[ohioWfan]

It seems an exercize in stupidity to me.

The main point of the article is going to get the approval of conservatives because of its accurate assessment of the hapless, moral-less, gutless left, but she starts it out by alienating the President's supporters, who saw this as a strong, much needed speech.

Even the CBS snap poll had the speech at 77% approval. If you play the odds, it must have had well over 90% approval among Republicans.

And she starts out the editorial with a needless, bitter, and very WRONG assessment of the speech, making the majority of her intended audience angry.

Dumb.

[MizSterious]

You are correct. I had no wish to go to the link after reading the snippet posted here, especially the first sentence.

[txrangerette]

I asked myself why she would alienate both Dems and Republicans in her article. It is dumb, as you say. Either she is like the left, and some of the right...unhinged and can't act rationally, or she is looking for an image that puts her at odds with the political parties, possibly hoping to write speeches for some maverick candidate down the line. What do you think? I used to think she was brilliant.

[roses of sharon]

As with most elite Conservative writers who live and work in the east, she is NO longer writing for conservative voters.

She writes for her colleagues in the MSM.

IF she really cared about the President, his policies, his legacy, or the nation itself during wartime, she would write to him privately.

She would not help his enemies.