I usually make it a point to not talk about anything Ann Coulter. She's such a cartoon character that she doesn't really warrant my time. But I would like to address how the vaunted NY Times is dealing with the latest bout of bile coming out of Coulter's mouth.

As many of you may know, she gave a speech the other day at the conservative forum "CPAC". She took the opportunity to try and imitate Don Rickles in lambasting everyone who is to the left of Adolph Hitler. She concluded her remarks by essentially calling John Edwards a faggot.

“I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards,” she said, speaking to an overflow room of activists.

This isn't the first time she's called someone a faggot. In fact, she's done it so many times and to so many people that it makes you wonder about her obsession with the subject. You know, "thoust protest too much" kind stuff. Put together with the clothes she wears, all that blonde hair and a demeanor that is reminiscent of a Tom Petty lookalike dominatrix (with apologies to Tom Petty) and you've got to wonder. Interestingly and not surprisingly, all the young and completely nerdy Karl Rove wannabee's in the conservative movement eat it up.

But I digress.

This is what the NY Times and it's political writer Adam Nagourney had to say about the Coulter garbage:

The question of whether the remark was offensive enough aside, the Edwards campaign saw an opportunity in the remarks of a woman who is about as popular in liberal Democratic circles as [Sen.] Hillary Rodham Clinton [D-NY] is in Republican circles (not very). Mr. [David] Bonior [Edwards' campaign manager] sent an e-mail to supporters last night urging them to make contributions to the Edwards campaign.

Ok. Nevermind that in the first writing Nagourney didn't even mention what Coulter said. But why in the hell did he feel the need to bring Hillary Clinton into it? Hillary had absolutely nothing to do with the situation. His comparison is one of those inside-the-beltway Kewl Kidz Gossipy kind of items that predominate in political reporting by the .... well ... Kewl Kidz. Guess I should have expected it given that he is a charter member in the club.

Update: Mitt Romney may be regretting this already.