WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 2012
Amour tour rumbles forward: In even a mildly rational culture, a column like this couldn’t possibly happen.
You don’t live in such a culture. You live in a culture where fiery “liberals” have tolerated Maureen Dowd all these years.
Darlings! Careers are at stake!
Dowd has been on an “amour tour” of late, chasing through various cities in search of some sexy-time sexual sex talk, otherwise known as distraction. This morning’s column from Paris is hard to believe, even by Dowd’s inane standards.
That said, Dowd has always been like this—and the liberal world hasn’t said boo. No, you can’t run a modern nation this way—and your deeply compromised tribe is a very large part of the problem.
People! What has Carla done to her face? As your nation slides toward the sea, “journalists” want to know!
I get it finally! Bob thinks the 'Liberal Tribe' has issues. Especially with Dowd. I get it now!ReplyDelete
Seriously...man you used to be good, really good. Gettin ready to sign off. Nostalgia can only take ya so far.
I hear more about Maureen Dowd on this blog than I ever hear in my daily life. Because I hear nothing about Dowd otherwise, and I'd be surprised if anyone I know even knows who she is, except possibly my father, and that's only because he has a Times subscription.ReplyDelete
Three posts specifically about Dowd since March 29th. A couple of mentions in passing, like crediting Katherine Boo with the phrase "creeping Dowdism" - other than that, nothing.Delete
Your point is *you* hear more about Dowd *here* than in *your* daily life. Three blog posts in the past six weeks.
Frankly, if that's just too much for you, you are free to go away.
"A couple of mentions"? Really? Two days hardly pass without Somerby going off on Dowd in one way or another. He is absolutely obsessed with her.Delete
And I agree with 12:58. Try striking up a conversation about Maureen Dowd with somebody. Odds are, they never heard of her.
I know Bob, in his East Coast bias, thinks that the New York Times is the center of the universe, but there is a difference between having a column even in the Times and being influential.
It's true. I see it all the time.Delete
People repeat everything Dowd says, though they've never heard of her.
I wonder how that works. "Free-thinking" I guess -- because Dowd is so obviously irrelevant.
I mean, nobody has heard of Thomas Friedman either.
Except my hatred for Somerby.
Prove it. You say Somerby goes off on Dowd every couple days. Do a text search through the archives and then get back to me.
Three columns about Dowd since March 29th. A handful of random mentions - as with crediting Boo with the phrase "creeping Dowdism".
Again, if you find three columns in 6 weeks obsessive, go elsewhere. Seriously, what the hell are you doing here?
Maureen Down is sort of a Dorothy Parker but without the wit or the insight.ReplyDelete
The figure Dowd really resembles historically is Hedda Hopper, who went off on Politics too. They just kept it on the entertainment page where it belonged.Delete
Who exactly are these "fiery 'liberals'" you refer to, and what's the meaning of the quotes around the word "liberal"?ReplyDelete
Do you mean to say that these yet unnamed person aren't really liberal? Or that they're contemptible because they *are* liberal and don't criticize Maureen Dowd?
And who and what, exactly, is the "liberal world"? Do you mean phony liberals or institutions like NYT, or real ones who you deem contemptible for not condemning Dowd?
For a guy who routinely slams the press for not naming names, you're awfully coy, no?
Really now, WTF is anyone supposed to make of this post? Are you talking in some kind of code? Does anyone but you understand it? Is there something which prevents you from saying what you mean and naming the parties you blame, and for what you blame them?
What's worse than the column itself is the comments. Deep felt gratitude for that piece of pablum. It's sadly little wonder why so many people consider liberals to be a bit of a joke.ReplyDelete
I think your critiques are much needed. I'm no great intellectual, but I have no trouble understanding what I think you're saying, and for that matter agreeing with it although at times it skewers my perspective. I don't understand much of the criticism directed against your columns. Frankly, it looks like whatever democracy remains is in a losing war with the plutocracy.
I don't know ANYBODY of either political stripe, with the exception of her person friend Charlie Rose, who likes Mo Dowd. The purpose of her writing, I would argue, is largely humor. But She is not funny and nobody ever repeats the things She writes in pleasure. The only person I ever heard praise her work is Bill Maher.ReplyDelete
Righties used to like her when She savaged Clinton and Gore, but after a healthy (and cowardly) "hands off" period after 9-11 She started going after W. And then conservatives suddenly discovered She wasn't funny.
And now nobody likes her, and I would bet few read her, and only The Daily Howler gives a @*&$, as he blames liberals for making a superstar out of figure who rose to the top slagging Clinton and Gore.
I guess this because The New York Times is a liberal paper.