[Spiff]

They’d shot their bolt, they had their fifteen minutes and more, and that was the end of it. Until last week when Ann Coulter, acting unilaterally, put them back on the front pages with an attack so obnoxious that it immediately (and unjustly – it was the Girls themselves, after all, who debased their victim status for political purposes) threw all sympathy in their direction. A free ticket to a second act. Not to mention providing Madame Hillary with an opportunity to pose as, of all things, the defender of civility.

No, you moron, Ann Coulter did NOT put that tiny portion, that one comment, from her excellent book on the front pages of the newspaper. The MSM, looking for anything sensational that they could hurl at Ann Coulter and the rest of us conservatives cherry-picked that comment and trumped it up to be something that it was not.

Blame the MSM, not Ann. If she hadn't put that in the book, then the MSM would have found something else in the book to sensationalize, to lie about, and to attack conservatives over. In the meantime, Ann's freedom of speech would have been dealt a blow because she may felt she needed to alter her writings in order to prevent the MSM feeding frenzy. Chilling conservative free speech is a really bad idea. The author of this article should know that.

[ichabod1]

You're right. On the contrary we need conservative Free Speech ACTIVISTS, and that's what Ms. Ann Coulter is.

[Doctor Raoul]

...the MSM would have found something else in the book to sensationalize...

Concur.

By the way, it's pretty much all over now. The left has dashed itself against the Rock of Coulter and expended it's energy.

[murdoog]

In the meantime, Ann's freedom of speech would have been dealt a blow because she may felt she needed to alter her writings in order to prevent the MSM feeding frenzy.

You really believe this about Ann Coulter?