I still greatly dislike Maureen Dowd

Apparently, the only thing that can rise me from my politics blog slumber is my hatred for Maureen Dowd. Bill Clinton has just whisked two American journalists from their NO KO gulag nightmare–and all Dowd can think to write is another snark piece on how Bill stole the limelight from his wife.

Maureen Dowd does not rise above petty meanness. She goes out of her way to make fun of Hillary Clinton and “the subjects she most cares about: do-gooder development and women’s issues.” Gasp! Clinton has priorities in life other than character assassination! It’s beyond Ms. Dowd.

Her column is a musing on made-up psychological motivations (her column format of choice) in order to shed a new angle on yesterday’s story. But her concept is not enlightening. It’s just bullshit. I know Ms. Dowd is just trying to be funny, but her 800 words of drivel would not have seemed so clever if she had mentioned the REAL REASON why SPECIFICALLY Bill Clinton was the one to visit NO KO. The Koreans told Ms. Ling and Ms. Lee that they wanted former prez Clinton to visit. The women relayed this message to their families, who relayed this message to the relevant authorities. It wasn’t Bill’s secret coup of his wife’s spotlight. No political jostling between Gore, Richardson and B Clinton took place. And No Ko wasn’t responding to what H Clinton said about them the other week!

North Korea simply requested Bill Clinton. That’s what there is to it. Now, any columnist worth a damn might have chosen to muse on why that is, instead of musing on false pretenses.

In the end, of course I think the press should and must criticize its people in power. And of course, I think opinion columnists can have artistic license to do that however they want to. But Dowd’s sole role on that op-ed page is to gloat with a sarcastic righteousness; it makes me absolutely want to punch her in the face. Krugman is snarky and self-righteous, of course, but he actually has things he cares about–decent healthcare for America, among other things. I don’t really care that K-man is holier than thou, because you know what? He’s a Nobel winner. What’s Dowd got? Red hair and a BAD ATTITUDE!!!

–anna

Maureen Dowd Plagiarizes

You know something? I really don’t like Maureen Dowd. I don’t like her smugness, her hostility towards feminism, her cutesy nicknames and elaborate fictional scenarios involving politicians and Cabinet members. I don’t like the self-congratulatory air pervading her every column, or how she frequently touts her superior experience, name-drops and shamelessly parades her excellent connections.

Indira and I have often shared a laugh in the past about Ms. Dowd, who has written several books, one of them called “Are Men Necessary?” An adapted magazine article that sums up the thesis of her book can be found here.

Dowd blames feminism for her troubles with men, who are apparently intimidated by her beauty and her brains. Feminism, she says, made getting along with men harder. Men now mistake Dowd and her assertiveness for a castrating feminazi and flee in the other direction.

The funny part is that probably she doesn’t get along with men (or anyone? who knows) because she’s likely unpleasant and perhaps a tad boastful. LOOK WITHIN MAUREEN. IT’S NOT FEMINISM’S FAULT THAT YOU HAVE BAD LUCK WITH DUDES.

One other thing I don’t like about her is that she was extremely vicious about Hillary Clinton in the primaries, and was one of her toughest and most unreasonable critics. She often made Chris Matthews’ criticisms look justified.

All this adds up to why I didn’t care when Maureen Dowd was found to have plagiarized a paragraph of another blogger’s work. If at first I found her writing obnoxious and her manner condescending, now I can be justified in thinking that she is an unprincipled journalist and a poor writer.

The Times would do better to stop hiring token conservatives and mix it up by hiring more people of color or an interesting woman or two. To quote my favorite Times critic, Manohla Dargis, I would like to see this happen “not because of some ‘politically correct’ imperative but because it makes the discussion more interesting.” WORD! (Dargis was talking about film critics, but the same principle easily applies here.) Indira once commented that Bob Herbert may be among the best of the bunch, but his genius is doomed to languish in obscurity forever.

Besides Herbert and Dowd (who is the biggest sexist of the bunch), all the other columnists are white men (many with economics backgrounds) in their 50s and 60s. You really know the op-ed page sucks when I enjoy reading David Brooks the most. (I’m not joking. I find him insightful, even if I disagree with him on many occasions.)

So let Dowd take a break to examine her conscience, NYT, and hire Indira or I in the mean time.

Boys will be boys

Young people do stupid things, that’s kind of a given in. What’s different about today is that our stupidity is for everyone to see, forever stored in the annals of the internet, whether it be through facebook or some blog post. But, I would hope that as a political aide, you might take extra special care to protect your debauchery. Apparently not.

Recent photos of Obama’s 26-year old speech writer Jon Favreau show him groping a card board cutout of Sen. Hillary Clinton while an unidentified friend is offering her a beer. Nice. The pictures showed up on a friend’s facebook page and mysteriously disappeared in a few hours, so technically this isn’t Favreau’s doing. Still, I can’t wait for all the nonsense about how it’s just a photo or that women always get offended about the smallest things. Sure. I know I’m a humorless feminist but is it too much to ask for some grown up behavior and respect here? Equally perplexing, though, is the Clinton camp’s response to the whole episode-

A Clinton spokesman described the photo as an example of just good-natured fun between former rival camps. The Post quotes Sen. Clinton’s adviser Philippe Reines as saying, quote, “Sen. Clinton is pleased to learn of Jon’s obvious interest in the State Department, and is currently reviewing his application.”

Ha! This comes from a woman who was hailed as a feminist and a fighter for woman’s rights during the primaries. I’m actually reminded of the Republican Party’s cries of sexism whenever Gov. Sarah Palin was even mildly criticized. Apparently, pointing out sexism is only permissible when it advances your political aspirations or excuses harsh criticisms from your (male) opponents. That’s soooo feminist.

-Indira

Thanking Hillary

It’s interesting to note that one person conveniently absent from all the election platitudes is Sen. Hillary Clinton. While it’s true that Sen. Obama’s campaign was very well-organized and disciplined, some of the credit for his win should be attributed to Clinton. Thanks to the extended primary, Obama was forced to consider states like Pennsylvania and Indiana, states he might have otherwise discounted. He was forced to confront the inadequacies of many of his policy positions (like mandates for health care) and this only made him a stronger candidate-

Hillary ought to get a bit of the acclaim now that Obama has won. She was a tough competitor – and Obama emerged from his primary ready for a challenge, while McCain emerged from his as the hapless default victor of a dismal field of candidates, not the strongest contender, just the only dude left standing when the rest fell away…More democracy was good for Obama, good for the Democrats, good for everyone who voted for him in the general election. Let us never suggest again that better candidates are forged in less democracy.

Hillary’s presence in the campaign also ensured that women’s issues, particularly reproductive rights, got a fair deal of attention. For too long, Democrats have pandered on abortion but this election, candidates were actually arguing over who was more pro-choice and pro-woman. And it was all because of Hillary. Now, Obama must repay the favor and ensure that Larry Summers gets nowhere near the Treasury.

-Indira

Pot, meet kettle

Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a former Hillary Clinton supporter is now backing Sen. John McCain for President. Rothschild has an excellent reason for not supporting Obama-

This is a hard decision for me personally because frankly I don’t like him, she said of Obama in an interview with CNN’s Joe Johns. I feel like he is an elitist. I feel like he has not given me reason to trust him.

Oh, did I mention that Rothschild is a socialite, a multi-millionaire and her actual title is “Lady Rothschild.” Wow. I think I’m finally getting why Clinton supporters are so hated.

-Indira

Quick hit- Sarah Palin and feminism

I have another piece up in my campus newspaper about Sarah Palin and faux feminists like her. An excerpt-

Perhaps the nomination of Palin is a good thing because it allows me to clear up a few misconceptions about feminism. Contrary to anti-feminist propaganda, the movement has never been about elevating women’s rights above men. Moreover, feminism is not about promoting equality between the sexes. In fact, the movement seeks to guarantee only equal opportunity and access for women – there’s a difference between the two.

Read the whole thing here.

-Indira