Doesn't her nickname rhyme with DODO?
Posted by Sharon at January 9, 2008 10:51 AMI can't stand Dowd. The vitriol and bias is grates as does the comparatively poor quality of her writing. I prefer the opinion pieces on the Guardian. On the other hand, I quite like Bob Herbert.
Posted by j at January 9, 2008 10:59 AMOnce in a while, like this one from Dowd, the Kool Kids Klub NAILS it. Kudos to Mo!
Posted by Brian Bell at January 9, 2008 11:02 AMthanks, brian. wondered who would be the first to take the bait.
Posted by Turkana at January 9, 2008 11:19 AMTurkana, LOL! Aww, c'mon, now. Dowd's a decent writer, you may not agree with her analysis, and you may feel it is wrong and off-base. But that doesn't make Mo wrong.
Posted by Brian Bell at January 9, 2008 11:26 AMAlmost too easy, wasn't it, Turkana? I suppose Brian also loves the one where MoDo (who's comically still pissed that Bill wouldn't do her) says Hillary "cracks the whip" and Obama jumps. Yeah, that was hilarious. And wasn't she the one who coined "Obambi?"
"Decent writer?" Now, that comment explains a lot about you, big guy. Wait'll she turns on Obama as we know she will. Don't you worry, Bri, we'll keep this thread available for nostalgia's sake.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 9, 2008 11:40 AMbrian,
her "analysis" is always based on style, and her vindictiveness is always just below the surface. she's tweety's long-lost twin.
Posted by Turkana at January 9, 2008 11:52 AMHere's Ntoddler's take on the Obambi article. Yeah, old Ariel MoDo hit that baby outta the park. What a great writer.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 9, 2008 12:00 PMTurkana and Iamcoyote, get a sense of humor. "Obambi!" LOL! Go read that article, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/opinion/18dowd.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin, she's wrong about Rudy but she was right that the other Dem candidates ought not be afraid of debating Hillary, like they had been acting. Maybe if my candidate -- "Obambi," LOL -- had taken that advice sooner, he'd have taken NH, too. That's what I mean, she's a good writer. It's not just style. MoDo has intelligent points beneath that veneer of smarm. She's much better than most political columnists.
Posted by Brian Bell at January 9, 2008 12:34 PMBrian, take off your sexist Obambi colored glasses for just a second when you read that piece of trash. I couldn't even make it through the first page because the hate that emanated and poured from it was even too much for me to take.
And I hope you don't naively think for a minute that MoDo doesn't have a series of negative op-eds lined up and ready that thoroughly bash/trash your boy Obama (or any of the democratic nominee) with the same type of bias and hate.
You're right turkana....if this keeps up my 3rd ranked preference for her might just bump up to 1st. (I vote on Feb 5th) and ..I feel myself being very supportive of her when I read crap like that.
Posted by emal at January 9, 2008 12:48 PMWhy oh why did I expect more from Maureen Dowd. I guess she is just trying to be "one of the guys" and following along with the likes of Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough----shame, shame
Posted by kb at January 9, 2008 12:50 PMMy sense of humor's just fine. I've been laughing at you for some time now, Brian!
Posted by iamcoyote at January 9, 2008 12:54 PMThat column was prima facie evidence of all that ails the national media. Their cynicism has so taken hold of their souls that they reduce everybody and everything to caricature and objects, forgetting that they are human beings too.
Thus we get George W Bush, the folksy cowboy instead of the dangerous sociopath that he actually is. And we get Hillary as the cold and calculating bitch, Edwards as the Shampoo Boy, and so on.
And the public gets nothing that serves to inform their choices.
There was nothing intelligent in her article Brian, at some point the hate just permeates anything else people like her have to say.
Posted by Duckman GR at January 9, 2008 12:55 PMEmal, I'm not a sexist nor do I have "sexist Obambi colored glasses."
Are you a racist because you don't like Obama, or are you wearing Hillary race-hater glasses? You did refer to Obama as a "boy," after all. What are you, a KKK member (and I don't mean Kool Kids Klub)? No? That's ridiculous of me to think that of you? Yeah, you're right, it is ridiculous.
But it's ridiculous for you to think I'm sexist for not liking Hillary and for supporting Obama. I'm not a sexist.
Just because I support Obamama, just because MoDo uses the pen in a cutting manner, and just because I appreciate it -- please note, even when she's ripping my candidate, "Obambi" -- doesn't make me sexist.
Posted by Brian Bell at January 9, 2008 01:31 PMAnd, Coyote, I think your sense of humor must be failing you at least a little if you're not feeling MoDo.
Posted by Brian Bell at January 9, 2008 01:34 PMPoor Brian.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 9, 2008 01:49 PMThis guy named Brian really takes the bait so easily. I say, keep on baiting him, it's fun theatre!!! Plus you're doing a great job at it.
Mo missed the point that Senator Clinton was making: King was the dreamer, and LBJ took the action to realize that dream. Comparing herself to LBJ - I think not. Just making a point which was missed by the MO DO.
A view from over the pond on Hillary, Mark Steel of the Independent. Pretty funny.
Posted by Seven of Six at January 9, 2008 02:12 PMI'm Brian...No, I'm Brian...No, I'm Brian...
"Always look on the bright si-ide of life, tweet tweet, tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet twee-heet."
Posted by TIKI AL at January 9, 2008 02:22 PMThis is my standard response to MoDo, that I paste into any discussion of her:
Whatever she is writing about, her interest is NEVER truth, her interest is getting her own tiny little rocks off by knifing someone with what she thinks is great wit. I have noticed that she gets especially flushed and orgasmic when spewing bile on another woman.
I pretty much ignore it when she vomits up whatever resides in her empty and blackened bowels, then titters girlishly and pronounces it a jewel of insight.
No, Maureen, it's not a jewel, it's one of your grotesque misshapen gallstones of reeking irrelevance, you nasty petty acidic old waste of has-been flesh.
Since the link seems to be down, thanks to Apollo 11 at DU for a partial save:
What a magnificent speech by Hillary Clinton, where she broke down in tears and spluttered, "Lots of people think elections are about who's up and who's down, but this is very personal for me. I've had such opportunities from this country."At first glance it makes so little sense I thought if you chucked in a perpendicular and a polyunsaturate it could be one of Neil Kinnock's. But when you look again it's the scream of an articulate four-year-old. She's saying "Let ME be President because I WANT to. LET me LET me it's not FAIR." ...
Most people seem to think this was a deliberate act, to win popularity by appearing human and vulnerable. Maybe at her next press conference she'll come on with a puppy. And her speech will be "This is Rosie." Then, fighting back tears she'll say "And this afternoon she's got to be put down. God bless America." And then the hall will fill up with balloons. Then, during a televised debate she'll respond to a question about energy policy with a botched suicide attempt.
But there may be other reasons why her campaign's slipped, which is she claims to be the best candidate to bring about "Change" from the days of Bush, but she's supported almost everything he's done, including the invasion of Iraq. Now she says she'll "Bring the troops home" so presumably her statement will be "When the war was popular I supported it. Then when it was unpopular I opposed it. So I am the only candidate who's consistently voted with the American people."
She supported the bombing of Lebanon, and her only criticism of Bush while he was planning to bomb Iran was that he "downplayed their threats". She also urged him to categorise the entire Iranian army as a "terrorist organisation". So she must be the only person in the world who thinks "We need a change – because Bush hasn't bombed enough places or called enough people terrorists."
You know, Maureen Dowd had some decent points, but it's hard to hear them soaked and surrounded as they are with vitriol.
I am anti-Hillary (though not quite in the ABH club - there ARE worse options than her) strictly because of her record on foreign policy, specifically her consistent support of use of military force as a tool of foreign policy, her record on Iraq, on human rights, on international law, and on military policy (it scares me to death that both she and Obama have declared their intention to significantly increase the size of the military - it does not bode well for her intentions in regard to Iraq and beyond). I have nothing against her personally, and I find all these personal attacks on her - some of which are horribly sexist - to be beyond the pale.
And let's be realistic. This is a presidential campaign with enormous stakes. My impression is that her little "moment" in the coffee shop was genuine - at least the emotion was, and she might not even know what it was really about. So what if she succeeded in using it well? And so what even if it was fake? Considering the tactics being used by some of her opponents, not to mention the Republicans, what is a little ploy like that here or there.
Seriously, people need to put things into perspective.
Posted by Shirin at January 9, 2008 02:58 PMBrian...fwiw and it's worth alot imo. I rather like Senator Obama and think he has alot to offer.( Although I must admit some of his more passionate supporters around here make it more and more difficult at times...hint hint). In my list of candidates preferences he's ranked 2nd behind Edwards and just ahead of Hillary who I currently have as my third favorite. I used that description of him because your commentary these past several days and over this week is just so full of pure Hillary-hate. I read your first response here about how MoDo is right about Hillary even though most independent and objective readers should know her column is another horrible hit piece against a democrat... and this one happens to be a woman named Hillary. MoDo's column and her giddy Kewl Kid reporters she mentions are acting like pathetic junior high school fools and the whole thing is just pure crap.
I thought I throw some bait (by the Obama labeling/name calling) to see how you would respond. But what I wrote initially in my first post here is also pure crap about Obama...pure crap.
Posted by emal at January 9, 2008 03:14 PM
MoDo got it right. Turkana's comments make people like me hope Hilary does not win. The tears were repulsive, tired or not. Old stuff from an old-style candidate. This is how she would run the country? With public tears when things don't go her way?
Repulsive. Entirely repulsive.
Posted by olivia at January 9, 2008 05:09 PMFolks-
If MoDo is discussing it, it's a sure sign that it's evil. A Novakula-sort of evil. An evil that wishes that the White House would call it and give it an undercover NOC to blab about in some gossipy way just so it could have a mental orgasm. Only that even the vile criminals and idiots currently living in the executive mansion realize that MoDo is a churlish idiot herself who's best only function is to write "phone number BJ" graffiti in all the toilet stalls while wishing that someone - someone - would love her as the good human being she is.
So why are we discussing it?
Posted by idiosynchronic at January 9, 2008 05:51 PMPeople seem to hate Dowd the most when they disagree with her. Dowd has several clear unhidden reasons she thinks Hillary should not be president and most columns about Hillary touch on a few of them. Today's was about how her victimhood has helped her political career. This is not a unique opinion.
Besides I like reading Dowd to see what old movie she will reference next.
Posted by Mo MoDo at January 9, 2008 07:03 PMMoDo has intelligent points beneath that veneer of smarm. She's much better than most political columnists.
Some examples of those wonderfully insightful points in her latest screed:
Bill Clinton was known for biting his lip, but here was Hillary doing the Muskie. Certainly it was impressive that she could choke up and stay on message.
She won her Senate seat after being embarrassed by a man. She pulled out New Hampshire and saved her presidential campaign after being embarrassed by another man. She was seen as so controlling when she ran for the Senate that she had to be seen as losing control, as she did during the Monica scandal, before she seemed soft enough to attract many New York voters.
There was a poignancy about the moment, seeing Hillary crack with exhaustion from decades of yearning to be the principal rather than the plus-one.
She became emotional because she feared that she had reached her political midnight, when she would suddenly revert to the school girl with geeky glasses and frizzy hair, smart but not the favorite.
But Hillary did feel she needed to prove her masculinity. That was why she voted to enable W. to invade Iraq without even reading the National Intelligence Estimate and backed the White House’s bellicosity on Iran.
Such intelligent insights! Why, it's almost like Dodo thinks she has psychic powers that allow her to read Hillary's thoughts, and knows why the Clagina does what she does! Without any trace of catty gossipy unfactual smears at all. And with bonus Clenis slurring included at no extra cost!
Gee, I wonder why I don't read Dodo the Dragon Lady on a regular basis anymore...
Posted by (: Tom :) at January 10, 2008 11:05 AMMoDo is just another high school Heather in the korporate media. Except for Krugman the New York Times isn't worth lining a bird cage.
Posted by Gay Veteran at January 10, 2008 11:59 AMGiven her pulpit, there is no excuse for cheap shots. It's time for Maureen to hang it up.
Posted by Amy Wilder at January 10, 2008 03:59 PM