising pitch on its website. YORK: As they say in the business world, there was a revenue component for both sides about this. If anybody on the outside of the political world were to look at it, I think they might just look at it and say, you know, a pox on both your houses.

During an interview on the June 27 edition of CNN Headline News Glenn Beck, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter defended a controversial remark she made about Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards during the 2007 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) by claiming, "I wasn t saying it on TV. I was saying it at a right-wing political convention with 7,000 college Republicans. I didn t put it on TV." In fact, Coulter s March 2 CPAC speech -- during which she said she couldn t "really talk about" Edwards because "you have to go into rehab if you use the word faggot " -- aired on C-SPAN, like many of the other speeches at the conference. Moreover, Coulter has previously used the epithet "on TV." Indeed, during the July 27, 2006, edition of MSNBC s Hardball, she referred to former Vice President Al Gore as a "total fag." Additionally, in response to host Glenn Beck s question regarding whether or not she thinks the word "faggot" is a "slur," Coulter defended her use of the term by claiming that "liberals don t mind" that comedian Sarah Silverman has used it. She said, "I think it s a comedic word, a schoolyard word. Sarah Silverman uses the word, and, oh, liberals don t mind it when she uses it." Coulter went on to argue that "[t]he word means wimp, wuss, pathetic." In March, amid the controversy over her CPAC speech, Coulter similarly defended her use of the term, calling it a "schoolyard taunt" that "means wussy," as Media Matters for America noted. Coulter also criticized Beck for bleeping the word "faggot" when he aired a video clip of her CPAC comments. She said, "I like that you re bleeping that now. Are you also bleeping illegal alien and amnesty, other words we re not supposed to use? ... Niggardly? " Indeed, although Beck referred to the word "faggot" as a "slur" and bleeped it on June 27, the weblog Think Progress noted that during the January 22 edition of his show, Beck discussed actor Isaiah Washington s use of the word and referred to it simply as a "naughty name." He asked: "[W]hat is the controversy? One of the guys called another guy a naughty name." Moreover, while Beck s program bleeped the word in the CPAC clip, on January 22 Beck criticized The New York Times for not putting the word into print. He stated: "Do you know that The New York Times wouldn t even print -- I mean, we could say the word. We re having an adult conversation here -- wouldn t even print the word faggot. I find that amazing." Coulter s reference to Gore as a "total fag" on Hardball came after host Chris Matthews asked her, "How do you know that [former President] Bill Clinton is gay?" -- referring to her comment the night before on the July 26, 2006, edition of CNBC s The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch that Clinton "show[s] some level of latent homosexuality." Coulter responded, "I don t know if he s gay. But Al Gore -- total fag." She went on to defend her theory about Clinton s sexuality by stating that "everyone has always known, widely promiscuous heterosexual men have, as I say, a whiff of the bathhouse about them." Coulter claimed she was "just kidding" about Gore, but said of her theory about Clinton, "It s not only not a joke, it s not even surprising." From the June 27 edition of CNN Headline News Glenn Beck: BECK: I have said things on the air that have been taken out of context, they have been twisted. I ve said things that just -- foot in the mouth, just stupid, stupid things. This question on ABC and -- and this is the one thing that I haven t understood, and I wanted to talk to you about it personally -- this question that you answered on Good Morning America, and I think answered well, was -- stemmed from a comment that you made about John Edwards at a speech. And I want to play the clip. Here s the clip. COULTER [video clip]: I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word [bleep]. So -- BECK: So, you -- COULTER: -- I like that you re bleeping that now. Are you also bleeping "illegal alien" and "amnesty," other words we re not supposed to use? BECK: Well, one is a -- COULTER: "Niggardly?" BECK: One is a slur. One is a slur. Do you believe -- do you believe that word is a slur? COULTER: No. BECK: You don t? COULTER: No. No, I think it s a comedic word, a schoolyard word. Sarah Silverman uses the word, and, oh, liberals don t mind it when she uses it. BECK: OK. COULTER: And by the way, I wasn t saying it on TV. I was saying it at a right-wing political convention with 7,000 college Republicans. I didn t put it on TV. BECK: OK, well -- but that doesn t necessarily -- I don t want to get into that. Here s -- here s what it -- COULTER: You don t think it makes a difference what the venue is? There s nothing you d say in front of a group of college Republicans that you wouldn t say on TV? I doubt that. BECK: No, there really isn t. I mean, I do comedy tours and I say, because you live in the -- you live in the world of YouTube now, where you know you re going to -- somebody s going to take it and spin it out of context, et cetera, et cetera. But I don t understand the joke. Can you -- was it -- COULTER: Well, you re going back six months. This was a week after Isaiah Washington, the actor -- BECK: I know, I understand that. But what is the connection -- COULTER: -- was sent to rehab for using the word. BECK: I got that. But what s the connection to John Edwards? COULTER: I had just done five minutes on Obama, five minutes on Hillary. I needed to end my speech, so I just threw in, "I can t say anything about him because I can t use this word." The word means wimp, wuss, pathetic -- BECK: OK. COULTER: That s what it means. BECK: Got it. COULTER: And someone who does, you know, the Las Vegas routine before illiterate juries in order to bankrupt doctors with junk science -- admitted by The New York Times to be junk science -- BECK: Yes. COULTER: -- is precisely what that word means, which is why 7,000 college Republicans laughed. BECK: Ann Coulter, author of Godless: The Church of Liberalism.

During an interview with right-wing pundit Ann Coulter on the June 28 edition of MSNBC s Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough asked Coulter about an exchange Coulter had with Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, on the June 26 edition of MSNBC s Hardball with Chris Matthews. Scarborough noted that Elizabeth Edwards "said that you had written some column where you had made light of John Edwards dead son," and asked Coulter: "What s the story behind that?" Coulter replied: "Needless to say, that is not true. ... You can look it up. It s all over the Web. It s a fabulous column, titled The Party of Ideas, written in 2003. I had to go back and get the full gist of the column. It was about all of the Democratic primary opponents." In the column, published on November 19, 2003, Coulter, addressing John Edwards, wrote: "If you want points for not using your son s death politically, don t you have to take down all those Ask me about my son s death in a horrific car accident bumper stickers?" Coulter further said on Morning Joe, "I m the only person in America who has to go back and constantly explain an entire column when it is lied about like this. ... I am getting a little fed up with being described as the aggressor in these matters. In any event, it was about the Democratic presidential nominees back then." But Coulter did not explain how what Elizabeth Edwards said constituted a "lie[]." On the June 26 Hardball, Elizabeth Edwards, who called into the show to speak to Coulter, said: "You had a column a couple of years ago, which made fun of the moment of [brother of then-presidential candidate and Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean] Charlie Dean s death, and suggested that my husband had a bumper sticker on the back of his car that said, Ask me about my dead son. " But contrary to Coulter s claim on Morning Joe that Edwards "lied about" the content of her November 2003 column, Coulter did joke that John Edwards "had a bumper sticker ... that said, Ask me about my dead son. " From the column: John Edwards injects his son s fatal car accident into his campaign by demanding that everyone notice how he refuses to inject his son s fatal car accident into his campaign. Edwards has talked about his son s death in a 1996 car accident on "Good Morning America," in dozens of profiles and in his new book. ("It was and is the most important fact of my life.") His 1998 Senate campaign ads featured film footage of Edwards at a learning lab he founded in honor of his son, titled "The Wade Edwards Learning Lab." He wears his son s Outward Bound pin on his suit lapel. He was going to wear it on his sleeve, until someone suggested that might be a little too "on the nose." If you want points for not using your son s death politically, don t you have to take down all those "Ask me about my son s death in a horrific car accident" bumper stickers? Edwards is like a politician who keeps announcing that he will not use his opponent s criminal record for partisan political advantage. I absolutely refuse to mention the name of my dearly beloved and recently departed son killed horribly in a car accident, which affected me deeply, to score cheap political points. I wouldn t want John Edwards to be president, but I think even [White House senior adviser] Karl Rove would be willing to stipulate that the death of a son is a terrible thing. Furthermore, Coulter wrote of Charlie Dean s death in the same column: Howard Dean talks about his brother Charlie s murder at the hands of North Vietnamese communists. Bizarrely, after working on the failed George McGovern campaign, Charlie Dean went to Indochina in 1974 to witness the ravages of the war he had opposed. Not long after he arrived, the apparently ungrateful communists captured and killed him. Hey fellas! I m on your s-- CLUNK! When Edwards mentioned the column on Hardball, Coulter did not claim -- as she would later on Morning Joe -- that her column had been "lied about"; she merely responded, "That s now three years ago," and, echoing an audience member, asked, "[W]hy isn t John Edwards making this call?" Also on Morning Joe, Coulter claimed that her March 2 comments at a meeting of the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) were misunderstood. She said, "And if you want to go back to CPAC, I was speaking to a group of 7,000 College Republicans and no, I will not be arranging my words so the stupidest person in the liberal blogosphere understands what I m saying." On the June 25 edition of ABC s Good Morning America, Coulter similarly suggested that her CPAC comments had been misconstrued, asserting, "I did not call John Edwards the F-word. I said I couldn t talk about him because you go into rehab for using that word." At CPAC, Coulter concluded her speech by saying: "Oh, and I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word faggot ... so I m kind of at an impasse, can t really talk about Edwards. So I think I ll just conclude here and take your questions." From the June 28 edition of MSNBC s Morning Joe: SCARBOROUGH: OK, but Ann, you -- I think sometimes you give people too much credit when you make references to Isaiah Washington at CPAC, from Grey s Anatomy, when you make references to Bill Maher -- COULTER: I described the entire Bill Maher scenario in one sentence. If the Good Morning America audience -- which is pretty large and pretty broad -- gets the joke and no one figured out a way to truncate that sentence until 36 hours later -- I mean, it s not like the liberal blogs weren t -- as they always do -- watching my appearance and instantly posting from the moment I walked off Good Morning America all of their indignation, which apparently centered on my comparing George Bush to FDR, because he s great on foreign policy, lousy on domestic policy. Nobody even thought of how to lie about what I said for 36 hours. So don t tell me I was giving them ammunition. And if you want to go back to CPAC, I was speaking to a group of 7,000 College Republicans and no, I will not be arranging my words so the stupidest person in the liberal blogosphere understands what I m saying. [...] SCARBOROUGH: Now, I will tell you the part of that Elizabeth Edwards interview that jarred the most people -- jarred me, jarred just about everybody I spoke with -- was the part where she brought up the fact -- she said that you had written some column where you had made light of John Edwards dead son. What s the story behind that? COULTER: Needless to say, that is not true. And coming from people who have done what we have just seen them do in the earlier segment, I don t think they deserve a lot of credibility on this. You can look it up. It s all over the Web. It s a fabulous column, titled "The Party of Ideas," written in 2003. I had to go back and get the full gist of the column. It was about all of the Democratic primary opponents. And by the way, lifting a quote out of context from a short, five-minute TV interview is a little quicker to correct than an entire column -- SCARBOROUGH: Right. COULTER: -- written four years ago. There is a point to a column. There is a woof and a wharf, and let s see -- oh yeah, that s right. I m the only person in America who has to go back and constantly explain an entire column when it is lied about like this and describe why I chose this adverb rather than that adverb. And was this a joke? Was that a joke? So, you know, I am getting a little fed up with being described as the aggressor in these matters. In any event, it was about the Democratic presidential nominees back then. You know, [former Rep. Dick] Gephardt [MO], Dean, of course, this guy -- the trial lawyer -- and how they were not talking about the war, they were not talking about the economy. What they were talking about was either they re running for president either because they had a dead relative -- "Vote for me!" -- or had suddenly discovered a Jewish heritage. And in the various dead relative categories, that included, of course, "well, one who wasn t running, but the one who started it all" Al Gore in two, two speeches at the Democratic National Convention. Once, it was the sister, once, it was the near fatal accident of his son, so that it got to the point that all of his family members had to start fearing more runs for higher office. You had Dean s brother. You had Gephardt s -- I don t know -- sister or the close death of a child. And then I went through the trial lawyer. A fact that is now memorialized in Bob Shrum s book, who describes John Edwards telling -- John Kerry felt queasy about it and almost didn t put John Edwards -- SCARBOROUGH: That s right. Yeah. COULTER: -- on the ticket because Edwards kept saying to him, "I ve never told anyone this story before," and then tells a tear-jerking story about how he climbed up onto his dead son s slab at the funeral home. [...] SCARBOROUGH: Again, I wouldn t have written that in a column, Ann, but certainly, nobody s talking about this. COULTER: Why not? SCARBOROUGH: Because it s not just who I am. I don t do that. COULTER: You would write what in a column? [inaudible] SCARBOROUGH: I wouldn t have put on a bumper sticker -- I would not have put on a bumper sticker ask me about my dead son. That s just not me. That is you. And there are certainly people out there that provoke thought that way. I don t do that, but at the same time -- COULTER: Well, I kinda think you have to read the full thing in context. SCARBOROUGH: OK. COULTER: And apparently, however I write -- SCARBOROUGH: OK, fine. Hold on a second, Ann. Let me make a point. COULTER: I have written five New York Times best-sellers. SCARBOROUGH: OK. COULTER: People like the way I write. SCARBOROUGH: All right, Ann. Let me make my point, Ann. COULTER: I comment on America in a lively and entertaining way. These are legitimate topics and I m a little sick of being browbeaten by a bunch of harridans about why I chose this word or why I told that joke. And then people turn around and say "Oh, you re so mean! You re so mean!" SCARBOROUGH: Well, Ann, I m not browbeating you here. I m trying to put it in proper context. COULTER: Well, you haven t spent 24 hours being asked, "Oh, why did you use this word?" SCARBOROUGH: OK. COULTER: I ve never seen people avoid ideas so much in such an obvious way and try to alert Americans not to read anything, not to listen to something someone says -- not because of what she s saying, but by trying to portray her as a Nazi. This happens every time I put a book out, and I m getting a little bored with it. To use a Smith College word, it s getting a little tiresome. SCARBOROUGH: Yeah, that is a Smith College word. I -- again, trying to put this in context. We re reading Shrum s words, and -- COULTER: "The Party of Ideas" -- November 20th, 2003. It is one of the greatest columns ever written and I highly recommend it. SCARBOROUGH: OK, well, we will recommend that to everybody Ann, and I greatly appreciate you being on with us. And again, the thing is -- I appreciate it, Ann. The thing is, you know, obviously Ann is very angry right now. And you all have been around me when I ve been angry because my words have been wrenched from their context. And, you know, the thing is, again, whether you talk about the first issue -- whether it s Good Morning America where they just cut out the last part of that instead of telling the whole story about it, you know, it s misleading. There s no doubt. The wire services have been misleading, a lot of news shows, because people hate Ann Coulter so much that you can get away with it. That s just the bottom line. From the June 25 edition of ABC s Good Morning America: CHRIS CUOMO (co-host): Some tough words for you by the three top candidates in response to what you had said. Some were calling it a homosexual slur, you said it was a taunt. They all came out when you were talking about John Edwards and said, "This was wrong. We must deny it." Fair criticism of you or a shift towards the tolerant among the GOP? COULTER: No, no. There were -- I was denounced all over. All over. I think the one that hurt the most was from I mALittleGirlInAPinkPartyDress.com. CUOMO: Why? COULTER: Very upsetting. CUOMO: You -- COULTER: Though about the same time, Bill Maher said -- and by the way, I did not call John Edwards the F-word. I said I couldn t talk about him because you go into rehab for using that word. CUOMO: You say you were joking. COULTER: About the same -- oh yeah. I wouldn t insult gays by comparing them to John Edwards. Now, that would be mean. But about the same time, you know, Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. So I ve learned my lesson. If I m gonna say anything about John Edwards in the future, I ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.

On the June 28 edition of NBC s Today, guest host and NBC News chief White House correspondent David Gregory uncritically repeated the false claim made by right-wing pundit Ann Coulter on the June 26 edition of MSNBC s Hardball that Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards received "big money to speak in front of a poverty group." Gregory used the claim during an interview with Edwards wife, Elizabeth, to argue: "If you strip away some of the inflammatory rhetoric [by Coulter] against your husband and other Democrats, the point she s trying to make about your husband ... is in effect that he s disingenuous, especially on the signature issue of poverty, whether it s a $400 haircut or taking big money to speak in front of a poverty group." Gregory asked, "[I]s that a real point of vulnerability that you have to deal with in this campaign?" However, as Media Matters for America noted, in claiming that Edwards "charge[d] a poverty group $50,000 for a speech," Coulter appeared to be distorting the earlier disclosure that Edwards received $55,000 for a January 2006 speech at the University of California-Davis. While Edwards reportedly "chose to speak on Poverty, the great moral issue facing America, " there is no evidence that he was speaking to a "poverty group" at the university. Furthermore, as Media Matters documented at the time, the widely repeated claim that Edwards "charged" UC-Davis for the speech ignored the fact that there was an admission fee to the event, which, combined with sponsorships, offset Edwards speaking fee, according to his campaign. From the June 28 edition of NBC s Today: GREGORY: You said rather pointedly that you think Ann Coulter is guilty of hate speech against your husband and others as well. If you strip away some of the inflammatory rhetoric against your husband and other Democrats, the point she s trying to make about your husband, Senator Edwards, running for the White House is in effect that he s disingenuous, especially on the signature issue of poverty, whether it s a $400 haircut or taking big money to speak in front of a poverty group. If you, again, strip away the inflammatory rhetoric, is that a real point of vulnerability that you have to deal with in this campaign? EDWARDS: David, that is not -- that has absolutely nothing to do with what she was saying whatsoever. I have a response for that, and if you -- people -- John has a lifetime of dedication to poverty issues. And if you don t trust him on that because he once got a haircut that was too expensive, don t vote for him and don t support him. But if you believe that lifetime as opposed to the price of a single haircut, then do support him.

On the June 26 edition of MSNBC s Hardball, right-wing pundit and syndicated columnist Ann Coulter falsely claimed that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein "was working with Al Qaeda s top agents" and expressed surprise that host Chris Matthews "did not know that Saddam had sent his top agents to work with top agents from Al Qaeda." Coulter later compared Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden s relationship with the Taliban to Saddam s relationship with Al Qaeda, saying, "Saddam was working with Al Qaeda, too!" However, investigations by the Senate Intelligence Committee and the 9-11 Commission found no evidence of an operational relationship between Saddam s regime and the terrorist organization. During her Hardball appearance, Coulter also falsely asserted that Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards "charge[d] a poverty group $50,000 for a speech" and that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) accused "evangelicals" of "hijacking America" in a June 23 speech. Contrary to Coulter s claim that Hussein "was working with Al Qaeda" and that he "sent his top agents to work with top agents from Al Qaeda," a September 8, 2006, Senate Intelligence Committee report noted that "[p]ostwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qa ida to provide material or operational support." The report further noted that "[p]ostwar information indicates there were three instances in which al-Qa ida communicated with representatives of Saddam s regime." The committee cited a meeting between an Iraqi intelligence officer and bin Laden in 1995, in which the officer reportedly rebuffed the Al Qaeda leader s request for support. The committee also noted intelligence indicating that an Al Qaeda operative traveled to Iraq in 1998 and 2002 to request a meeting with Saddam, but was refused in both cases. The 9-11 Commission similarly found "no evidence" that contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda "developed into a collaborative operational relationship." Also, on April 5, the inspector general of the Defense Department declassified a report that reviewed the prewar intelligence-gathering activities conducted by the department s Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group (PCTEG), run by then-Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith. The report noted that the PCTEG had released alternative intelligence assessments asserting that "Iraq has been complicit in supporting al-Qaida terrorist activities." The report went on to describe the office s intelligence handling as "inappropriate" and specifically rebutted its assertion of Iraq-Al Qaeda ties. The report stated that "[t]he Intelligence Community discounted conclusions about the high degree of cooperation between Iraq and al-Qaida," adding in a footnote that it is "noteworthy" that the postwar debriefings of Saddam and other former high-ranking Iraqi government officials confirmed the intelligence community s assessment: Noteworthy is that post-war debriefs of Saddam Hussein, [former Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister] Tariq Aziz, [former Iraqi intelligence official Barzan Ibrahim Hasan] al-Tikriti, and [Al Qaeda operative Ibn al-Shaykh] al-Libi as well as document exploitation by DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency] all confirmed that the Intelligence Community was correct: Iraq and al-Qaida did not cooperate in all categories. The terms the Intelligence Community used to describe the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida were validated, "no conclusive signs," and "direct cooperation ... has not been established." Coulter s made her false claim after Matthews noted that "40 percent of Americans believe that it was Iraq, Saddam Hussein, who attacked us on 9-11" and asked, "Does that concern you, that people are misinformed?" However, while Matthews prefaced the discussion by describing those who believe Saddam was behind 9-11 as "misinformed," he did not correct Coulter s subsequent false assertion Saddam "was working with Al Qaeda s top agents." Matthews clearly knew that was the case, having noted the Defense Department inspector general s report on the April 6 edition of Hardball, during which he asserted, "It s official. Saddam was not allied with Al Qaeda. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11." Later on the June 26 edition of Hardball, Coulter falsely claimed that Edwards "charge[d] a poverty group $50,000 for a speech." In fact, according to Edwards personal financial disclosure for 2006, Edwards did not "charge a poverty group $50,000 for a speech." According to that disclosure, Edwards received the following fees for speaking in 2006: $35,000 from the Hunter College Foundation Inc., City University of New York$32,000 from the Economic Club of Southwestern Michigan$12,000 from the Gonzaga University Law School$32,000 from the International Housewares Association$16,000 from Mount Union College$32,000 from Regberg and Associates Inc.$40,000 from the Stanford in Government Public Policy Forum$32,000 from the Stanford Washington Research Group$44,000 from the University of California, Davis, Mondavi Center$40,000 from the University of Judaism$40,000 from the University of Texas-Pan American Foundation$40,000 from the Vanderbilt University Impact Series$20,000 from the Simmons School of Management Leadership Conference Coulter was apparently distorting an earlier story about Edwards, noted by Media Matters for America, in which several media outlets reported that Edwards charged the University of California-Davis $55,000 for a January 2006 speech without noting that the cost was offset by ticket prices, according to the Edwards campaign. Later in the program, Coulter falsely claimed that Obama "just gave this speech on evangelicals hijacking America." In fact, in the June 23 speech to which Coulter was apparently referring, Obama did not blame "evangelicals" for "hijacking America." Rather, he said "somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and started being used to drive us apart. It got hijacked. Part of it s because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, who ve been all too eager to exploit what divides us." From the speech: So doing the Lord s work is a thread that s run through our politics since the very beginning. And it puts the lie to the notion that the separation of church and state in America means faith should have no role in public life. Imagine Lincoln s Second Inaugural without its reference to "the judgments of the Lord." Or King s "I Have a Dream" speech without its reference to "all of God s children." Or President Kennedy s Inaugural without the words, "here on Earth, God s work must truly be our own." At each of these junctures, by summoning a higher truth and embracing a universal faith, our leaders inspired ordinary people to achieve extraordinary things. But somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and started being used to drive us apart. It got hijacked. Part of it s because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, who ve been all too eager to exploit what divides us. At every opportunity, they ve told evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their Church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage; school prayer and intelligent design. There was even a time when the Christian Coalition determined that its number one legislative priority was tax cuts for the rich. I don t know what Bible they re reading, but it doesn t jibe with my version. As Media Matters noted, on the June 25 edition of Fox News Hannity hijack and religion in the same sentence." From the June 26 edition of MSNBC s Hardball with Chris Matthews: MATTHEWS: No, but 40 percent of Americans believe that it was Iraq, Saddam Hussein, who attacked us on 9-11. Does that concern you, that people are misinformed? COULTER: No, but I think what -- well, yes -- MATTHEWS: It doesn t bother you? COULTER: -- but -- MATTHEWS: That would explain why people supported -- COULTER: We do know -- MATTHEWS: -- the war. COULTER: Look, I don t think that s a particularly good question. We also do know that Saddam -- MATTHEWS: It s the answer I m asking if you re concerned about. COULTER: Right. Well, this is why it s not a good question because we do know Saddam was working with Al Qaeda s top agents. That his intelligence agents -- MATTHEWS: OK, then you re right. Then the war -- COULTER: -- were working with them. MATTHEWS: -- was well-founded because the war was based on WMD, on a threat from Iraq to us, and also posed on the idea that the terrorists are the people who attacked us on 9-11, and those are the people we attacked when we went to Iraq -- COULTER: We know -- MATTHEWS: -- then we re right in going to war. COULTER: We know no single country attacked us because it was individual terrorists, and by the way, your team claims -- MATTHEWS: What team? COULTER: -- to support the war in Afghanistan -- MATTHEWS: I m just going by these poll questions. COULTER: -- and Afghanistan didn t attack us on 9-11, either, Chris! MATTHEWS: What -- but bin Laden did. COULTER: Well, OK. He s not -- MATTHEWS: And bin Laden was -- COULTER: -- even a citizen of Afghanistan! MATTHEWS: -- working with the Taliban. He was protected by the Taliban in Afghanistan. COULTER: And -- and Al Qaeda was working with Saddam! MATTHEWS: And that s why the American people supported the troops going into Afghanistan, and that s why, apparently -- COULTER: And we supported going into Iraq! MATTHEWS: -- a good portion of the American people are still misinformed about why we went into Iraq. COULTER: No, you re misinformed, including on the war you claim to support! Afghanistan did not attack us on 9-11! They were working with Al Qaeda! MATTHEWS: Right. COULTER: OK. Saddam was working with Al Qaeda, too! MATTHEWS: He was? COULTER: Yes! You -- MATTHEWS: Well, then, these people are right. COULTER: If you did not know that Saddam -- MATTHEWS: No, this is great. COULTER: -- had sent his top agents to work with top agents from Al Qaeda -- MATTHEWS: This is what I want to hear. We ll be right back with Ann Coulter. Thank you. [...] COULTER: I think we heard all we need to hear. The wife of a presidential candidate is asking me to stop speaking. No. MATTHEWS: No, she said you should stop being so negative to people individually. COULTER: Right, as opposed to bankrupting doctors by giving a shyster Las Vegas routine in front of juries, based on science -- MATTHEWS: OK. COULTER: Wait. You said I d have as long as I would have -- MATTHEWS: Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. COULTER: -- and you instantly interrupt me. MATTHEWS: Go ahead. Go ahead. COULTER: As I was saying, doing these psychic routines in front of illiterate juries to bankrupt doctors, who now can t deliver babies, and to charge a poverty group $50,000 for a speech. Don t talk to me about how to use language. [...] UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My candidate, [Sen.] Barack Obama [D-IL], he is a churchgoer. He s reaching out to the religious part of the country, and he wants to turn the page and he wants to be friends. So, how can you call him godless? [laughter] UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How can you call him godless? COULTER: Well, he goes to kind of a crazy church where the minister praises [Libyan President Col. Muammar el-] Qaddafi and says we deserved 9-11. So, there are churches and churches, and, you know, he just gave this speech on -- MATTHEWS: OK. COULTER: -- on evangelicals hijacking America, and I mean, it just seems to me, people are always saying you have to give up on abortion so the country will be united. Well, OK, how about you guys give up on abortion? MATTHEWS: Ann Coulter, the name of the book is Godless. We have sold a lot of her books tonight. I don t know if I can go to confession fast enough.