"Hortense" at Jezebel seems obsessed, like so many on the left, with Sarah Palin. Why is Sarah Palin evil? Here's a typical post: Sarah Palin suggests, via Twitter, that "peace-seeking" Muslims should side against building a Mosque at 9/11 ground zero. This is clearly an evil, awful thing to suggest, no narrative necessary. The commenters understand perfectly well:

Dear Sarah Palin, plz 2 stop hidng ur xenophobia & racism bhind patriotism & natl tragedies. also plz learn good teh english. kthxbye

Sarah Palin is stupid because she uses abbreviated words on twitter -- just like the other 99.8% of users who have been on it more than one week.

Sarah u r a vicious weasley b*tch. Pls kill urslf b/c ur breathing stabs hearts of smart ppl . In the interest of healing kthanxbai NK

Sarah Palin is out of her f***ing mind and a disgusting bigot.

Yes. Bigotry and hatred are bad. Some people seem to get an enormous kick out of hating all the right people. Like Sarah Palin. Which makes her evil. Gosh, do I love hating her. (Do. Not. Look. In. Mirror!)

I'm really tired of people with no connection to either NYC or anyone who was lost at Ground Zero making sweeping statements about what should be done there. Shut. Up. You have no idea what happened there, you clearly don't know what NYC represents, and you need to stop the crazy nationalism.

I was in NYC when 9/11 happened. I did not lose anyone there, but I know quite a few people who did. Treating this as something that happened to the entire U.S. in some misguided "patriotic" sense is disrespectful and wrong. NYC represents diversity. A mosque near Ground Zero is not stabbing anyone's heart or even particularly provocative. Crazy people flew planes into those buildings. Lumping all muslims into that is like lumping all Christians in with the Crusade.

Yet Palin's quote *doesn't* treat all Muslims as being the same. She assumes many are interested in peaceful relations and attempts to appeal to them. Did the commenter even read it?

Even odder is the commenter's criteria for who can have an opinion about what happened. 9/11 wasn't a national tragedy, it was a local one, and because this person happened to be living or staying nearby (at that moment, not now), he or she has a superior understanding. Because it was all about NYC, and not at all about a certain type of Islam. The hijackers weren't motivated by religion, they were just "crazy people." So says our authority on "what happened there."

Do they get equally upset when a TV news anchor or liberal politician comments on what happened on 9/11? Somehow, I'm not thinking so.

This whole "Ground Zero Mosque" thing is stupid. All of the racism, xenophobia, and such aside, they aren't even building the mosque on ground zero. It's nearby. It has nothing to do with Ground Zero, the terrorist attacks, the rebuilding of any building on the property, or anything. It's some unrelated Muslims who want to build a mosque some blocks away.

It is taken as a given, of course, that one must be a "racist" or "xenophobe" if one has a problem with the Mosque. (I have no opinion on it, by the way.) Since no-one seems to know where the building funds are coming from, it's impossible to say if it's an "unrelated" group or not — but it does seem that the founder wants to establish an Islamic theocracy. But that's not as bad as, say, Sarah Palin suggesting one particular Mosque shouldn't be built, right?

Why, Sarah Palin? Did Islam bomb the Twin Towers, and not a bunch of deranged lunatics who represented no one but other deranged lunatics? This is news to me.

The 9/11 hijackers were "deranged lunatics" who represented no one but themselves. Never mind the massive cheering around the world, from many Islamic nations, when it happened. (No, I am not saying all Muslims agree. But many seemed to. What other inference should a rational observer draw?)

The same opponents should be against Churches in Spain because they did some pretty sh**ty things on behalf of the Catholic church back in the 1400's and 1500's. Right? Ban the Church in Spain! Only fair!

One decade is just the same as 600 years. Got it.

Shut up Sarah. You don't live in New York and you sure don't give a f*** about New Yorkers. They aren't "real Americans'' remember? You use 9/11 to manipulate people and then you go around insulting the people who were actually affected so don't you dare get involved in this. You weren't affected at all by it but some Muslims actually were and I think they have way more of right to this decision than you do. I hate you so much. I can't stand looking at you or hearing your voice. Please GO AWAY.

Yeah! It's so bad to *hate* those we disagree with! And to manipulate people using emotional arguments! And to imply some shouldn't have a say in certain things going on in our country! Yeah! (Oh wait, isn't that precisely what we're doing in our views of her? Hmmm...)

Lets say that I am having a conversation with a conservative Republican who thinks she has a point. How do I even have a conversation, meaning how do I make my point that what she's saying is offensive, without resorting to, "You're a stupid-head?"

Translation: Please tell me why my friend's perfectly reasonable-sounding argument is wrong. Because I, myself, have no idea why, and need to know the party line on this. Mind you, this guy isn't looking for missing evidence. That's another thing entirely. He wants to understand why Palin is a bad person for suggesting a mega-Mosque shouldn't be built, by someone who wants a religious theocracy in our country, at the site of an attack by Islamic extremists. Because, frankly, he can't figure out why he is opposed to that, though he knows he is.

Is it because Sarah Palin one used a misspelled word? Haven't we all? And how would that negate her view?

Is it because Sarah Palin is commenting on something she's wasn't directly involved in? But wasn't 9/11 an attack on the USA, not merely NYC? Weren't we all involved on that terrible day? And aren't we still, given that the war in Afghanistan was a response, and we all now have to jump through security hoops when we travel, see a game, or visit federal buildings?

Is it because anyone who objects to a Mosque must be a racist? But then wouldn't all anti-theistic atheists also be "racists" if they object to churches? Is it because the Mosque is intended to promote peace? If so, then how does that jibe with one of the top organizer's desire for America to be under sharia?

Is it because Sarah is "hating" people different than herself? But she isn't, of course: she's appealing to Muslims she believes would share her views. And, of course, if hating is bad, then her critics must be far worse than she is, judged by level of vitriol.

She's a terrible person, all right. And what she said was terrible. We can't just figure out why in any way which doesn't convict us more than her.