Amazing. You have to read the USAToday editor's ridiculous complaints about the piece.

I don't think this Coulter's best work. I don't even think it's her B-act. But that's not the point.

The point is is that this "editor" disingenuously keeps writing "I DON'T GET IT" after each and every joke. The editor either does "get it" and is lying about that, or else USAToday has joined up with the United Way in some sort of Give-a-High-Paid-Media-Career-to-a-Retard program.

Examples (Editor's, ahem, "input" in caps):

A speaker at the Democratic National Convention this year, Al Sharpton, accused white police officers of raping and defacing Tawana Brawley in 1987, lunatic charges that eventually led to a defamation lawsuit against Sharpton and even more eventually, to Sharpton paying a jury award to the defamed plaintiff Steve Pagones. So it’s a real mystery why cops wouldn’t like Democrats.

USA Today: IS THAT LAST SENTENCE SARCASTIC? IF SO, YOU SURE LOST ME.

See, Al Sharpton defamed prosecutor Steven Pagones, accusing him of kidnapping and raping Tawana Brawley. Now Sharpton is a speaker at the convention. Cops, you see, might not like that.

Is this a very complex joke? This editor sure seems easily "lost."

As for the pretty girls, I can only guess that it’s because liberal boys never try to make a move on you without the UN Security Council's approval. Plus, it’s no fun riding around in those dinky little hybrid cars. My pretty-girl allies stick out like a sore thumb amongst the corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie chick pie wagons they call "women" at the Democratic National Convention.

USA Today: NOT FUNNY, I DON'T GET IT.

Liberal women are hairy, dykey hippie-chick pie-wagons. You may disagree with this, but I have difficulty believing that the editor doesn't "get" a stereotype of liberal bra-burners that dates from 1966.

I have a feeling that this editrix gets the joke-- only too well.

Looking at the line-up of speakers at the Convention, I have developed the 7-11 challenge: I will quit making fun of, for example, Dennis Kucinich, if he can prove he can run a 7-11 properly for 8 hours. We’ll even let him have an hour or so of preparation before we open up. Within 8 hours, the money will be gone, the store will be empty, and he’ll be explaining how three 11-year olds came in and asked for the money and he gave it to them.

USA Today: I DON'T GET IT.

The editrix doesn't "get" a complaint that liberals are bleeding-hearts and ineffectual managers. Apparently the editrix also didn't "get" the presidential elections of 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, and 1988.

I imagine the day after those Republican drubbings, she redlined the stories declaring Republicans the newly elected or re-elected Presidents, writing "HOW CAN THIS BE? I DON'T GET IT. GEORGE McGOVERN IS A VERY SMART MAN. ARE YOU BEING SARCASTIC? IF SO, YOU SURE LOST ME."

I’d say I love all these Democrats in Boston so much I want them to go home, but I don’t. I want Americans to get a good long look at the French Party and keep the 7-11 challenge in mind.

USA Today: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "THE FRENCH PARTY"? I DON'T GET IT.

Our editrix proves herself to be truly cosmopolitan and up with current events here. Apparently she hasn't noticed the affinity between Jacques Chirac and John Forbes Kerry.

I ask you: Is it conceivable that the editrix didn't "get" those third-grade-level (sorry, Ann) jokes?

Or is it more likely that this yet another example of the liberal media objecting to a story or an analysis based on political affintiy, and yet refusing to forthrightly admit the political nature of the disagreement?

Her real problem? She disagrees with Coulter. Coulter has committed the journalistic offense of writing something a liberal media-type disagrees with.

She "gets" the jokes. She just doesn't think they're fair. She doesn't think they're funny, in the same sense that getting pegged in nards by bocce ball might be funny to others, but it won't be very funny to you.

Of course, Michael Moore will be performing the same service at the Republican convention. As Human Events notes, it's a pretty fair bet that USAToday won't need his jokes explained to them. They'll not only get those jokes, they'll be telling their friends about them for a week afterwards.

And needless to say, his columns will make it into print with minimal editorial changes.

You won't see any "I DON'T GET IT"'s or "IS THIS SARCASTIC?" there.

No, the only comments there will be "DYNAMITE! EXPAND THIS THOUGHT!" or "DON'T YOU THINK WE CAN GO TO THE BUSH=CHIMP WELL ONE MORE TIME?!"

Update: Michelle Malkin comments.