Clueless In The Beltway : Dowd, Proud Member Of The Loser Media

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 01:46:03 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Even after having her nose rubbed in it, Maureen Dowd stil does not get it. The voters of New Hampshire rebuked the Tweety/Dowd Media axis of Hillary hater and misogyny and she tries to crack wise:

Yet, in the end, she had to fend off calamity by playing the female victim, both of Obama and of the press. Hillary has barely talked to the press throughout her race even though the Clintons this week whined mightily that the press prefers Obama. . . . At her victory party, Hillary was like the heroine of a Lifetime movie, a woman in peril who manages to triumph. Saying that her heart was full, she sounded the feminist anthem: “I found my own voice.”

You foolish woman. Hillary did not play the victim. The Tweety/Dowd Media Axis tried to victimize Clinton. Your team lost Ms. Dowd. But like the losing team you are, you will continue to pound your losing tactics. Hillary will only prosper now from your misogynistic attacks.

The Clinton campaign must be thinking, "keep up the good work" MoDo and Tweety and Co. And Obama must be cursing your name.

< Why The NH Result Is Good For Dem Values | The Impulse To Defend Hillary: Uniting Democrats >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Clueless In The Beltway : Dowd, Proud Member Of The Loser Media | 24 comments (24 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Maureen (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Judith on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:15:08 AM EST

simply isnt worth the time to discuss.

OMG (none / 0) (#1)
by andgarden on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 02:07:22 AM EST

I just saw this, and went through the roof.

What a talentless hack MoDo is.

Wow. (none / 0) (#2)
by DA in LA on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 02:52:03 AM EST

Baffling.

Really? (none / 0) (#17)
by manys on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 12:36:41 PM EST

What's baffling about her stance and statements? She's a leading member of political gossip writers, and the sooner people stop looking for gossip in their politics the less relevance she'll have and thus disappear. Matthews, too. You don't think there's a good reason "Inside Edition" is only shown on crappy broadcast network affiliates?


Uh... (none / 0) (#18)
by DA in LA on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 01:39:34 PM EST

yeah, okay. Weird attack on me. I'm still going with baffling because I was commenting on the statement, not the entire media situation.


: Turn it around (none / 0) (#19)
by manys on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 02:51:29 PM EST

I wasn't attacking you. The media situation explains her comment because Dowd's role is a product of that environment and she exists only to perpetuate a consensual hallucination of importance and effect.
Maureen Dowd takes events and developments that could have plain and/or political explanations and turns them into high drama by exaggerating or fabricating possible explanations in order to draw attention to herself and make money. Dowd asserts that Clinton "played the victim," and exists as a metaphor for the Lifetime cable channel in a "Not Without My Delegates" piece of Dowdian humor. Of course, she can play this off as joking if anybody comes to her with criticism, but that just underscores how unserious she is and why she should not be considered to be any kind of journalist or primary source of information for anything she writes about.

Dowd and the Villagers (none / 0) (#3)
by koshembos on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 05:59:30 AM EST

Stopped reading Down years ago; it's beyond me why the NYT employs a malicious op-ed writer with no insight, no contribution and no validity.

Watching MSNBC two elements were very obvious. First, everyone, even Mathews, tried to be on their best behavior; no obvious Hillary hate and ridicule, even the tearing up was treated reasonably well. Second, the reasons stated by the participants for Hillary's victory had absolutely nothing to with her. They were: NH wanted to send a message, women support women,she teared up, etc. This group included Mathews, Williams, Brokaw, etc.

: New term for unserious pundits (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by manys on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 02:53:01 PM EST

"Dowd's Syndrome"

ms. dowd has been a (none / 0) (#4)
by cpinva on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:43:15 AM EST

stain on the nyt's op/ed pages for years. venal, condescending and petty best describe her attacks on the clintons for the past 15 years. at one point, she was at least mildly amusing, that time has long since past.

with the recent hiring of bill kristol, the times now has dowd's male mirror image; two vacuuous vessels, filling the times' op/ed pages with their inane observations.

the gray lady has taken a perhaps mortal wound.

Great post, BTD. (none / 0) (#5)
by jpete on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:49:39 AM EST

It's been great to stop by and see the blog's insightful analysis of Clinton's treatment, Obama's candidacy, etc.

And it's also really good to see this blog flourishiing.

Iowa and New Hampshire (none / 0) (#6)
by Dadler on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 08:17:00 AM EST

Again, these two states are so small and largely homegeneous I find it ridiculous that we even pay attention to the results. This entire primary system is a sham. Until it is fixed to represent the actual demographics of the nation, we should be ignoring the results. When the first primary is a big one, encompassing several states with demographics that truly demonstrate the nations diversity at the polls, then we'll have something worth reporting on. This nonsense is both offensive and perpetuates a system that does not serve, in any way, the interests of voters or the nation.

: But I suppose (none / 0) (#7)
by Dadler on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 08:17:45 AM EST

It serves the interests of the media. Therefore, we follow.

My wife (none / 0) (#8)
by Jlvngstn on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 08:27:11 AM EST

was pulling for Obama, but after watching Hannity and Colmes and Chris Matthews over the past few days, and how shamelessly they have attacked her and called her emotional moment a "breakdown" she is now leaning towards her.

It is nice to see the news media having a positive effect on the elections. Women, especially 30-70 vote, Hillary owes a big thank you to matthews, hannity and morris, i would imagine their vitriol helped her with more than just my wife's vote.

Hillary's win is a testament of her strength as a (none / 0) (#9)
by Angel on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 08:33:57 AM EST

person. She has not played the victim card. Don't these people listen to what she says? During the "teary" speech she said she was gratified to have had so many opportunites in this country. Does that sound like she's complaining about being a victim?

I wish people would really listen to what the candidates say, investigate what they have done and then make their decisions accordingly.

We have turned into a nation of haters, and haters with no basis for that hate. I'm not sure what it will take to change that but I think we could start here by not name calling and repeating all the lies that have been taken as the truth for so many years. It starts with us. Each of us.


: No they don't (none / 0) (#10)
by Jlvngstn on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 08:59:49 AM EST

at least matthews, morris and hannity and scarborough don't. they keep referring it to a "breakdown" which is ridiculous.
I think the "haters" speech is best saved for Jerry Springer and his guests.
Hillary is "polarizing" because the right hated her husband first and she is married to him.
Is there something nefarious going on with the pollsters? How does anyone explain a 30,000 vote discrepancy and a swing of nearly 16 points?
Good for her. I have been pulling for Obama, but like my wife I find what is being done to her by MSM is more than disgusting and it may change my vote. I don't think there is much difference between her and Barack on the major issues so it is not that difficult a compromise. For the past decade the MSM has lost nearly all of its credibility and to my surprise, it is getting worse.
Go Hillary and congrats. Obama, save the "history" speeches and give me some meat on the issues. No more empty rhetoric from anyone on making america a better place unless it is proceeded by HOW. Getting rid of Bush is not going to create new jobs, it is not going to help the mortgage crisis, it is not going to end the war in Iraq, it is not going to help our schools or roads, it is not going to help businesses sell more gadgets, it is not going to eliminate the trade deficit with china and the list goes on and on and on....

Exactly What Dowd Was Pointing Out (none / 0) (#22)
by Mo MoDo on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 04:49:09 PM EST

Hillary draws the most support when she is a victim. As a frontrunner, people focus on her many negative traits.


nonsense (none / 0) (#23)
by Judith on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 04:53:10 PM EST

: my take (none / 0) (#24)
by Judith on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 05:28:43 PM EST

since just saying "nonsense" doesnt cover it,
is that Modo is very angry that all her bile didnt get HRC kicked out of the race and this column is her transparent attempt to justify what happened here.

media - huh (none / 0) (#11)
by NYMARJ on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:11:23 AM EST

On Charlie Rose last night Mark Halperin was the only media person willing to say that the media obviously was pulling for Obama and McCain and against Hillary. Al Hunt and everybody else was playing the "I just don't don't see that" card. Either it is so ingrained in their behavior they don't see what they are doing or, Mark is not supposed to kiss and tell.

: I saw that (none / 0) (#25)
by Judith on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 08:22:50 PM EST

very interesting. I especially enjoy the look of contempt Bill Bradley gave Ms Huffington.

In New Hampshire (none / 0) (#12)
by BDB on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:15:17 AM EST

I was in NH over the weekend and through yesterday volunteering for the Clinton campaign. It was amazing. At the victory party last night they had MSNBC on one of the televisions as you walk through the door. The absolute disgust many HRC supporters - not staff or anyone officially with the campaign, these were just volunteers and supporters - showed whenever they walked in and saw Chris Matthews was kind of hilarious. Having said that, I actually think Dowd is worse. Matthews is a sexist, ridiculous, immature blowhard, while Dowd gives me the impression she stews in a pool of venom (and I'm not even going to get into the issue of misogyny coming from a female writer).

bob in pacifica: (none / 0) (#14)
by cpinva on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:07:48 AM EST

i've read your last couple of posts, with your claims of secret cia employment of gloria steinum, etc.

do you have any tangible, official evidence to support those assertions? if so, please provide it.

people want to know!

Wasn't there something like 17% undecided? (none / 0) (#16)
by Molly Bloom on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:31:45 AM EST

Clueless in San Juan (none / 0) (#21)
by chemoelectric on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 02:56:47 PM EST

Oh, nonsense all around. Ms. Clinton did a form of tearing up that male politicians do all the time, that ordinary citizens also do, where a person tears up when talking about labor and sacrifice on behalf of the nation. It's a sure winner, especially if it is really felt, and the SCLM helped by publicizing the event.

The MSM don't understand because they are misogynist, and other people don't understand because they think of the whole election as a kind of multi-way football where the candidates and the MSM are different teams and the voting public are the ball, which is passive and goes wherever the candidates and MSM throw or kick it.