Doesn't seem like a Monday, which is why I'm surprised at all these updates.

First (again)

Scott, I have to disagree. If you look lower down in the article, she writes:

"In all seriousness, I don't hate President Bush. I dislike a lot of his administration's choices, but I think he's a good man doing a difficult job. As a leader, you're always going to be hated. I am too often shocked by the vitriolic repulsion many people feel for our leader and America in general, especially because the loathing is often poorly informed. I've met people on this campus who see America as the worst human rights abuser in the world (unlike the angelic paradise of Cambodia) and people who sway liberal not because they actually know anything about issues but because it's popular.

Liberalism has to be more than a college fad or a collection of loudmouths whose idiotic comments stir headlines. The rabid dislike some people feel for a man they've never even met makes me ashamed to be a Democrat."

Not exactly lefty wingnut moonbattery.

Actually the writer was on Michael Medved last Friday and was quite friendly. She expressed her distain for those on the left with blind hatred for President Bush. She claimed her reasoning for writing the peice was in response to these people on the left. Not only that but she even admitted that she had not seen many in the right who have the same feelings toward certain dmeocrats.

I admit the title is not very classy, but her message behind her peice is actually quite insightful.

just a quick note as a regular reader, that while I find your comments regarding this gal funny, and most likely true, there are those of us that don't share her views, that did graduate from the University of Oregon, who don't look too kindly on your assumptions. It is what many of us, including you I believe, accuse the MSM of doing all the time. I'm not sure what university you graduated from, but we can't all go to Yale or Harvard.

Unless you're trying to be ironic (and I have my doubts), you do realize that the first paragraph of your update reads like a conservative version of a Kos diary entry, right?

The "debate" happened to be just that, a debate organized by some little group that probably 10 students care about and the ODE gives some attention to for lack of anything better to do. If my time at the UO is any indication, it's a slow news period on campus right now.

So some college kids are writing some clunky journalism for a campus paper. A bunch of people high on independence with no experience in the real world saying silly things and getting their facts wrong? What else is new? Seems to me it's worth it to actually save ammunition for media that people actually pay attention to.

The Emerald did get to me when I was a student, but in its credit, I do have to say it tried much harder to be balanced than those who feel campus politics is a high calling would have liked.

And hey, what's with bagging on the UO? Obscure if you have never heard of Animal House or Nike I guess.

I guess I'm another usually cynical conservative chiming in here with more of the same.

Imagine you're a liberal moonbat trying to tell completely whacko moonbats at your school that they've jumped the tracks.

That was the read I got...

testing - ignore me

I second the comments from above. It's pretty evident that she's trying to dissuade her fellow moonbats from hating the president with as much vitriol as they do right now.

Trying to dissuade them from hating the president? In Oregon? Bleh. . .good luck.

Why do I visualize the babysitter from "The Incredibles" when I read this story?

Well, not everybody from Oregon is a raving psychotic. I'm just happy to be going to Oregon State, which happens to be far more conservative than U of O (relatively speaking, of course).

Is the link to this missing? And as for OSU being more conservative than UofO, that's a matter of mils, not degrees.
(I gradded from WOU... and it was worse than either of you, other than Monmouth not having a recruiting office in town to firebomb)