If you knew that she made the Playboy comment, then I really have no clue what your initial post meant, but I can't say I'm concerned with the opinion of someone so complacent about vulgarity.
Yo dude, your credibility just took a considerable hit. It didn't have to be that way. You chose it that way. But hey, that's your problem -- not mine. Deal with it. Or don't. It doesn't matter to me -- it's your loss, not mine.
There's no escape. See tag line.
Coulter is Coulter; she has her own style. Her speech in person is rapid-fire in a way that I for one could not, would not dare to try to, do. That is not an excuse for what is in an edited book, but it is an explanation of the fact that she trusts her own rhetorical skills. It is a kind of high-wire act. She is trying to make people think things through, and she not unreasonably considers that sometimes you have to use a stick of dynamite to break people out of the fog which allows them to accept all the points in her argument yet reject the only logical conclusion from those facts.IMHO she was wrong about little else in her book, but wrong to include the line about posing for Playboy. The only reason I can see for it is to use a gauche statement to attempt to emphasize how gouche is the use of the "Jersey Girls'" loss to promote a partisan political agenda, which is actually a replay of the 2002 "Wellstone Memorial" Democratic Party pep rally. But the line really doesn't work.