John Edwards Upset At Being Called A Faggot

I can understand being upset about that. Most of us would be pretty mad if Ann Coulter called us a faggot, and the whole world heard it. The problem is that Mr. Edwards himself has no place to be upset because he is nearly as guilty as Ann. In my opinion ... he's far worse.

Why? Well faggot, as I outlined here, isn't an attack on homosexuals anymore. It is a slang word used to insult a whole host of different people. Often it's used in a non-serious, jesting manner. Much like the word gay. Just because you say them doesn't mean you are insulting gay people, and only the hyper-sensitive among us will make that argument anyway.

Employing people with a long history of anti-religious comments on their blogs is clearly more of an insult than using the word faggot which has broad meaning. In fact, the things Edwards' former employees had written over the years were far more vile, venomous, and insulting than anything Ann Coulter has said.

While at Berkeley Edwards shot back at Ann:

"I think it is important that we not reward hateful, selfish, childish behavior with attention. I also believe it is important for all of us to speak out against language of this kind; it is the place where hatred gets its foothold, and we can’t stand silently by and allow this kind of language to be used."

That's hilarious ... well at least coming from him.

Back in February Edwards talked with Wolf Blitzer about his employees, and the criticism they were getting. Edwards dismissed the criticism as coming:

"particularly from people on the far right of the political spectrum."

So would it then be ok for Ann Coulter to dismiss the criticism she's receiving because it comes primarily from people on the far left of the political spectrum?

Even more hilarious is that Edwards knew of the hateful thing these women have been spewing all over the internet BEFORE he hired them, and still chose to give them employment.

EDWARDS: "Well, I said, as soon as I found out about this, that a number of the statements that had been made by these women before they ever came to work for my campaign were statements that I rejected, strongly disagreed with. I spoke to them directly and personally. They both assured me they had no intention of denigrating anyone's faith. They apologized. They said they would not do it in the future while working for me. I took them at their word and I stood by them because of that.

To top it off ... he didn't fire them because of this, this, or this. They both resigned (maybe with some pressure) while Edwards reaffirmed his support for them.

Edwards speaks of not rewarding, or giving attention to people who make statements like Ann made, and I don't disagree. You have no place to speak that way when you yourself gave attention, and rewarded two people responsible for far more offensive statements than were made about you at CPAC.

Mr. Edwards (aka soon to be ex-presidential candidate) ... you can't take the high road when you are the one who paved the low road.

I wonder if Bill Maher's comments will get the same coverage from the AP as Ann's?

UPDATE:
Now Edwards is talking about Jesus!

Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards says Jesus would be appalled at how the United States has ignored the plight of the suffering, and that he believes children should have private time to pray at school.

Edwards, in an interview with the Web site Beliefnet.com, said Jesus would be most upset with the selfishness of Americans and the country’s willingness to go to war “when it’s not necessary.”