Every so often, Colbert I. King presents what has arrived in his email/mail box. Courtland Milloy used to do it more but hasn't done it in awhile. Richard Cohen mentions it every once in awhile.
What they presented wasn't pretty.
So, Michelle Malkin gets hate mail. What's the big deal?
Really.
What makes her special?
Putting this off on Armstrong Williams is low.
Real low.
She's whining. She's playing victocrat/victim/victimology.
The email is foul, but still...
Hat tip to LaShawn and Baldilocks.
She didn't put it off on Armstrong Williams. She said that this was what she got BEFORE the Williams scandal broke ("You think it's going to get any better now?"). Her point (which may have not been apparent due to the vile nature of the emails) was that her emailers assume she does conservative punditry solely for the bucks (note all the "whore" comments), and now they've just had their opinion reinforced by the Williams' incident.
Posted by: Pat Curley at January 14, 2005 02:25 PMBaldi, for the free columns, no.
I can't point to exact columns.
I thought the whore comments were a racist/sexist commentary, personally. On one hand, I feel sorry, on the other hand, come on, she wrote a book defending Japanese internment..
Posted by: animeg3282 at January 14, 2005 09:47 PMThe comments are foul. But she's not the only one. So what if Armstrong Williams' actions cause a spike in commentary directed towards her?
Others deal with it.
Posted by: EBrown at January 14, 2005 10:11 PMAs an aside, when columnists dig in the letter column it usually signifies that they don't have anything to write about.
My thoughts? Malkin should get over it. They all should.
Posted by: Lester Spence at January 16, 2005 03:56 PM
Ed,
Can you tell me which one of Mr. King's articles contains samples of his hate mails?
Posted by: Juliette at January 14, 2005 01:23 PM