Did anyone read Amanda Marcotte's piece about Obama's speech?

[bluedye33139]

She lamented how flawed and wrong it was, as if he had just given the most mediocre speech of his career. To be fair, Marcotte notes that there are some good points to his speech, but ... I didn't get what she was talking about. And virtually every single commentator in the discussion board for that article was all like WTF?

http://www.salon.com/2016/07/28/obamas_dnc_letdown_the_president_needed_to_hit_it_out_of_the_park_but_he_surprisingly_fell_short/

(apologies if someone's already posted about this)

[alcibiades_mystery]

1. It's a Maddow Special: make the thing you're commenting on about yourself by being

unreasonably contrarian.

[uponit7771]

2. +1, some people just want to be different just to be different

[geek tragedy]

3. not everyone is going feel every speech, probably her honest opinion but it's

a minority one

[still_one]

4. Let's see, Salon..... unhappy because good things said about Hillary. Looks like Salon's

analysis is wrong again.

perhaps not as bad as H.A. Goodman, but have been trying for second place for ever.

Salon is a pile of junk as far as I am concerned

[bluedye33139]

6. Amanda M. is a huge Hillary supporter, though -- which is why I was all ... baffled

[still_one]

7. That may be, but the majority of articles from Salon are anti-Hillary

Here is one example:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/former-editor-in-chief-joan-walsh-slams-salon-for-idiotic-anti-hillary-piece/

[bluedye33139]

8. Editorially, it's a Buster site

I'll confess, I've seen some astonishing and funny things in the comments sections during this primary.

[still_one]

9. I am sure that is correct also

[tblue37]

5. Yes, and I found it foolish--a lot like Rachel Maddox's nitpicking over Bill's speech.

Some people work really hard to find something wrong with a successful performance.