I had a look at Truth Laid Bear http://truthlaidbear.com/ecosystem.php . I do not know how reliable its data is, but from the top 8 blogs, 7 are right-wing and 4 of them allow comments. The next few right-wing blogs (Hewitt, Wizbang) also allow comments.

It all depends on how someone wants to define this and what statistics someone chooses. If you look at traffic statistics -- by far the most important indicator of a blog's size -- the top 4 right-wing blogs are LGF (139,000 daily visits), Michelle Malkin (135,000), Instapundit (112,000), and Powerline (71,000). Nothing else is close (the next largest, is Malkin's Hot Air, with 50,000.

Of the 4 largest right-wing blogs, only one (LGF) has comments, just as I said. Of the only right-wing blogs over 100,000 daily visits, only one (LGF) has comments, just as I said. Obviously, the more you go down the list, the more the number of comment-allowing blogs is going to increase.

By contrast, the top liberal blogs are Kos (500,000), Atrios (112,000), C&L (111,000) and AMERICAblog (73,000). ALL of them have comments. In fact, from what I can see, every liberal blog in the Top 100 of traffic stats (and those stats are outdated by at least a few months, but that's what is there) allow comments.

All traffic stats taken from Truth Laid Bear - your source:

http://truthlaidbear.com/ecotraffic.php

..you didn't post until late in the day today. Were you simply supremely confident that if you waited until Coulter's "presentation" you'd have some material to work with?

Actually, today was my last day to finish all of the editing changes on my manuscript, and my editor was cracking the whip, so I had no time to do anything. I just finished, exhausted and ready to go sit somewhere and do nothing, when I saw news of this little episode and could not get myself to refrain from posting no matter how hard I tried.

"That's why Mitt Romney was giddy with glee when her name passed his lips."

swap "his" and "her" in line above, I think.

Prior to Coulter's speech, Romney spoke and said how great it was that Coulter was next. She then endorsed him.

Um. No. They are not afraid, they are not petrified, they do not tremble at the Majesty of the King. Why keep repeating this canard?

Glenn, too many of them agree with the policy prescriptions of the White House and its neo-connish minions. They have always agreed with those policies.

Whenever you make this point, you always speak in these sweeping generalities which, expressed as such, are just demonstrably untrue. When he was trying to replace Mike DeWine as Ohio's Senator, then-Rep. Sherrod Brown voted in favor of the Military Commissions Act in October. Now that he has been safely elected, he is a co-sponsor of the legislation to repeal its most egregious parts. Clearly, he was motivated by political fear, not support for the MCA, when he voted for it in October. Your claims as applied to him are clearly false.

And then there are the slew of Democrats in Congress who voted in favor of the Iraq war and said nothing against it when the war was popular. Then, when it became unpopular, they suddenly became aggressive critics of it. See, e.g., John Kerry.

Yes, you are absolutely right that there are some neocon Democrats who -- to varying degrees -- support the administration's terrorism positions because they believe in them (I'd put people like Dianne Feinstein, Carl Levin, and Ben Nelson in that group, as but three of many examples). But most Democrats - most politicians - operate from fear. They want to keep their jobs, and so they do what they think will accomplish that, period. You give them far too much credit when you depict them as acting in accordance with some deep principle.

But either way, whether you are right that they are driven by a belief in the President's approach or I am right that they are driven by fear of being depicted as soft on terrorism (and I think we are both right depending on which specific politician is being discussed), the outcome is the same. They will respond to public opinion shifts. If the public becomes outraged or even sufficiently suspicious about the administration's secret behavior, they will be forced to act whether they want to or not.

Ultimately, debates about what really lies in someone's heart - what "truly motivates" them - rely upon speculation. Those debates can never really be resolved. But the principle of cause and effect is empirical, not speculative. And politicians respond to public pressure. And the higher that pressure, the more they respond.