by hilzoy
Maureen Dowd seems to have written this in earnest (or what passes for earnestness with her):
"Proclaiming that the upcoming elections in Indiana and North Carolina would be “a game changer,” Hillary and her posse pressed hard on their noble twin themes of emasculation and elitism.Cherry-bombing the word “pansy” into the discourse, Gov. Mike Easley of North Carolina said Hillary made “Rocky Balboa look like a pansy.”
Paul Gipson, president of a steelworkers local in Portage, Ind., hailed her “testicular fortitude,” before ripping into “Gucci-wearing, latte-drinking, self-centered, egotistical people that have damaged our lifestyle.”
James Carville helpfully told Eleanor Clift of Newsweek that if Hillary gave Obama one of her vehicles of testicular fortitude, “they’d both have two.”"
Words fail.
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.
Posted by: wonkie | May 05, 2008 at 10:23 PM
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."
Posted by: Lolo | May 05, 2008 at 10:23 PM
Could we somehow strongarm the NYT into replacing Dowd with Thullen? I think the change would be Good For America.
Posted by: Jackmormon | May 05, 2008 at 10:28 PM
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
Posted by: publius | May 05, 2008 at 10:34 PM
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.
Posted by: KCinDC | May 05, 2008 at 10:55 PM
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.
Posted by: Spencerjoe | May 05, 2008 at 10:55 PM
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.
Beren
Posted by: Beren | May 05, 2008 at 10:56 PM
"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!
Posted by: Jay C | May 05, 2008 at 11:03 PM
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 -
Posted by: russell | May 05, 2008 at 11:08 PM
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.
Posted by: omegajew | May 05, 2008 at 11:32 PM
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.
Posted by: Mike Schilling | May 05, 2008 at 11:39 PM
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
Posted by: Sean M. Brooks | May 06, 2008 at 12:00 AM
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
Posted by: Sean M. Brooks | May 06, 2008 at 12:27 AM
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.
Posted by: Loneoak | May 06, 2008 at 12:57 AM
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?
Posted by: Phoebe | May 06, 2008 at 01:46 AM
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.
Posted by: kew | May 06, 2008 at 02:20 AM
Sorry, but most here are obviously missing of Dowd's point.
Posted by: novakant | May 06, 2008 at 06:23 AM
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:
http://dowdreport.blogspot.com/2008/04/eye-of-tiger.html
Posted by: Mo MoDo | May 06, 2008 at 06:59 AM
"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?
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 06, 2008 at 07:10 AM
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.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | May 06, 2008 at 09:02 AM
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.
Posted by: Margaret | May 06, 2008 at 10:04 AM
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."
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov | May 06, 2008 at 10:21 AM
OT, but this seems an interesting development.
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 06, 2008 at 10:01 PM