One (of many) big differences is that her criticisms are founded. She doesn't mock positive or understandable acts by Dems. She would not even dream of attacking a Dem president for finishing reading a book to children during the 9/11 attacks. Nor can I recall her ever using a Dems words out of context.
Her genius is even her hyperbole makes you go hmmmm. Can Denis Kucinich run a 7-11 for eight hours? Hmmmm. . .
I think this article would have made a great vanity piece in FR, but for a mainstream publication the tone is completely wrong. Which is odd, because one of her points is that the Demos need to put a bright face on things and keep the extremist rhetoric toned down. So why submit a foaming-at-the-mouth "Democrats are unhygenic spawns of the devil" article to USA Today in the first place? The goal is to let the other side seem as if they are the ones who are letting blind hatred get in the way of rational thought.
Exactly. In every piece of work, Michael Moore has been proven to lie, splice speeches to create quotes never stated, and severely misrepresent people and events via distortion and ommission. But the libs like his style.
Ann Coulter is always factual to a fault and scrupulously fair in only zinging lefties for what they really say and do. But USA Today would rather use a proven liar liberal than a truthful conservative.