To compare Ann Coulter's venom with Michael Moore's innuendo is not simply a
left-right dichotomy, but rather like comparing apples to oranges.  Hal's
point about argument has some merit, but there's a crucial distinction
between Coulter's tactics and the remarks of those who object to her,
whether or not they have an opinion on the president.  Coulter's critics,
which include quite a number of respectable people on the right, discount
her because her invective is not based on a realistic assessment of the
phenomenon in question.  Take the 9/11 widows for example, because it's
handy and the most recent.  Coulter calls them "harpies" and "witches"
simply because they have called the administration on its reluctance to
investigate the circumstances of the 9/11 tragedy, and subsequently because
they have completely ignored the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, as
the commissioners themselves have complained.  And by virtue of positioning
themselves as critics of an administration that Coulter is ideologically and
uncritically alligned with, the 9/11 widows are in her eyes the enemy, and
thus subject to speculation that their husbands were planning on divorcing
them, and that they are trolling for book deals.  This ibit of sensational
weirdness shouldn't be confused with the objections of Coulter's critics.

Now as for Barry's passionate eloquence, his characterizations of the
president may rankle some who view his remarks as indelicate.  But he at
least has cited evidence for his characterizations, and his charges are not
the product of a simple left-right ideological divide as Hal suggests;
rather they're rooted in patriotic zeal, you know the kind that inspired a
bunch of colonists to throw off the yoke of tyranny that got this whole show
rolling.  We could do with more of this kind of speaking truth to power that
our beloved Mark Twain was famous for.

Larry Howe