In a belated report on right-wing pundit Ann Coulter's reference to former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) as a "faggot," New York Times reporter Adam Nagourney purported to explain a denunciation of Coulter's remark by Edwards, as though it needed explanation. Nagourney wrote:

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.

Hillary Rodham Clinton? What did she do to deserve a comparison to Coulter? Whether or not Coulter is "[un]popular in liberal Democratic circles," the reasons for liberals' denunciations of her could not be more different from the reasons that Republicans might dislike -- and apparently fear -- Clinton. Last we checked, Clinton had not referred to anyone as a “faggot” or advocated the assassination of anyone. Nor has she, to our knowledge, lamented that Timothy McVeigh did not blow up a news organization.

And why put the “question of whether the remark was offensive enough aside”? Isn't the offensiveness of the remark central to assessing the Democrats' reaction?

Moreover, in merely reporting that former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) “mentioned that [Coulter] was speaking later,” Nagourney left out a relevant fact. Romney did not simply jokingly suggest that Coulter was a moderate, as Nagourney wrote, Romney also spoke positively of Coulter, saying: “I'm happy to learn also that after you hear me, you're going to from Ann Coulter. That is a good thing.”

As the website Americablog noted, The New York Times was not the only media outlet to ignore Coulter's “faggot” slur.