When I saw the Crooks and Liars link this morning (to the Today show interview with Matt Lauer), I thought about posting about it... I watched the whole interview with an open mind (pretending she wasn't hateful Ann Coulter in a cocktail dress at 7am, but someone whose views I didn't know).
Overall, I thought her point was valid, but it should have been made differently, and with far less vitriol. I agree that someone's victimhood should not make them any more of an authority about public policy than someone who can't claim the victimhood. I also agree that we shouldn't agree or disagree with political points just because our favorite celebrity does, too. Personally, I think it's a good thing to express empathy and sympathy for those who have suffered loss that was outside of their control and that it says something positive when we give respect to the families of the 9/11 victims.
However, her message is lost in her hateful rhetoric, and frankly, because of that, I woudln't want to agree with her even if she told me the sky was blue and that gas was overpriced.
Anyway, I can't help but think the whole this is actually a straw man argument (is that the debate tactic I'm thinking of?); a way of focusing the attention on something insignificant and then destroying it. This is something the Right does it ALL THE TIME when they say that those who don't support the war are AGAINST the troops and that by talking about homosexuality in schools you are PROMOTING homosexuality.