"I do think that she is very wrong about some incredibly important issues, and makes poorly constructed arguments in the defence of an utterly indefencible man."
I'm not going to read back through it see who said what but all I saw was pages of personal abuse. Thinking that someone has a thick skin is no excuse, nor is offering no argument except name calling.
Then again I find it difficult to entirely blame you when the MSM resorts to similar tactics. If they can't provide coherent arguments then we can't really expect their readership to unless they undertake independent research, which is rare. The poverty of debate in the entire election cycle was shocking and policy rarely discussed.
I think I understand the references to blair, it isn't one of philosophy or policy but a comparison of value signal and smear. Of course it almost seems ironic now that Blair's constantly value signalling has been laughed out of town by his callous actions.
And don't forget that Blair had quite an effect across the pond. The Republicans roundly blamed him for the dodgy dossiers etc, for taking the lead with the tail wagging the dog. Doubt they'll make that mistake again.
It's one reason why Nigel goes down so well over there.