« We Owe Them Better | Main | Hitchens Logic »

May 05, 2008


The irony is that those HRC supporters who supporter her out of what they call feminism probably won't see any problem with her using her surrogates to suggest that she is really a man in drag.

And the surrealism continues to grow like a fungas that's been injected with steroids.

"Vote for me. the woman. with experience. and three balls."

Could we somehow strongarm the NYT into replacing Dowd with Thullen? I think the change would be Good For America.

she needs to be put out to pasture. it's always bittersweet for me when I see how far she's fallen. i used to adore her columns in the late 90s. but she's just going through the motions now

Words fail me in reacting to the Clintonite spewing, but I'm not sure what you're saying about Maureen Dowd here. I suppose I'd have to read the whole column, but I'm not ready to make that sacrifice.

Agreed, Dowd has been losing it for some time now. It's always sad (and annoying) to see someone who doesn't know when it's time to retire. Apparently the ego has the ability to crush that particular voice of reason. Heck, Sen. Clinton is another illustration of that phenomenon... but I digress.

Yeah, I can see why academia has tenure (though you still meet people who are walking arguments against it), but newspapers really shouldn't have it.


"she needs to be put out to pasture. it's always bittersweet for me when I see how far she's fallen."

Y'know, at first I thought this was referring to Hillary Clinton... and I thought: "I agree!" Then I saw publius' second sentence... and I still agree!

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

Barack Lashley vs Hardcore Hillary in a first-blood steel cage match. Just give me the Bud concession, that's all I ask.

And not for nothing, but people that use the word "ensorcelling" anywhere other than in a Scrabble game are not in a position to call anyone else elitist.

Thanks -

I actually thought this was far better than her usual fare (not a high standard, I know). I might even go so far as to call it good. The thing is, she's not really taking any of those people out of context. That's what they're saying, and that's what they mean.

I'm the odd man out here. (OK, Hillary makes an odd man too. Especially since three is an odd number.) It's a nice column, quite insightful about the Clinton campaign's goal of turning Obama into a wimpy liberal.

Dear Hilzoy: I trust you are well.

Yes, I agree with what you seem to imply. It sure looks like DESPERATION on the part of that awful woman and her supporters.

Sincerely, Sean

Dear Hilzoy: I hope you don't mind this link.

I know this is not quite on topic, but I think we both agree the ethanol subsidy has been a disaster, and needs to be abolished. I thought this link might interest you. http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDUwMjNiZGFiMzViZmFkMGFkNzRhY2Y0Nzc5ZDRlNjE=

Sincerely, Sean

One odd thing about Dowdster's pervasive obsession with testicles and removal thereof is that it is usually the trope of a wingnutter ... Oh.

But why would the Clinton "Obliterate 'Em" Groupies openly air their scrotal metaphors if that tactic is typically the realm of anti-feminist males protecting their imagined entitlement to power by virtue of their private bits ... Oh.

I read the whole thing and I thought Dowd was criticizing. I thought her use of "helpfully" was sarcastic and funny.

Are you saying she was not being critical?

Although an Obama supporter, I've said all along I would vote for Hillary in a heartbeat if she is nominated.

Well, I'm beginning to wonder. Maybe she is a closet Republican.

Sorry, but most here are obviously missing of Dowd's point.

You have to be better at reading between the lines of a Dowd column. She is quoting HRC supporters that are questioning Obama's masculinity. She is saying that Hillary's supporters are so desperate in their last ditch effort that they are willing to give the Republicans sound bites for months.

Besides questioning Barack's masculinity is Dowd's side of the street:

"Maureen Dowd seems to have written this in earnest (or what passes for earnestness with her)"

What thought or meaning are you suggesting she meant in "earnest" that we should find obvious? I ask because I don't know what you mean, and as a result, I don't follow your intended point, I'm afraid.

The quotes are deeply stupid; what point is it that you see Dowd as making, however, that we should disapprove of? She obviously doesn't agree with the remarks. Therefore?

You know, I continually marvel that people (hilzoy included, on occasion) bother to treat pundits like Dowd as if their writings were, with minor exceptions, appointing.

That probably doesn't really mean what I think it means.

THAT part of her column wasn't objectionable, but her enduring obsession with the way Obama eats and drinks is really ridiculous (and relatively earnest):

"Then, showing he's a smart guy who can learn and assimilate, he took big swigs from his beer can, a marked improvement on the delicate sip he took at a brewery in Bethlehem, Pa."

She's practically devoted whole columns devoted to the way he chews. It's kinda weird.

You know, I continually marvel that people (hilzoy included, on occasion) bother to treat pundits like Dowd as if their writings were, with minor exceptions, appointing.

Great word, slarti.

Reminds me of a quote from P.G. Wodehouse where he describes someone as "Not actually disgruntled, but not totally gruntled either."

OT, but this seems an interesting development.

The comments to this entry are closed.