Hope She Gets Some Help

Ignore her at your own peril. She has to be confronted. There is no walking away from what she represents. We have to take her, and her ilk on. We have ingnored them, or complained about them for far too long. We have to defeat them. Or we can kiss our freedoms goodby.

Those eyes are the frickin heart of darkness.
Ignoring her would be the correct thing to do.
So one wonders why MSM gives her face time.
It’s because she is a walking car crash. Her pysche is twisted, broken and burning, and we secretly get a perverse pleasure out of watching the thing fall apart.
To ignore her would be to show mercy.
Not feeling that merciful today.

I’ve been reading about the things she says about Muslims for years, but I usually didn’t have to look at her. I can’t stand looking at that photo – if I check here during the day, every time I’m going to have to avert my eyes and scroll down to the other posts…
She reminds me of Katherine Harris, in that they both are kind of pitiful as women who seem to rely on their looks; as they age, how can they deal with the fact that their looks don’t have as much power as they once did?

I agree with bagnews. Nothing good comes out of engaging with a crazy unhappy person. Compassion is best. It’s sad that she gets the attention that she does, but she seems to be at the point where she’ll go over the line and marginalize herself. Best – in political terms – to let that happen.

She doesn’t need “help”, what she needs is to stop drinking (so she’s not hung over all the time), stop smoking, start exercising, eating right, sleeping regular hours, thinking positive thoughts and generally leading a physically and spiritually healthy life. No one can do that for her, she’s got to do it for herself.

I’m with jonst. Sure, it would be easy to ignore this vile, demented harpie IF her demented views weren’t given legitimacy by way of a national mainstream platform like The Today Show.
Matt Lauer and the Today producers should be denounced and their feet held to the fire until they apologize for subjecting their audience to this demented shrew. The sponsors of the show should be contacted as well: It is their advertising money that enables this pathetic slug to sling her verbal feces in the faces of innocent people.
The producers believe she is good for ratings. We should disabuse them of that idea in the strongest possible terms.

Her behavior reminds me of the pattern I observed in cocaine-users in NYC in the 1980’s, when there was an “epidemic” of use by people in every level of society.
The “omnipotent” physical stance, the staring eyes, the aggressive talk, which couldn’t be interrupted, suggests she is “on” something. I agree she should be ignored by the MSN and everyone else, but the MSM won’t ignore her because she is controversial and sells advertising, which is what TV, etc. is all about. (Unfortunately, it’s what also “fuels” blogs…)
And, maybe it’s just me, but how does anyone think she is “pretty”? Pretty is an expression on a face which is pretty. That expression on her face is not pretty.

It’s naive to think she is being given these platforms simply because she is controversial. Sure, there is some truth to that, but if tv shows were looking just for ratings through controversy they would allow some crazy leftist radical person on also.
Ann Coulter highlights the Republican clout – and the sad state of affairs of the MSM – which allows people like her to publish books damning the brave widows of 9/11 and generally spew lies without any basis in reality.
If anything, the hypocrisy of the MSM and the Republicans is fully evident through the figure of Ann Coulter (that and the fact that, according to the life-long fratboys, she’s ‘hot’).
A crazy person claiming to have the truth? Now thats crazy talk.

rep li cant

Fascinating. So much to say, so little to work with. Your entry really makes me curious to know more to understand the dynamic between Coulter, the public, and the parties she serves and disserves.
My take is that, mental health issues aside, she certainly fulfills a role in speaking the unspoken for her party. “9/11 widows are greedy gasbags” is not as valuable as a swipe at the widows as it is a way of planting the germ of an idea in the public psyche. No one goes as far as Coulter, but suddenly the thought is out there and the idea that the 9/11 widows have a personal interest in their own status gains currency. The outrageous begets the nominal idea which, in turn, starts to fester in the public discourse. This is all a not-so-fancy way of saying if the right didn’t have her, they’d have to make her up. In fact, they have other figures similar to her: Robertson, Falwell come to mind.
As to her psychological make-up, she’ll eventually crash and burn and may be on the descent as we speak (see her attempt to vote outside her district). If she goes to jail, or slaps some one, or melts down spectacularly, the right will turn its collective back and say they never really owned her anyway.
I think its better not to engage her; not to give her a forum on the Today Show or anywhere else.

I bet if Anne went ahead and had that sex change operation she seems to need so badly, she’d feel better about herself. When she so viciously attacked the 9/11 widows, my reaction was that she really really hates women, particularly those who have experienced love in their lives.

Nice. That was the cruise missile of “I don’t love you enough to hate you” posts.

Lady Macbeth?

Her book is #1 today (as it was yesterday) on the Amazon Best-Seller List.
She’s going berserk all the way to the bank.

Just Like a Woman, 1966 —

But lately I see her ribbons and her bows
Have fallen from her curls

Dylan was never about answers, always observation. Margaret mentions the 80’s and blow, the 60’s were less refined —

Nobody has to guess
That Baby can’t be blessed
Till she sees finally that she’s like all the rest
With her fog, her amphetamine and her pearls.

AC 2003: Hiding behind her hair.
((weisseharre, nice.))

In the 1950’s, we hid away our severely mentally ill members of society in psych wards and never mentioned them. That was both unhealthy and lacking in compassion.
Today, we give them national air time and buy their books. Which is even worse.

Just to add to her troubles. The photo suggests that her “dark” roots are showing. And that is not her natural hair color.

I’ve read many different profiles and critiques of Ann Coulter. This is the right one. I still suspect, however, that she’s secretly a gay man playing a giant prank on the rightwing.

I’ll probably draw fire for this, but I detest the “Coulter is a man in drag” stuff. It’s an insult to both sexes and manages to smear gay men as well. A woman can be abrasive and obnoxious without being a man. Behavior on the order of Coulter’s is not “mannish,” it’s simply abrasive and obnoxious. The derision implied in referring to her as a gay man is unsettling on many levels.
I wish her critics on the left (and I’m one of them) would resist this sloppy name calling and gender bashing and object to her for the real as opposed to the imaginary reasons. I’m for ignoring her entirely, but if people can’t do that, I don’t see the value of dumbing down the criticism.

Excellent analysis, that unfortunately fits far too many leading Republicans these days.
But they are just symptoms of the deeper American psychosis, the “me first” mentality that has been running this country for far, far too long now.

Oh, and as someone who was undiagnosed bipolar for far too long, I can say she’s full blown bipolar and definitely in need of help. The manic phases are far too clear.

In re Ann Coulter — Performances, Recent and Past
If I may take the liberty of waxing clinical, please consider the following characteristics of Histrionic Personality Disorder from the DSM IV — with possible Associated Features and characteristics that might suggest a Differential Diagnosis — which, for the most part, appear evident from a close viewing Ms. Coulter’s affect during her recent (and past) television interviews designed to promote her latest screed:
Histrionic Personality Disorder
Overview:
A pervasive pattern of excessive emotionality and attention seeking, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
(1) is uncomfortable in situations in which he or she is not the center of attention;
(2) interaction with others is often characterized by inappropriate sexually seductive or provocative behavior;
(3) displays rapidly shifting and shallow expression of emotions;
(4) consistently uses physical appearance to draw attention to self;
(5) has a style of speech that is excessively impressionistic and lacking in detail;
(6) shows self-dramatization, theatricality, and exaggerated expression of emotion;
(7) is suggestible, i.e., easily influenced by others or circumstances;
(8) considers relationships to be more intimate than they actually are.
Associated Features:
* Depressed Mood
* Somatic or Sexual Dysfunction
* Anxious or Fearful or Dependent Personality
* Dramatic or Erratic or Antisocial Personality
Differential Diagnosis:
Some disorders have similar or even the same symptom. The clinician, therefore, in his diagnostic attempt has to differentiate against the following disorders which he needs to rule out to establish a precise diagnosis.
* Borderline Personality Disorder;
* Antisocial Personality Disorder;
* Narcissistic Personality Disorder;
* Dependent Personality Disorder;
* Personality Change Due to a General Medical Condition;
* Symptoms that may develop in association with chronic substance use.
Only the consolidation of media venues — television, radio, publishing, advertising and public relations — can explain why it is that Ms. Coulter continues to be booked on mainstream television shows like “Today” on NBC and Lou Dobbs on CNN and Tucker Carlson on MSNBC for the sole purpose of spewing her trademark vitriolic invective at “liberals” in a calculated effort to sell her books.
Clearly, the milquetoast disclaimers from Matt Lauer and other media mavens that Ann Coulter’s vicious and frankly lunatic attacks on the 9/11 widows went “over the line” is so disproportionately weak and inadequate that it would be laughable were it not so pathetic. The larger question is whether or not Coulter will be invited back to plug her next book if her publisher and public relations team demand it. We shall see.
Coulter’s attacks on the 9/11 widows should result not only in condemnation but should herald her last appearance on television — with the exception of FOX, where she is always warmly received by fellow right-wing lunatics like Gibson and Hannity and O’Reilly.
It is almost beyond belief that Coulter would seek to attack the “Jersey Girls” — the courageous and determined women, who despite profound personal grief and loss, refused to give up putting pressure on the investigation and accountability-averse Bush administration until the 9/11 Commission became a reality. And for that reason alone — regardless of one’s political views — we all owe the 9/11 widows an immense debt of gratitude.
The women who make up this brave group of safety advocates continue to appear on television (when invited) for one purpose — to urge congress and the Bush administration to secure our borders, to secure our ports, and to deal with the problem of loose nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union so that no American will have to endure another catastrophe like 9/11.
The “Jersey Girls” of 9/11 have a single message with one purpose — to make us all safer.
What is it about this courageous and sane and pragmatic message that makes Ann Coulter so uncomfortable, nervous, angry, and bitter?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What we are dealing with here is a full blown Axis ll personality disorder, who is becoming increasing disorganized under stress. Too bad for America that we now accept this sort of thing as cool, embracing the definitions offered us by the Antisocial Personality Disorders in White House and the Band of Brothers at Fox News. Thanks too to managed care for the switch from mental to behavioral health – although Ann’s behavior may soon get her some help anyway – but it will likely be Prozac and not the intense therapy she needs.

Karen, I agree with you that it is an insult to masculine looking women to use this to insult her. But I do not think that the “mannish” thing is about her behavior so much as her….jaw. Or maybe her jaw and her eyes? Her face. It’s about her face. But I’ve known very sweet mannish looking women. And now that I think about it, “mannish” is probably a cruel adjective in the first place.
Hmmm.
Horsish? Is that fair?

Seriously woman, put on some clothes (and grab a sammitch while you’re at it).

People who are filled with hatred, adore her. She says in public what they say in private because they don’t have the cajones to say it in public. She has a dark soul/psyche and when her mouth is open it spews hatred. Her admitted frantic fornicating and drinking are but signs that she can’t stop long enough to face herself. Ergo she must get, demands, validation from others. If they don’t play along, she gets testy and throws a tantrum, like she did on the Today show before they cut her off.
Coulter and Cruise are opposite sides of the same coin. Cruise denies the very essence of his being and as a result, very odd behavior begins leaking out, and he cannot stop it. Coulter wallows in her nasty behavior and narcissistically subjects us all to her dysfunctional rantings. Then screams at her audience for not appreciating her.
And notice she is always ‘interviewed’ by men. She probably is confident that she can manipulate them. But I’ll bet that what she says is what people like Murdoch or Robertson or Santorum would love to say if they thought they could get away with it like she seems able to do. I’d like to see her interviewed by someone like Reps. Barbara Lee or Diane Watson.
As she ages, the meanness of her soul begins to show in her face. She already looks older than she is, and that dyed blonde hair won’t cover up that. Each time she appears, that ‘little black cocktail dress’ that was so popular about 20 years ago, looks more and more like it’s still on the hangar.

Nezahualimon, thanks for your comment, but I didn’t mean that the “she-male” remarks were an insult to mannish looking women (although I guess they are), I meant calling her a man due to her personality traits assumes that women don’t experience/exhibit the full range of emotions and behaviors. Also, those kind of remarks assume that men in general act that way.
Maybe folks refer to her that way based solely on her looks, but I think her personality plays into it.
And, yes, she does have a bit of a horsey face.

>>I bet if Anne went ahead and had that sex change operation she seems to need so badly, she’d feel better about herself.
Asta, she’s already had one. Didn’t you know? Her Adam’s apple is a dead giveaway.
Andrew Sullivan’s been on this kick the last couple of days (a man with his own set of dire issues) claiming that Coulter’s behaviour is in actuality mere theater. He posits that she herself doesn’t believe a word of her own bile, and that its just a manufactured schtick to sell books and bookings on the lecture circuit.
If it were in fact all fiction on her part, it would still be in no way defensible. Or less creepy. Or less tragic.
I think comparisons to Tom Cruise and Katherine Harris are apt. Coulter is far more saavy and in control, but there’s still something just really fucked up about her.

A few hours ago I saw a vid of Coulter been run off by two pie wielding assailants. She screamed and ran off like a scared rabbit. Mind you as a man, I find to men running at full speed frightening, but not something that would lead me run in terror. I guess she can dish it but really can’t take it. Not to say that what these two fellows did was right, assault with deadly merengue pies, is still an assault.

Thanks for clearing that up Karen. You are right on this. Her personality is probably measured into the “mannish” insults. And there are men who are not half as tough as her. And you are right: Women are just as capable of men as demonstrating aggressiveness, non-empathy, superiority complexes, and aggression. aggression, aggression, aggression. She is probably the angriest person I’ve seen.
I still think tho that if she had a small, cute, round chin, big round eyes and smiled without looking like she was going to eat your skull, a different adjective would be used. I think, in summary, that you are right and I am right. I think her personality is weighed into the perjorative term, but I don’t think it would be used without her physical appearance being what it is.
Rafeal, I don’t buy that it’s all an act. I know hate when I see it and when I hear it. You have to feel hateful inside to proclaim hateful things to the world.
I don’t think being filled with hate is mutually exclusive to having good business sense, though.

Wow. Huge chunks of this post and discussion demonstrate how pop-psych armchair spinning doesn’t advance our understanding of the human condition, social dynamics, or ourselves one iota.

Ann Coulter comments on women:
“Coulter has stated that women are “not as bright” as men[31], “have no capacity to understand how money is earned”[32], and “shouldn’t be in the military.”[33].
On a few occasions Coulter has suggested that the constitutional amendment giving women the right to vote should be repealed. In a 14 February 2000 National Review Online article she wrote, “If this ticket doesn’t close the gender gap, it’s time to repeal the 19th Amendment.”
In a February 2001 Politically Incorrect episode, Coulter argued that banning women from voting would ensure Republican presidents would be elected, and that “[women should] all have to give up their vote.” [16]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter
TheBAG discussed the concept of self-loathing and the resulting behaviors such as pathological anger. I lean towards his analysis rather than taking on the Bi-Polar aspects.
But I think there’s something else going societally and it may not have a name yet. When I was reminded of Mary Matalin in today’s Think Progress, I saw a pattern of angry, hateful women who exercise none of the good manners becoming of ladylike behavior. And when a woman acts so viciously and repugnantly in public, there is something very disturbing about it, something very uncivilized.
The hand that rocks the cradle has become the hand that throws rocks. That does not speak well for future humanity.

Neza:
I was merely calling her a bully. Bullies are always full of hate, in the manner of self-loathing. What surprises me about Coulter is that she accuses others of the very things she is most guilty off (seems to be a trend in the most extreme regions of Righto-Stan). It seems that is only good if she does it, wrong if it’s done by somebody else. A total and complete inability (or willingness) to empathize with others.

True enough, Rafael. I think she is incapable of empathizing with anyone. I mean…just out of curiosity, when is the last time anyone heard her say something kind or encouraging of someone? Aside from as a means of polevaulting into an insult-by-comparison? Has she ever? Or is she only moved to speak when the bile in her threatens to overwhelm her and must be released?
Hmmmm. Persuing Anne Coulter’s diseased psyche on a summery June day…. Where’s my lemonade?

Here’s another thought: Coulter is also making money off the dead of 9/11, except it’s not HER dead. I suppose that’s okay, though. Even if the entire “book” isn’t about 9/11 widows, that’s what she is using to sell it. Incidentally, I heard on the radio that some freeper site has bought up a bunch of her books and is “selling” them for $5 each. That’s how the wingnuts sell so many books. Best seller????? Hmmmmm.
As to why we put up with this cr*p. I think we are all either enablers or are suffering from battered-wife syndrome. The government is drunk and as long as it hits only gays or illegals it’s okay because it’s not hitting us. The rest of us are so terrified of the next catastrophe that we will do anything to avoid it, put up with any bad behavior, suffer any slap upside the head, any illegal invasion of other countries, if only it won’t kill US.

Nez and Rafael, I think the word you are trying to come up with, to succinctly describe Ann, is:
Hypocrite.
It’s not a new thing. It’s been around since Jesus.

couldn’t agree more.

Ya’ll are throwing around alot of fucked up assumptions about transpersons and sex-workers up thread. Calling her ‘whorish” insults many people who work much harder then she does for a living.
I dont even want to start on the transexual/gendered slurs…read some Pat Calafia and check your retrograde attitudes at the door. “Sex/Changes: The Politics of Transgenderism” is a good place to start.
Insult Coulter all you want. Shes got a persecution complex already. But dont pile on those who really ARE opressed.

That photo of her is deeply unsettling on a gut level. She looks like she would smell bad.

Lethally blonde
Ann Coulter has made a career out of saying the unthinkable. Last week the bestselling American author caused outrage when she described the widows of 9/11 as ‘witches’ who revelled in their husbands’ deaths. Mixing soundbites with short skirts, this former lawyer has become the most extreme – and popular – polemicist in America. How did that happen?
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1794552,00.html

Coulter and her handlers have a good grasp on what features a large group of men are attracted to: tall, blond hair, large forehead, and showing shoulder far outweigh the wrinkled armpit and scraggly hair. The “enraged” expression is indistinguishable from most sexual rapture. The mascara represents pure 1970s rock and roll. With these looks, she could be selling us almost anything.
Coulter, however, is a rare find because when she takes a break from her high-maintenance self-administration, it’s not to run a family, assault the glass ceiling, or walk on wings, but to rave politically with a particular slant: Finally, they welcome a hot babe who hates the left because only the do-gooders can really choke down Laura Bush and those soap-mouthed TV ministers.
Coulter is a pin-up who, as others have said, says in public what others are only saying in private. Only I don’t think the others are afraid to speak publicly, but they’re not given the same platform the bad sister of Martha Stewart gets.
Meanwhile, I wonder what women’s reaction is to her? Obviously, many envy her sexiness, but women’s failure to interfere with pornography may explain their failure to stop Coulter.
Coulter won’t disappear until American males are eviscerated. The most relavent diagnosis so far is the “in love with a car crash” one. Even if she gets bored and her own gravy train runs out, she’ll always have a support network of pygmalion males.
What to do about her? Since she chooses her rants emotionally, rather than intellectually, and won’t stop any time soon, she should be lured into reviling some new, less harmful cause. Through intervention, she could be persuaded to bark on behalf of a less consequential cause, one where her embarrassing behavior won’t be as sharply critiqued and her energy will be more uselessly dissipated. One could imagine her on television snarling about the differences between brands of automobiles, for instance, without it really making a difference to her inside.
Meanwhile, the left needs an attractive and passionate babe or two for *our* “men’s men.”

Well, I’m a woman and I can’t stand her. I don’t envy her “sexiness”, if that’s what it is. (I don’t accept pornography either.)

Uhm, isnt that the same dress she wore on Today, and on the cover of her book? I mean, is this her only dress?

robb, maybe that’s why she’s making this circuit — she’s run out of money and needs a new wardrobe.
I am a woman and I don’t envy her a darn thing. I pity her; when i can stand to look at her. I have arachnophobia, you see. [shudder]
Sarah B. and Cactus, right on both of you. Especially you, Cactus. I think we as a society are a battered wife. And some of us are the good friend or relative who is pissed off but not sure how to interfere or are waiting for something to happen that we can use in court.

BagMan is being pretty hard on us. We see Coulter on Saturday, and then Bush on Monday. What an ugly pair, and they deserve each other.
Tuffy made an interesting remark above, said that Coulter “looks like she would smell bad.” I agree completely. Important way to understand people, and how can one tell just by looking at the person in print and on TV? Who knows, but I’ll bet Tuffy is right. At least to my senses.

I would never defend Coulter, but I have to say I feel a little manipulated by this photo, which dates from August 2003, not June 2006. So the photo itself doesn’t necessarily support the premise of Coulter’s public deterioration into craziness. The photo shows Coulter without makeup in Central Park in the dead of summer. If you’ve never been in Central Park in August, trust me, we all would smell bad within 5 minutes. And it would also be really easy for most of us to look *a lot worse* than Coulter does here.
Coulter has said far more appalling things over the years than what she says about the 9/11 widows, lending support to the argument that she has been “crazy” (which is not a diagnosis, btw) for a long time. Again, I’m not defending her, but I see how the commentary has been influenced by such a “witchy” photo. And that’s at least disappointing.

Correction to the above rtbag comment: Obviously Coulter is wearing eye liner and mascara. But she doesn’t appear to be wearing her ususal public “face.”

Okay, so it’s three years ago. The pose of this photo looks to me like the classic ‘come-hither’ look, which she can no longer carry off with success. IF she is trying to be sexy here, it is even more pathetic. She looks hard and old and bitter; she can barely smile. Her hair has been dyed for so long it’s just stringy. And there is nothing (sorry ladies) sexy or attractive about a flabby, wrinkly under-arm. I think Tuffy is right, she does look like she would smell bad. She’s 45+ and it’s time to put away that ‘20-something’ dress and start acting like a grown-up. Alas, I think she is probably incapable of doing that. Perhaps she will become one of those 70-year-0lds we see at Costco in the chartreuse tube top and sequined jeans.

Cactus, let me show you something. After The BAG said, “I could marshal up as much outrage toward Ann Coulter as anyone. As a clinician, however, I would rather not,” he went on to use the following *33* negatively charged words or phrases in his post:
outrage, failure, obsolete, strange, crazy, trouble, painful, over-defended, humiliating, deterioration, horrible, ugly, pathologically angry, self-loathing, precipitous drop-off, deeply neurotic, fixed stare, superiority, pathetic, pretense, desperate, bitter, condemnation, weak, insatiable, need for attention, hostile, reviling, mad, impossible, weak (2nd usage), damaged, ignore
You may have detested Ann Coulter’s views and looks long before now, but I would argue that your opinion was additionally influenced by an unattractive photo of her armpit (since that’s what you comment on along with bad smells), and that your negative reaction to the visual was reinforced by the above list of words. I won’t even get into what influence the use of professional jargon, unsupported generalizations, and assertions of authority might have on you.
I thought this was what we all were supposed to be learning to recognize. But I guess we still have some big blind spots.

Incidentally, she was on Leno last night wearing the same dress. And again, with two men…..Leno and Carlin.

You have all spoke for me! I heard her on a interveiw today.
I think she’s a dark soul, a sociopath,she feeds off others hurt,stress doscomfort and anger. There is no helping or hope for her. Yu guys should read two good books…..google them,can’t remember the authors
“The sociopath next door” and “A wolf in sheeps clothing” so many people think socipathic personalities reside in jails and prisons,those are the less functional ones.there are these personalities in givernments,power positions of all kinds,actors famous ones,and people like her. They are sometimes easy to spot right away and sometimes not. People and society cover their darkness by calling it aggressive,ytough…wahtever but you can sometimes tell by looking in their eyes. They are dead eyes adn always make a good person shutter. One commneter wrote abouther eyes. You can see her darkness and her true nature in her face and eyes! Check out those books.They’re both good!
You know because they are ALL negative and dark.Theres no lIght in this woman and I’m not being dramatic.Sorry about the misspells. I’ll go get hooked on phonics now. To busy to correct my spelling.LOL

Better late than never, I guess….
My comment has less to do with Ann Coulter than it does with the apparent inability to separate her sex appeal (or lack thereof) from her value as a human being and/or her contributions (however callow and unbalanced) to public discourse. Maybe it’s because our culture evaluates women according to their object appeal, maybe it’s because Coulter promotes herself as conforming to the desired image, but the comments in this thread increasingly, and disturbingly, focus on physical presentation rather than discursive content–which, excuse me, isn’t that presumably what matters? So what if she’s cute or ugly or sexy or anorexic or horse-faced? Why do we insist on focusing on a woman’s looks even when (or perhaps especially when) she is a political figure? Any woman in the public eye, no matter how serious her role (Hilary Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Janet Reno, et al.), is inevitably attacked by her detractors for her personal appearance–much more than men ever are. Why is that, do you suppose? (Yes, that is a rhetorical question, and the answer is worth considering.)
And, no offense, Cactus, but when is the last time you even looked at your own armpit to see if it was wrinkled or not? Why should we have to care about such things?
Coulter is a bitter, mean, hateful, and sharp-witted polarizing figure (who, I have to believe, does the conservative cause more harm than good). Can’t we just leave it at that–and leave armpit wrinkles, thigh girth, hair dye and roots, fashion choices, etc. unexamined (or, at the very least, passed over as irrelevant to the conversation)? Such emphases only contribute to the trivialization of all women, whether they’re in public affairs or not.
The first step to solving a problem is admitting there is one.

Katie, no offense taken. And at 72 my armpits are not attractive which is why I don’t go around in sleeveless outfits. It’s just one of those body parts that isn’t particularly attractive over the age of, say, 24. I’m not being ageist here, but if you choose to repeatedly appear in sleeveless costume, you should be critiqued on that, just as men on TV would be critiqued if they showed up in a tank top.
As to her ’sexuality.’ I used to think that she got so much press because all the male hosts (on TV) wanted to do her (to use the vernacular). While I think that may still be an element, at least for some (Maher, Matthews, et al.), I am coming around to the belief that it is more a case of fear. Fear that if they are not nice to her and give her what she wants (publicity), she will skewer them just as she does all the democrats or liberals that she so hates. And her tongue can cut deep into the fragile ego of the male TV host.

And another thing………….look at other women on TV, or even in the public eye (which is almost always on TV). None of them to my recollection have worn that little black cocktail dress in public. Have you ever seen Hillary or Laura Pickles in one (outside of inaugural balls)? Or even your local female news anchor? Or, really, anyone other than the likes of Paris, Lindsay or Brittney? Point being that when a woman deliberately and consciously dresses in a ‘come hither’ dress at inappropriate times/functions, SHE has set her own standard and therefore leaves herself open to criticism. Just sayin’.

1) Coulter is wearing black because it’s New York.
2) New York in the summer is unbearable. So, in the summer in New York you will see lots and lots of armpits you never wanted to see, especially when you are sitting on the overcrowded subway and the tank-topped person directly in front of you (usually male) needs to hold on to the bar above your head to keep from falling into your lap when the train lurches. (It’s that democratizing aspect of the city that I love so much.)
Therefore, black + sleeveless = regional, seasonal dress code. We should instead tear Coulter down for being so shockingly conventional and conformist. The “little black dress” issue is not an issue in New York other than it’s so boringly predictable and safe. It’s disappointingly conservative.
Hmmmm. That’s interesting to think about.
But in the meantime, why didn’t we ever get around to talking about the photographer who chose to document Coulter’s dewy August armpit in the first place? What, is he trying to make her look bad?

My point all along was this: why do we end up focusing on women’s appearance rather than their substance? I don’t blame Coulter for her apparel; I hold her responsible for what she says. In the area of clothes, hair, and makeup, she stays well within the parameters of the culture she was born into. I’m not an apologist for Coulter; in my opinion, she shows a remarkable (and lamentable) lack of understanding, compassion, generosity, and ethical concern for others, along with an ill-used but nevertheless impressive intelligence and wit. This opinion is formed, however, by what she says, not on how she looks. I couldn’t care less what she looks like; it’s what comes out of her mouth (and keyboard) that concerns me.

This so-called physiological evaluation of Ann Coulter is the worse sort of garbage. Using professional credits to make a personal attack is a total lack of professionalism. The author is as much garbage and his education. He opens the doors for Liberals to be judged in the same way. Is this the kind of place we want to live in?