I caught Ann Coulter on the Tonight Show. A+, home run, two thumbs up--choose whatever cliche you care to, Coulter did an outstanding job on Jay Leno's program. She was funny, intelligent, likeable, articulate, and a thousand other things without being obnoxious. Jay Leno discussed the controversy on everyone's mind regarding Coulter's lousy, meanspirited attack on a group of the 9/11 widows: "the words you've used have overshadowed the point you were trying to make." Coulter, for her part, seemed perplexed by the controversy: "I'm calling liberals 'Godless'! They're cool with that. Just don't criticize the Jersey Girls."

Coulter made the larger point that liberals choose victims as spokesmen--the Jersey Girls, Cindy Sheehan, Christopher Reeve--so that the positions they advocate will be immune from criticism. It's a cheap trick, and it makes one wonder about the complicity liberals have in causing the pain that inevitably comes from getting thrown into such contentious debates. The larger point seemed sensible even if the controversy demonstrating it made Coulter look insensible.

Perhaps the best part of Coulter's appearance was the audience. It's the first time I remember a major conservative figure appearing on a television talk show and hearing the audience cheer enthusiastically. This wasn't the stacked, firebreathing audience of a Bill Maher or Phil Donahue. It was actually pro-Ann, or at least a vocal minority made it seem that way. Leno was critical but fair, and, in perhaps the biggest surprise of the evening, liberal comic George Carlin pretty much kept his mouth shut during Ann's appearance.

After enduring a tough week, Coulter spent Wednesday on the Tonight Show and learned that her book (buy Godless here) will be #1 on the New York Times hardcover nonfiction bestseller list this week. Had she not offered such inflammatory fodder on 9/11 widows, would the Tonight Show and the Today show have come calling? In other words, had she made her reasonable point about not using victims as spokemen in a reasonable manner no one would be talking. As talented a writer as Ann is, maybe her true genius lies in marketing.

Sorry I missed her. I enjoy her confrontative nature. Too long conservatives have apologized for their political posture, and Miss Coulter is clearly a reaction to that. If she outrages the left, good. Give them some of their own medicine. Her underlying thought is generally best for all, and she is adept at sticking pins in the left to humorous effect. She is rude and coarse in her prose, but those are certainly not the worst things in the world.

The Networks are smart and Coulter makes for good television. An intelligent, well spoken, good looking female with (what they consider) an alternative point of view is entertaining and a winner.

Drink the Koolaid, Dan. In your sequel to "Intellectual Morons", add a chapter about your support of Ann Coulter.

Joe, exactly who is drinking the Kool-Aid? You criticize Dan for acknowledging an intelligent, articulate appearance by Ann Coulter, including references to specific comments. Yet your criticism is a generalized condemnation without any factual support.

Please provide some, or refrain from calling the kettle black!

I guess Joe is too lazy to read down a few posts: "Hate Speech against Hate Speech." Heck, did he even read this post, given the criticism of Ann in it?

Libs always assume any deviance from their norms constitutes complete deviance from their norms. You say one nice thing (shocking statement, too: Counter is good at marketing!) about someone who holds views contrary to theirs, and they flip out and slander you. That is ideological moron-ness, isn't it, Joe? Do we all have to consider Coulter a retarded Hitler in order to avoid your "drinking the Koolaid" charges?

I respected Dan after reading "Intellectual Morons". I keep a copy of the book here in the office. I thought that he would always cut through the crap and review the substance of a person's statements or pronouncements. To have Dan give credence to Ann Coulter simply on the basis of a talk show appearance, when the substance of her statement is pure vitriol, not based in fact, is a disturbing development. I used to think better of Dan, but I'm not sure that he merits the same respect. I THOUGHT that truth mattered to Dan. Now, I guess he's mostly show.

What is the substance of the statement to be reviewed Joe? Particularly if you claim the "substabce" is "pure vitriol"? Are you referring to her complaint about the group of a few wives of 9/11 victims? If that is what you are referring to then she did have a substantive point there, the vitriol was superficial not essential, in her language in making her point. Seems you are the one who is incapable of reading carefully.

Yeah, Joe, I don't think you're serious. I called Coulter's words on the 9/11 widows "callous" in a post four posts down. In this post, I call her words "lousy" and "meanspirited." What's your point? That I should say she stunk on the Leno show because I thought something in her book stunk? As they say in show business, Coulter "broke a leg" on the Tonight Show. It's would be pretty silly for me to say otherwise just because I'm grossed out by something that she wrote in her book.

Dan, respond to me off the site if you desire. You've got my e-mail address.

You looking for a pen pal Joe?

George Carlin kept his mouth shut? Man i wouldnt believe it but George knew better. Queen Ann would have beat that old geezer DOWN!