OK, I don't trash Ann Coulter too much in my blog. It's too easy but just for shits and giggles I just checked her webpage hoping to find some distortion of the Farenheit 9/11 movie. Instead I found a column that spends a lot of time trashing Bill Clinton's new book. I have read Kakutani's scathing review and McMurtry's positive review and if according to this quote "From what I've heard, roughly half of Clinton's memoir -- hundreds and hundreds of pages -- is about every picayune detail of his life before becoming president" Coulter hasn't read the book at all yet she still criticizes it. Hey, baby, how about a little journalistic responsibility? You know people are going to read this column and quote it. If you are going to speak from such an assumed position of authority you'd think you might read the fucking book. By the way, she only let's us know that she is telling us second-hand information in paragraph 11 of a 13 paragraph essay. Also, since she is only concerned with character assassination, she mentions his affair at least twice; most tellingly in the last sentance just so you don't forget he's an adulterer which is the only point of this sorry-ass diatribe.
And here is how to be honest about a column about a book you haven't read, dipstick. Name your source and 'splain to us why we should respect his facts you portray as your own through 80.77% of your column. Example: The review by McMurtry, a reviewer who's opinion on a book I have followed successfuly once before and is the recipient of a Pulitzer prize, claims that the book is quite a fetching read and may have historical relevency. You may not respect the opinion of McMurtry but he is named and I tell you immediately that I have not read the book and therefore cannot express an opinion of it. This woman makes her living as a writer?