And no one even set her up.

No, she managed to punk herself. She’s always punking herself. You could say her entire oeuvre is one long exercise in self-punking. What else could you call a nutty revisionist history that seeks to reassure us the internment of Japanese Americans in WW2 was justified, no need for apologies, because “Japs” are “Japs” and even the American ones were a threat, and why are we letting a politically correct version of history keep us from learning the right lesson from that proud moment in our history, so we can apply it to Muslim Americans today?

Of course no one takes that book seriously, except her rightwing brethren, which doesn’t stop Malkin from getting astonishing amounts of media attention.

The punking I have in mind is minor in comparison, but it’s contemporary with the delight she took in holding this blog up to derision, along with other liberal blogs, for getting “punked,“ her word, by a deliberately faked story, complete with photoshopping, and coordination between three different websites.

This little story probably says less about Malkin and more about the dismal state of our free press, from whence she got it, pretty much copying it into her blog, as she so often does, and then running with it by way of a few of her signature flourishes.

Here’s the gist:

This Thursday, Maggie Haberman at the NY Post, followed by Mary Ann Akers writing at one of those Washington Post blogs, reported that the John Edwards campaign had invited sympathizers to leave notes about the reoccurrence of Elizabeth’s breast cancer, and then used the gathered email addresses to solicit campaign contributions during those last frantic days before the ending of the quarter.

When this was called to the attention of the campaign, by whom isn’t clear, the campaign confirmed the story and immediately added an opt out option for well-wishers who didn’t wish to receive campaign emails.

The problem with both stories was that the description of Edwards’ website wasn’t entirely accurate, or at least the impression left wasn’t.

I caught this partly because I had visited the site previously, around the time of the firestorm going on about the hiring of Amanda and Melissa, and had, in fact, looked around for ways to leave a message urging both Edwards not to give into rightwing pressure. Thus, my first thought upon reading Akers and Haberman. was that the campaign had simply not thought through the fact that some people might show up at the website just to leave a sympathy message but with no interest in supporting Edwards. That likely possibility appears not to have occurred to either reporter.

The impression left by both versions of the story was that the Edwards had deliberately seduced well-wishers to come to the site to leave a sympathy message, required that they leave an email address to do so, and then captured the address for fund-raising purposes.

What neither story bothered to note was that the feature on the website which reads, “Leave A Message For Elizabeth & John” was there well before the discovery of Elizabeth’s reoccurrence of cancer. In fact, I’d almost used it to leave my own message of support for Amanda and Melissa. Instead, I registered on the website so I could join a comment thread about the blogger issue, and it was perfectly clear that I would be receiving emails from the campaign, which was fine with me.

So this wasn’t a feature instituted to lure sympathizers into leaving messages that could be used for fund-raising. Nor is there any actual invitation on the website to leave a sympathy note, despite this wording from Akers post:

When you visit the John Edwards for President Web site, you’re invited to send a sympathy note to the Edwardses. And tens of thousands of well wishers have done so since that heart-wrenching news conference two weeks ago at which Elizabeth Edwards courageously discussed her incurable cancer.

What those well wishers get in return — e-mail messages soliciting contributions to Edwards’s campaign.

And here’s the title of Maggie Haberman’s Post article:

EDWARDS CASHING IN ON WIFE’S CANCER

Both accounts note that clicking on the “Leave A Message” feature takes you to a page with a letter from John discussing the issue of Elizabeth’s cancer. Haberman describes it like this:

The link on Edwards’ campaign Web site invites people to “send a note to Elizabeth and John” and features a sad letter from the former senator penned just after the couple found out her breast cancer had spread and is now incurable.

Ackers entire post is less accusatory than Haberman’s, written more in the spirit of exploring the perimeters created by the the need for candidates to raise huge amounts of money. Here’s how she describes the letter:

Visitors to the Edwards site who choose to “send a note to Elizabeth and John” are first taken to a heartfelt letter from the candidate that was written the day after he learned that his wife’s cancer had returned. Edwards thanks readers for their “prayers and wishes,” vows that he and Elizabeth will “keep a positive attitude always look for the silver lining” and declares that “our campaign goes on and it goes on strongly.”

Well, exactly. The letter doesn’t ask for sympathy, it’s thanking supporters for their good thoughts, but it’s most important message is the one about the continued commitment of both Elizabeth and John to his campaign for President. Not only that, but the “Leave a Message for Elizabeth and John” feature is on a page rife with campaign news and projects and ways to join the campaign, just as it was when I first went there several months ago. And the page to which you are taken if you click on that link is the same as previously except for the addition of John’s letter, which is written in campaign mode.

Yes, it might have been a good thing if that part of Edwards staff which runs his webpage had thought ahead and realized some people might leave messages of support for Elizabeth who weren’t actually supporters of his campaign. I suspect it just didn’t occur to anyone. Once it was brought to the attention of the campaign, they promptly added that opt out.

I warned you that this is a small, one might even say, a petty story.

Michelle Malkin comes to this story with no skepticism, she’s sure what it’s about. Like the Post’s headline, she’s sure it’s about a deliberate “bait and switch” (her phrase) ruse on the part of the Edwards’ campaign to capture emails of people who had no interest in their campaign, only in Elizabeth’s cancer, from whom the campaign fully intended to solicit money all along. Why any campaign would want to waste their time and effort to do that, considering the unlikely chances of success, she never bothers to ask herself.

Aren’t I being a bit harsh, you may be asking yourself at this point. Is this really self-punking? Is the story all that wrong?

Well, look at Malkin’s headline for her post.

Edwards uses wife’s illness for campaign phishing

“Phishing” is a descriptive word suggested by one of the more hostile commentators at the Akers Wa Po blog, whom Malkin credits, adding her own description of what transpired having been a “scheme” by the Edwards’ campaign to use Elizabeth’s tragic illness as the bait by which to get campaign funds they might not otherwise have gotten.

Ana Marie Cox, now of Time’s Swampland blog, got hold of the Akers story, but at least she considered the possibility that what had happened might be the result of failing to change the default position, which collects emails, on the Edwards website server. Then something interesting happened; a commentator informed Ana that the “Send A Message” feature had been there long before the announcement that Elizabeth’s cancer had returned. Credit where it’s due - Ms. Cox added an embarrassed acknowledging update to her post and then pointed out:

Mary Ann’s story — and my post — both leave the impression that it’s a specific get well note that lured people in. It isn’t. It’s true that the current “message” from John and Elizabeth on the website is about her illness, so I imagine that many of the notes they got were about that news, but it’s not as though the campaign was specifically asking for get-well wishes and then (intentionally or not) asking sympathizers for money.

Then again, the fact that the “send a note” form has been a part of the site for years backs up the theory that someone just forgot to change the default collection of emails on this generic “note” form after the Edwardses made their announcement.

Exactly right.

Essentially what we had here was a non-story, made into a story by a hostile newspaper, The NY Post, and an earnest observer of Washington political trends, (Akers), which meant it made it to MSNBC last Friday, and Cox carried it to TIME, because she found it suggested the kind of eggshells Elizabeth’s cancer is going to cause the campaign to have to learn to navigate.

Ana has a point, although the Edwards could hardly have been clearer in that news conference and since that they consider the cancer to be a family and personal issue, that the campaign continues because Elizabeth is asymptomatic and intends to continue her life on her own terms, and that neither Edwards sees themselves as different from any of the thousands and thousands of American families who are struggling with this same disease, except that the Edwards have the comfort of knowing that Elizabeth has the means to get the finest medical care. Nothing about John or Elizabeth has suggested that his campaign is about running against cancer, or that either one of them is asking for pity or sympathy from anyone.

Non-story or not, the dustup did have the virtue of allowing Michelle Malkin the opportunity to write this about a man who has learned only weeks ago that a beloved wife and partner will never be free of cancer as long as she lives:

What a weasel.

And having read a good deal of her oeuvre, I’m sure she felt really good after having written it.

P.S. Once having spoken, you can be sure Malkin’s vitriol was propogated: Here’s a sampling of her trackbacks:

Excerpt: Edwards uses wife’s illness for campaign phishing Michelle Malkin NYPost reports: Democratic White House hopeful John Edwards’ team has been collecting e-mail addresses from supporters who’ve sent his cancer-stricken wife, Elizabeth, notes - and using …
Weblog: Bill’s Bites
Tracked: April 5, 2007 03:43 PM

I’m glad I don’t live in his America
Excerpt: John Edwards is disgusting. H/T Hot Air….
Weblog: Alarming News
Tracked: April 5, 2007 05:40 PM

Edwards uses wife’s cancer to raise money
Excerpt:
This story is absolutely disgusting, but if we’re being honest, we all expected it, didn’t we?. I’m quoting the whole article because NYPost articles often go missing after a month or two, and this kind of sleazy activity should be ar…

Weblog: Right Thoughts…not right wing, just right.
Tracked: April 5, 2007 08:12 PM