Maureen Dowd’s Mind Is Made Up: Don’t Confuse Her with Facts
Stirring up trouble is what she’s all about. Think Ann Coulter without the bestsellers and the cable talking head slot on Fox, but with a splashy news outfit behind her to add legitimacy.
But Maureen Dowd isn’t an unrepentant right winger. She simply whispers her poison pen politics, fed in part this season, no doubt, by the unhinged fringe. To appreciate Maureen Dowd when she gets into her dirt dishing rants, you have to understand that her blasts come from sources she simply channels into clever bursts that are meant to sound definitive. She did the same thing with her book Are Men Necessary?, which basically boiled down to her walking around to a bunch of cubicles at the New York Times to get her friend’s opinions on whether women should bother with males. Never mind most of us answered a loud “affirmative” to that question a long time ago. Not Ms. Dowd, who is throwback to the pearl wearing, little black dress clinging, 1950s clutching media queens who make a living in elevating the “daddy” party, Republicans, while rhetorically shooting the “mommy” party, Democrats, for sport, all compliments of her schizophrenic feelings about feminism. The “liberal” reputation of the New York Times simply gives her cover. And nothing gets her imagination flying faster than a chance at using Bill and Hillary Clinton as targets. So, when Joshua Green dumped the emails people handed over on an ask, Dowd was in tabloid heaven. It was, once again, a dish-rich environment, only this time she could enjoy a bank shot to strafe “Beanpole Guy,” aka Barack Obama, aka Mr. Darcy, the presumptive Democratic nominee. Real men aren’t “beanpoles,” you see (never mind Michael Phelps), especially when you’ve got Hillary Clinton plotting in the background to supposedly ruin “Beanpole Guy’s” convention. What a patsy, that presumptive nominee! Can’t even control that woman. From Dowd’s Yes, She Can:
Hillary’s orchestrating a play within the play in Denver. Just as Hamlet used the device to show that his stepfather murdered his father, Hillary will try to show the Democrats they chose the wrong savior. …
Hillary feels no guilt about encouraging her supporters to mess up Obama’s big moment, thus undermining his odds of beating John McCain and improving her odds of being the nominee in 2012.
There is absolutely no proof whatsoever, coming from my sources and personal experience, that Clinton is doing anything of the sort.
Wow, I think someone has invented the ‘Ad feminum’ attack.
lay off ann coulter, she’s better than this dowdbag anytime.
This is gonna be Fun !
Got my popcorn and DVR all set to capture games !
I just hope Hussein Obama does not go all Jihad on everyone when they take away his crown.
HRC is a mean spiteful Biatch
The old saying comes to mind
Hell hath no furry greater than a woman scorned
LOL
I stopped reading the NYT years ago, but I am glad to see that the reasons I quit are as valid today as they were then.
Ann Coulter is not a synonym for sloppy, unsupported polemics. Feel free to disagree with her, if you like, but her books include extensive notes backing up her arguments.
Taylor Marsh’s mind is made up: Don’t confuse her with facts.
Ms Marsh seems to think a statement released jointly by the HRC and BHO campaigns claiming they are in agreement is proof that reports to the contrary are false
” “I am convinced that honoring Senator Clinton’s historic campaign in this way will help us celebrate this defining moment in our history and bring the party together in a strong united fashion,” said Senator Barack Obama. — Statement from the Obama and Clinton Press Offices
Poof! There goes Dowd’s Democratic drama confection.”
Has Ms Marsh never before observed a politician pretending to welcome a concession they are unable to avoid making to an opponent they have come to loathe? To be honest, her argument is childish. Of course politicians routinely issue such statements. For example, when Joe Lieberman denounced BC’s habitual sexual predation during the run up to impeachment, Bill responded with a calmly worded statement welcoming Joe’s criticism, and claiming to share Joe’s disappointment in his own behavior. Did Ms Marsh also take that statement at face value?
Far from “poof!”, in fact, there goes nothing at all. If she really believes her own argument, (something hard for me to believe is possible) Ms Marsh should find a remedial course in strategy and political combat.
Not Ms. Dowd, who is throwback to the pearl wearing, little black dress clinging, 1950s clutching media queens who make a living in elevating the “daddy” party, Republicans, while rhetorically shooting the “mommy” party, Democrats, for sport, all compliments of her schizophrenic feelings about feminism. The “liberal” reputation of the New York Times simply gives her cover.
Names. We need names. Clinging black dress? Photos. We need photos. Wet.
I like putting “liberal” in quotes. The New York times used to have me fooled, too, what with their liberal reputation and all. Now I realize they are just trying to make George Bush look good by just being wrong all the time. It’s been happening ever since Maureen Dowd and David Brooks became lovers and moved to Virginia and bought that horse farm. And they talk about John Edwards(!??!) — or would if the editors let them.
As for schizophrenic feminist frenetically shooting mommies at parties for wearing pearls (real or imagined) — not even the National Enquirer will touch that one. That is why you must always read deep into the “comments.”
Dowd called this right on the money. Forcing a roll call vote was a big victory for Hillary and a defeat for party unity. Dowd is correctly noting that the 2008 convention is just the start of Hillary’s run in 2012. Senator Clinton will subtly sabotage Obama every chance she can get to insure that the field is clear in four years.
poor maureen, perhaps the obama zombies will make her their queen. she’d like that, i am shur. this will occur immediately after the crash of obamaism, the fake nytimes, and the rise of a third party to ensure we never have to see or hear howard dean ever again. ms. dowd will be dimly recalled as the female cursed by the gods with a hairy upper lip that no amount of waxing would remove. can you blame them.
“Ann Coulter is not a synonym for sloppy, unsupported polemics. Feel free to disagree with her, if you like, but her books include extensive notes backing up her arguments.”
Like when she proved evolution was a conspiracy? Or something?
Had a lot of notes so we know it’s true.
Morning, all. “Ann Coulter is not a synonym for sloppy, unsupported polemics.” Ha! huxley, thanks for the chuckle.
Mo MoDo, the reality is that without HRC campaigning for Obama, IF he should lose, there is no hope of 2012. Hillary knows that even if you do not.
Excellent! Modo displays the greek drama and freudian tendencies that must go on in her troubled head with every article she writes. Perhaps she and Chris Matthews could start a self-help group for their weird tendencies to equate the dems as a “Mommy party” and all the inevitable angst that draws up in them. They could get down to the bottom of why on earth their convoluted gender views and facsination with movies and greek drama coupled with their hallucinations, channeling and mind reading of our politicians are worth our time.
Gosh…. liberals are just as vicious with each other as they are when speaking of conservatives! Who knew!?
But, whether Dowd is right or wrong is not the issue as most see it. That Clinton was thrown under the bus early on by the media, was obvious to even us bitter, frustrated, ignorant, conservatives.
Someone wanted a “black” as the Dem candidate, as though being black automatically qualified that person to be president. That this candidate attacks the abilities of one like Clarence Thomas, as though “he” is better qualified for the job of president than Thomas is for the court, displays an incredible lack of respect for the accomplishments of a learned man, whose character is light years ahead of him.
That the policy issues he addresses vacillate more in one sentence than the typical on/off light switch, exposes the candidates inability to make good choices when the rubber meets the road.
Hillary is no saint. But, Dem’s did themselves no favor when they threw her under the wheels of the bus, so they could “look diverse,” even though the selection was pandering.
The differences between Hillary & McCain are not all that dramatic. The differences between Obama & Hillary or McCain, are glaring.
Obama is a classic socialist. He & his desperately think they can regulate & tax America into a utopian state they think exists or could exist.
Hillary will run in 2012, whether McCain wins or Obama wins. By then, Democrats will be enthusiastic supporters of a Hillary presidential run! By them Obama’s flawed character & inability to lead or think through critical issues, will have exposed him for the novice idealist whose idea’s are more wishful thinking than attainable realities in any universe. His economic mess will require someone who truly knows how to deal with taxes & capitalism, while not destroying America’s economic productivity in the process!
And, in 2012, free speech will once again return to America when even Hillary realizes imposition of the so-called Fairness Doctrine was as stupid an idea as any socialist ever had!
The author of this piece wheres her bias on her sleeve, which blinds her to the simple facts of Dowd’s article.
Hillary has positioned herself in such a way as to cast doubt on Obama, and make the convention all about her. While it’s unlikely she will try to wrest the nomination from Obama, the very fact that she and Bill have critical speaking slots in the convention, and that roll call, will remind Democrats that Hillary barely lost. That Obama won mostly by caucuses and not so much in states where the popular vote mattered more. There are no caucuses in the real election. Obama won mostly through backroom deal making.
Whenever a Clinton gets in front of a microphone, they make it all about them. Count the mes and Is when they talk. They will try to steal the spotlight from Obama. He will come off looking weak after this convention. Making it easier for Hillary to run again in 4 years.
The Clintons are cut throat. And they will do their best to see Obama fail while making it look like they support him.
Morning, all. “Ann Coulter is not a synonym for sloppy, unsupported polemics.” Ha! huxley, thanks for the chuckle.
Taylor — When it comes to Coulter, your article and comment are exactly the unsupported swipes that you decry in Dowd.
I don’t agree with everything Coulter says, not by a long shot, but she supports what she says.
Good column. Dowd is a joke, she constantly attacks the Clintons so she doesn’t have to think up other subjects to write about. She is someone who has run out of ideas.
I think MoDo and Dickless Morris would make a hell of a team.
“. . . facts have nothing to do with it when it comes to the Democrats.” Well, now. There’s a surprise.
Interesting political chatter, engaging speculation, and so on…with some trepidation I confess to an interest in Marsh’s prose, however. I think her string of madcap metaphors in, “…a dish-rich environment, only this time she could enjoy a bank shot to strafe “Beanpole Guy”….” will go into my archive. Wretched excess! Great stuff, because it’s not an example crafted by a creative writing instructor to demonstrate the horror of hypermetaphorosis. Too too trendy, barely comprehensible, but…. It’s genuine! It’s deliberate! It’s an instant classic!
What petty dreck, and this is the junk that is sending who down the river?
Can someone tell her to Move On?
whom