I agree. The presidential elections of 1800, 1828, and 1840 were much uglier than anything we have seen in recent years. It is hard to believe some of the things were said in those elections (the main difference was that most candidates relied on surrogates to make their attacks – kind of like George W. Bush).

One of my hobbies is reading pre-Civil War American history. American politics of that time was tatamount to mud wrestling with dysenteric pigs. People who think that somehow American political discourse has fallen from its former high standards need to pick up a book or two.

If you want to talk about politics, talk politics. But claiming that Obama is a terrorist because his middle name is Hussein is a slap in the face to intelligent dialogue everywhere. Making fun of Hillary’s chubby legs instead of her platform is downright ignorant. And virtually all of the comments she’s made about Edwards have been disgusting.

She’s the Michael Moore of the right. And I don’t like Michael Moore, either.

At the same time, Elizabeth Edwards claimed she was calling, without the knowledge of her husband or her husband’s campaign, only out of a desire to foster civility in public debate. That claim was disingenuous at best and a bald-faced prevarication at worst. Within a matter of hours the Edwards campaign was using the exchange as a fundraiser on its website.

The whole little scene was nothing more than the latest in the ugly Kabuki of American politics. At its core, the interchange revealed that Coulter and Edwards were after the same thing… more money.

Coulter dodged the question and insinuated that Edwards, as “the wife” is not a significant participant of the public discourse.

Is it fair to say that Coulter is too much Paris Hilton and not enough William F. Buckley?