They read up to the part where she criticized Bush, then they closed their browsers and pouted.
When the excerpt is so vile, why would anyone be tempted to go to the link? Why would I expect things to be any better at the source site? Perhaps they were, but I saw no good reason to read further.
They were just offended by a weak and inaccurate critique of the speech, and didn't care to read further.
In reading further, the beginning of the article made even less sense.
It was stupid of her to vent her petty jealousy in an otherwise worthwhile editorial.