I don't think anyone's daft enough to think that she meant every woman whose husband died.
The point is that the article in Newsweek (intentionally) can be interpreted no other way. Daft must be common. Simple English is also quite common.
Why not?
Newsweek wrote that she was referring to "9/11 widows" and left it at that.
Right now, there is a "Baptist minister" out there named Fred Phelps who not only flat out states that God wants U.S. soldiers to die but actually goes to their funerals to shout such things at their grieving families.
Do you believe that to be true?
Would you be "daft" to believed such a thing about a "Baptist minister" if you read it in Newsweek?
Why should readers that may know nothing more about Ann Coulter other than the snippets of her writings taken out of context that they read in Newsweek be "daft" for believing that Coulter is referring to all "9/11 widows" instead of a specific subset of 9/11 widows nicknamed "The Jersey Girls"?
If things in the World were right out of a Leave It To Beaver episode, where kooks such Fred Phelps could not possibly exist, the liberal news media would not be going out of its way to print sentences out of context and then deliberately substituting the inclusive phrase "9/11 widows" for the specific phrase "The Jersey Girls" in an article that is written to supposedly educate the Newsweek readership.
Face it. Newsweek's quoting the only last sentence of that paragraph out of context and then giving their readers context by deliberately substituting the inclusive phrase "9/11 widows" for the specific phrase "The Jersey Girls" was a deliberate attemp to make Newsweek readers believe that Coulter was just another Fred Phelps.
Don't bet money on that.
"I don't think anyone's daft enough to think that she meant every woman whose husband died."
Then you're not thinking.