- Sweet speaking? No.
- Kind? No.
- Ogled by middle-aged liberals and conservatives alike? Yes.
- Good or bad for the Republicans? Dunno.
That's the question. Is she bad for Republicans? I used to think yes. Then, non-candidate John Edwards got on the anti-Anne Coulter bandwagon. As I see it, given Edwards is among the most liberal Democrats, his interest validates Coulter to Republicans.
This does not make Coulter right in her approach or ideas, just as her ideas are not by default wrong just because she hates liberals. It does mean that John Edwards campaign is desperate for votes, and used Coulter to stir up interest.
As Democrats go, I contend this is still a Hillary Clinton race, with a strong second by Barack Obama. The support is there, the money is there, the media is there. Edwards is about as important as when Alan Keyes ran against Obama in illinois -- lots of noise, but not a chance.
John Edwards is, ironically, helping Republicans. As he is now sitting the chair of the third person in a two-person race, money that could go to supporting Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton, is lining his coffers. Wasting money does no candidate any good, but, to those investing foolishly in Edwards, voters are the ones really losing. What does Anne Coulter get? Infamy, book sales, and the capacity to stir money from Obama to Edwards. She's the victor.
What if the vote was Anne Coulter against John Edwards? Who would win?