When Time magazine named Ann Coulter among its 100 “most influential people” last week, alongside such heavyweights as Ariel Sharon, Bill Clinton, Nelson Mandela, Kim Jong Il and the Dalai Lama, the choice produced guffaws online. Plugging the issue on Fox News last week, Time executive editor Priscilla Painton insisted it was Coulter’s use of “humor” that made her so influential, stopping just short of suggesting that Coulter is the conservative Jon Stewart. But even Fox’s Bill O’Reilly wasn’t buying it. He pressed Painton: “Do you think people, Americans, listen to Ann Coulter? Do you think she has influence in public opinion?”

At least now we know where Time magazine was going with its choice. Turns out Coulter’s inclusion was just a warm-up — a justification — for this week’s fawning Time cover story, “Ms. Right.” Polemicist pundits like Coulter purposefully drive political discourse into the ground, making a cushy, albeit factually challenged career out of labeling Democrats America-hating traitors. Time magazine stands on the sidelines and cheers, confident it has, for at least another week, placated conservative critics who demand proof that media outlets don’t lean left. (And even that didn’t work.)

Coming, as Wonkette.com noted, “seven years late,” Time’s Coulter push feels overly contrived. Her latest book is a five-month-old clip job of recycled columns. She has no full-time, high-profile media platform. Instead, she crisscrosses the country collecting $30,000 speaking-fee checks and shows up on late-night cable talk shows that are watched by the thousands.

The Time profile rings hollow right from the cover blurb: “Fair and balanced she ain’t. This conservative flame-thrower enrages the left and delights the right.” Time plays dumb, though, failing to note that Coulter has been abandoned by the conservative press, with the National Review dismissing her as “barely coherent” and a Weekly Standard writer, reviewing Coulter’s “Liberal Lies About the American Right” for the Washington Post, describing her book as “a piece of political hackwork.”

The true tipoff to the Time feature comes in the fourth paragraph, when it tries to get “serious with Coulter and asks her why she enjoys attacking liberals.” Here’s what follows:

“‘They’re terrible people, liberals. They believe — this can really summarize it all — these are people who believe,’ she said, now raising her voice, ‘you can deliver a baby entirely except for the head, puncture the skull, suck the brains out and pronounce that a constitutional right has just been exercised. That really says it all.’”

Puncturing the skulls of newborn babies? In order for the feature to stay afloat, Time has to ignore Coulter’s graphic riff on so-called partial-birth abortions as a symbol of Democratic beliefs, which it dutifully does. Author John Cloud seems to think the comment is darling, marveling how her response helped humanize her.

According to Time, Coulter, whom “you can trust will speak from her heart,” sees herself “as a public intellectual.” Cloud adds, “The officialdom of punditry, so full of phonies and dullards, would suffer without her humor and fire.” (During a recent C-Span appearance Coulter insisted, “Conservatives believe in God. By contrast, liberals believe they are God.” So much for intellect.)

And there’s this beaut: “Coulter is more like Clare Boothe Luce, the wife of this magazine’s co-founder, who rankled the Roosevelt establishment in the ’40s with her take-no-prisoners opposition to the New Deal and communism.” Actually, Clare Boothe Luce was a pioneering editor, playwright, politician, journalist and diplomat. Coulter is a professional name-caller.

The most awkward moment comes when Cloud writes: “Coulter has a reputation for carelessness with facts, and if you Google the words ‘Ann Coulter lies,’ you will drown in results. But I didn’t find many outright Coulter errors.”

Coulter’s publisher, Crown, had to correct five errors in “Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right,” although scores more should have been fixed. Here are some lowlights:

I was late to the excellent MarketWatch story debunking the notion that President Obama’s been on a spending binge; I spent most of Tuesday traveling. But after my “Hardball” segment on it Wednesday, Ann Coulter tweeted: “Joan Walsh says that Marketwatch chart is ‘unbelievable’! Why yes it is, in the sense of being untrue.” That’s when I saw that there was shrill but lame GOP pushback on Rex Nutting’s excellent story, from both Coulter and the American Enterprise Institute’s James Pethokoukis. I don’t normally reply to Coulter’s right-wing delusions — I haven’t written a column about her in five years – but since I think Nutting’s findings are a crucial corrective to GOP lying, I wasted my Wednesday night trying to understand the GOP attempt to discredit him. You’re welcome.

Most by now are probably familiar with Ann Coulter’s declaration, when discussing the Herman Cain sexual harassment debacle earlier this week, that “our blacks are so much better than their blacks.” Most probably weren’t all that shocked to hear this sort of race-baiting from Coulter, who’s made a lucrative career dispensing right-wing vitriol. Most probably just ignored her uncouth remarks and moved on.

Still, just in case you were looking for a more complete exegesis of the logic behind Coulter’s statement, Jon Stewart, along with his “Daily Show” correspondents, extended the argument to its logical extreme last night.

Ten years ago, a tragedy brought us all closer together. Last night, Jon Stewart recalled another moment, just two days after, when all the solidarity engendered through a national trauma began to dissipate into the political ether. Opportunists — first Jerry Falwell, then Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, all the “Ground Zero Mosque” people (not to say anything of the folks in power) — began using the memory of that historical moment for their own personal advantage. “The Daily Show” paid tribute:

Ed Schultz targeted Ann Coulter and her recent comments on radiation’s positive health benefits in his “Take Down” segment on Friday night. Last week, Ann Coulter wrote a blog post about the positive health benefits of radiation and made national headlines when Bill O’Reilly scolded her on his show for the shoddy research and inappropriate timing of her incendiary claims. Schultz agreed and took the scolding to the next level saying:

What’s the opposite of fear-mongering? False-sense-of-security-mongering, probably. Or whatever you’d call Ann Coulter’s latest blog post claiming that radiation does a body good:

With the terrible earthquake and resulting tsunami that have devastated Japan, the only good news is that anyone exposed to excess radiation from the nuclear power plants is now probably much less likely to get cancer.