Many thanks for this! Although she can be excellent in those rare instances when she chooses to be serious, most of the time Maureen Dowd drives me crazy. Most of all whenever she directs her junior-high snark to women, particularly to women in politics. You nicely captured the quintessential example.
Maureen has a long history of finding fault with women, dissing feminism, etc. She panders to men in ways that are often embarrassing. Still, she's a good writer and has been known to hit the nail on the head in ways that make me want to cheer. She just doesn't do it often enough.
I always thought it was an elitist thing. Like "how dare these "Arkansas hillbillies" think they are good enough to succeed in "My intellectual circle!" Dowd is a snob. The Clintons could easily demolish her in an intellectual argument, as they are her intellectual superior, and both trained lawyers.
Her straw-womaning of Hillary fit a narrative, that the NYT wished to promote. Now Peggy Noonan, that hate is personal, I believe she drunkenly hit on Bill at a party and was gently rebuffed. And her vitriol strikes me as "woman scorned" variety.
The funny thing about Hillary, is that even the conspiracy nut bar Richard Mellon-Scaife who paid an unscrulpulous private investigator to dig up dirt on them, for decades (white-water was one of his) Liked her when he met her.
I'm not going to read the MD piece but I have to agree with you that she thinks what she wants to think. Had a discussion recently with my partner about a piece I found where she interviewed Patti Smith, of all people, and needled her a few times. Unnecessarily picky, simply to get a reaction and create some drama for her writing. I will never read Maureen Dowd uncritically again.
Many thanks for this! Although she can be excellent in those rare instances when she chooses to be serious, most of the time Maureen Dowd drives me crazy. Most of all whenever she directs her junior-high snark to women, particularly to women in politics. You nicely captured the quintessential example.
Maureen has a long history of finding fault with women, dissing feminism, etc. She panders to men in ways that are often embarrassing. Still, she's a good writer and has been known to hit the nail on the head in ways that make me want to cheer. She just doesn't do it often enough.
Exactly.
I always thought it was an elitist thing. Like "how dare these "Arkansas hillbillies" think they are good enough to succeed in "My intellectual circle!" Dowd is a snob. The Clintons could easily demolish her in an intellectual argument, as they are her intellectual superior, and both trained lawyers.
I never thought of it that way! Dowd IS a snob. It really could be that simple. 🙄
Her straw-womaning of Hillary fit a narrative, that the NYT wished to promote. Now Peggy Noonan, that hate is personal, I believe she drunkenly hit on Bill at a party and was gently rebuffed. And her vitriol strikes me as "woman scorned" variety.
The funny thing about Hillary, is that even the conspiracy nut bar Richard Mellon-Scaife who paid an unscrulpulous private investigator to dig up dirt on them, for decades (white-water was one of his) Liked her when he met her.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/scaife-v-clinton-and-the-dangers-of-demonization/
I'm not going to read the MD piece but I have to agree with you that she thinks what she wants to think. Had a discussion recently with my partner about a piece I found where she interviewed Patti Smith, of all people, and needled her a few times. Unnecessarily picky, simply to get a reaction and create some drama for her writing. I will never read Maureen Dowd uncritically again.