The Numbers Behind Maureen Dowd's 21-Year Long Campaign Against Hillary Clinton

[Spider_Mann]

F"or more than twenty years, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd has been attacking Hillary Clinton from a shallow well of insults, routinely portraying the former secretary of state and first lady as an unlikeable, power-hungry phony.

Media Matters analyzed 195 columns by Dowd since November 1993 containing significant mentions of Clinton for whether they included any of 16 negative tropes in five categories (listed in the below methodology). 72 percent (141 columns) were negative towards Clinton -- only 8 percent (15 columns) were positive. The remaining 20 percent (39 columns) were neutral.

For example, Dowd has repeatedly accused Clinton of being an enemy to or betraying feminism (35 columns, 18 percent of those studied), power-hungry (51 columns, 26 percent), unlikeable (9 columns, 5 percent), or phony (34 columns, 17 percent). She's also attacked the Clintons as a couple in 43 columns (22 percent), many of which included Dowd's ham-handed attempts at psychoanalysis."

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/06/18/the-numbers-behind-maureen-dowds-21-year-long-c/199752

[MADem]

1. Dowd is a vicious, mendacious tool.

When she over-ate her pot cookies, all I could think was "Serves ya right."

I always got the impression that she envied HRC, and that's what drove her nasty columns about her.

[freshwest]

3. Or else paid like Rush was. Same time frame she began attacking. Part of the huge RW con job.

Those percentages by Media Matters' quantifying her scribbles is damning. Think of the impact of 22 year of forming public perception based on that and the cottage industry of other anti-Democratic writers.

Which is exactly what's turned a big portion of this nation's mindscape into a hateful, benighted wasteland. And a portion of the electorate who truly are not fit to govern anything.

But I never knew much about Dowd, other than she's deemed unpleasant. She's no Helen Thomas.

[MADem]

4. She has this bad habit of trying to portray herself as some kind of "sex goddess hottie."

Veronica Lake with a typewriter. I get the impression she thinks she's the star of some 1940s "Gal Reporter" film in her mind, where all the guys say "See? See?" and call other fellows "mokes" and women "dames."

It is a very retro, rather unseemly, characterization. Sexist, dare I say. And after a certain age, that kind of mindset is just weird and immature.

She certainly doesn't advance the cause of women as serious commentators with that kind of approach, IMO. And I can't help but notice that she saves her most vicious criticism for women. Very strange.

[pnwmom]

6. She's stuck in the high-school "mean girl" mode. Very nasty and full of herself. n/t

[MADem]

9. Yes, that's it exactly--she reserves most of her bile for women.

She doesn't engage in the same quality of cruel invective when she's talking about men.

[brer cat]

11. very true, pnwmom. nt

[DFW]

8. She's no Helen Thomas? ha ha!Very true, but very unfair

As you know, Helen and I were close, and I've never met Dowd that I know of (may have brushed up against her at a Gridiron or something, but never consciously had any contact with her).

Trying to compare Maureen Down with Helen is like comparing a sullen kid on a beach building a sand castle too close to the water with Gaudí. Not only do the kid's efforts get washed away into oblivion immediately (pissing him off, but with no other consequence) while Gaudí's work was unique and endures. Not only is Maureen Dowd not Helen Thomas, she never will be, and I think it is unlikely there will EVER be another Helen Thomas, just like there will probably never be another Rachel Maddow. Certain people are just unique, and that's that.

Helen was "after" no one except liars and warmongers. She had her share during her long stint at the White House, and gave them no quarter. Helen was driven by her convictions. Whether you agreed with them or not was another matter--Republicans considered her the devil incarnate. If Dowd has any true convictions, they are having a difficult time shining through her dislike of Hillary.

We get it, OK?. Maureen doesn't like Hillary. She doesn't have to hit us over the head with it every time she comes out with a column. The editorial page of the New York Times should not be a personal slam page from some rural high school rag.

[freshwest]

10. I posted that in tribute to Helen, DFW, not to compare her in any way. Thomas went after criminals.

Sorry to have brought her into the thread.

[DFW]

12. I figured

No offense taken by any means!

[delrem]

2. Haha! Score 1 for Hillary!

It's like a spat in a frat.

[NYC_SKP]

37. No. Maybe there's a reason only 8% of the statements were positive.

Maybe Hillary is more negatives than positives.

[dirtydickcheney]

38. Wish she'd be the nominee....

..for the Republican Party in 2016.

Where she really belongs.

[NYC_SKP]

40. If she's in the whitehouse, the Senate will only become more Republican in response.

Just as Obama hit a nerve and was used as a reason to "save our country", a trick that as wrong as it was actually worked, having her in the whitehouse (and not because she's a woman), will become more powerful fuel for the fire.

Watch as we lose more and more congressional seats if she wins.

And I hope to hell that she doesn't even run.

[the_sly_pig]

5. A journalist critical of an elected official.. .. hmmm

I'd like to see more of it. But I suppose Maureen is just being catty.

[pnwmom]

7. Criticism is one thing. Personal attacks are another. n/t

[Spider_Mann]

13. She started when Hillary was not an elected official

But you won't say that. Neither you will say what kind of criticism it is.

[MADem]

20. She's not a journalist. She's a columnist, a pundit.

...and wisdom to those who know the difference....

[Mike Nelson]

14. Ugh...

Maureen Dowd. Blech...

[MannyGoldstein]

15. If this was a legitimate analysis,

they'd compare Dowd's numbers on Hillary vs. her numbers on everyone else.

This reeks of a Clinton-friendly hit piece against Dowd.

[Man from Pickens]

16. sore-butt syndrome

Dowd's latest column was a masterpiece

[MannyGoldstein]

17. I hadn't seen it - an amazing piece of work

One of her best.

Thanks for the heads-up!

[KoKo]

18. "Media Matters" pushes hard for Hillary 2016, putting its nonprofit status in question...

Media Matters pushes hard for Hillary 2016, putting its nonprofit status in question

By retaining longtime Clinton loyalist James Carville as a regular columnist, the liberal watchdog Media Matters for America has increased its influence as a player in the 2016 presidential election. But Media Matters may be edging toward violating the tax rules that govern nonprofit organizations.

Carville's new role at Media Matters was announced Thursday, following two weeks of controversy surrounding Hillary Clinton, a likely Democratic presidential candidate and former secretary of state.

Media Matters was founded by another Clinton friend, David Brock, one of the rare Clinton acolytes willing to defend her amid reports that she violated federal law by exclusively using a personal email address during her tenure as secretary of state.

Media Matters has published more than 40 blog posts and videos rebutting widespread and bipartisan criticisms of Clinton.

Just one problem: Brock's organization is not allowed to campaign for political candidates.

Media Matters is classified by the IRS as a 501(c)(3), exempting the organization from having to pay federal taxes. "Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office," read the IRS's rules governing such organizations.

Clinton has yet to begin her formal campaign for president. But she is expected to announce her candidacy within weeks, and there does not appear to be a clear line — or in fact, any line — between her interests and the advocacy work of Media Matters.

"There are two issues here," said Alan Dye, a lawyer specializing in representing nonprofit organizations and political committees, in an interview with the Washington Examiner media desk. "One is campaign intervention. That is, activity that affects an election."

Dye has not studied Media Matters' published content closely, but he said that the more consistently a nonprofit offers criticism that benefits a specific candidate for office, "the more likely the IRS is to consider it campaign intervention."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/media-matters-pushes-hard-for-hillary-2016-putting-its-nonprofit-status-in-question/article/2561517?custom_click=rss

[OilemFirchen]

19. How special!

An article from the Washington Examiner deriding David Brock, in line with some swooning for MoDo.

It wouldn't be a Sunday without 'em, amiright?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. The Washington Examiner is a right wing rag. Now that I read it i Must take a shower.

When Anschutz started the Examiner in its daily newspaper format, he envisioned creating a conservative competitor to The Washington Post. According to Politico, "When it came to the editorial page, Anschutz’s instructions were explicit — he 'wanted nothing but conservative columns and conservative op-ed writers,' said one former employee." The Examiner's conservative writers include Byron York (National Review), Michael Barone (American Enterprise Institute, Fox News Channel), and David Freddoso (National Review, author of The Case Against Barack Obama).[4]

The daily newspaper endorsed John McCain in the 2008 presidential election[12] and Adrian Fenty in the Democratic primary for mayor in 2010.[13] On December 14, 2011, it endorsed Mitt Romney for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, saying he was the only Republican who could beat Barack Obama in the general election,[14] releasing a series of articles critical of Obama.[15]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Examiner

[MADem]

31. Eddie Scarry of the Washington Examiner...?

You are embarrassing yourself by bringing this source to the table and expecting it to be treated as unbiased.

The Washington Examiner is a political journalism publication based in Washington, D.C., that distributes its content via daily online reports and a weekly magazine.[1] It is owned by MediaDC,[2] a subsidiary of Clarity Media Group,[3] which is owned by Denver billionaire Philip Anschutz[4] and which also owns the influential conservative opinion magazine The Weekly Standard.[5] From 2005 to mid-2013, the Examiner published a daily tabloid-sized newspaper, distributed free throughout the Washington, D.C., metro area, largely focused on local news and conservative commentary.[1] The local newspaper ceased publication on June 14, 2013, and its content began to focus exclusively on national politics, switching its print edition from a daily newspaper to a weekly magazine format.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Examiner

They've never met a Wingnut they didn't like, and your pal Eddie Scarry there has a bad, BAD case of Clinton Derangement Syndrome. If she patted a dog, he'd find a way to complain about it.

[KoKo]

34. The point is.....

David Brock's "Media Matters" is working for one Democratic Candidate, "Hillary for President." If David wants to be seen as different from RW Corporate & Oligarch Owned Media then he shouldn't have MM's listed as a "non-profit and be involved with "Hillary Pac's" on the side.

I remember when David Brock "saw the light" and apologized for his book trashing Anita Hill later founding "Media Matters for America." I donated to MM's several times in the early days hoping it would be a fact check on MSM/Corporate Repub control in the way Eric Alterman and the challenging but short lived "Media Whores Online" were in the early days of the opening of the internet to alternative news sources. But, working for Hillary and strict Party affiliation means that David isn't doing unbiased reporting. He is doing "Advocacy Journalism" and his "Fact Checking" is open to criticism just as Faux News and others are for their own bias because of affiliations and funding.

[MADem]

35. No, the point is, your source is dreck, a wingnut, hyperconservative outlet that has one purpose--

to do hitpieces on Democrats.

You shouldn't bring it into our "home" here and expect it to be taken seriously.

You erred.

Media Matters is a fact-checking organization, with citations, sources and proofs. They focus on disproving smears against the left, but they don't play fast and loose with facts. If the right smears HRC, they'll correct the record. They'll do it for any Dem who is unfairly tarnished. All one has to do is look at their front page--it's not "all Hillary, all the time"--not by a long shot.

The Washington Examiner, OTOH, is a shameless, wingnut rag with zero credibility and a mission to bash politicians and public figures on the left.

That's both a distinction, and a difference. You bought the bullshit, and you shouldn't have.

[KoKo]

41. My reply to you still stands, though...........

If "Media Matters" is to be an "Impartial Fact Checker" (even though we know they are working for "Hillary for President&quot then we should take that into consideration going forward. Particularly, those of us wanting OTHER Dem Candidates to be HEARD in Democratic Primary where "All Voices can be heard for the spectrum of Dems" (which is getting broader than before) ...and WHY would you be against it? It isDemocracy in Action! ..where different voices within a Party have a Right to be heard.

Anointing Hillary as the ONLY possibility, at this point, when she hasn't even Declared her Run...but the MSM is WITH IT and Democratic Operatives are lining up the money and Positioning Themselves into her Campaign and Both Parties and the MSCorporate Media are "On Board" for the Fun & Money it brings in....But, for this Democracy...It is Too Early. The People's Voice needs to be heard and NOT Manipulated...

I've always found you reasonable, even when I don't agree with you. ...but, I will speak my voice as a Democrat back at you!

[muriel_volestrangler]

42. In what way is Media Matters "anointing Hillary as the ONLY possibility"?

If I look at their coverage of other Democrats, it is, like the story in the OP, criticism of unfair or excessive attacks on them in the media.
http://mediamatters.org/tags/joe-biden
https://www.google.com/search?q=site:mediamatters.org+%22elizabeth+warren%22
https://www.google.com/search?q=site:mediamatters.org+%22nancy+pelosi%22

" I will speak my voice as a Democrat "; OK, do that - don't quote a far-right website like the Washington Examiner. So, as a Democrat, what do you find problematic in the Media Matters stories? Please give examples.

[KoKo]

43. My reply to you still stands, though...........

If "Media Matters" is to be an "Impartial Fact Checker" (even though we know they are working for "Hillary for President&quot then we should take that into consideration going forward. Particularly, those of us wanting OTHER Dem Candidates to be listened to in airing of their differences in Policy in the Democratic Primary. We want "All Voices to be heard for the spectrum of Dems" (which is getting broader than before) ...and WHY would you be against it? It is Democracy in Action! ..where different voices within a Party have a Right to be heard.

Anointing Hillary as the ONLY possibility, at this point, when she hasn't even Declared her Run...but the MSM is WITH IT and Democratic Operatives are lining up the money and Positioning Themselves into her Campaign and Both Parties and the MSCorporate Media are "On Board" for the Fun & Money it brings in....But, for this Democracy...It is Too Early. The People's Voice needs to be heard and NOT Manipulated...

I've always found you reasonable, even when I don't agree with you. ...but, I will speak my voice as a Democrat back at you!

[MADem]

44. You are using a right wing publication to defend a falsehood. You've screwed up, here.

MM never CLAIMED to be "impartial." That's the first piece of "misinformation" you're handing off. Second, they don't tout Clinton -- they respond when the right wing tells LIES about her. They'll do the same for anyone--Warren, Sanders, Obama, Kerry, DiBlasio, anyone.

Most of the articles on their front page are --golly gee--NOT ABOUT CLINTON.

READ THIS:

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation - news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda - every day, in real time.

Using the website mediamatters.org as the principal vehicle for disseminating research and information, Media Matters posts rapid-response items as well as longer research and analytic reports documenting conservative misinformation throughout the media. Additionally, Media Matters works daily to notify activists, journalists, pundits, and the general public about instances of misinformation, providing them with the resources to rebut false claims and to take direct action against offending media institutions.

http://mediamatters.org/about

Is that clear enough for you? You need to ask yourself, who sent me this link? Why did they not tell me it was a virulently rightwing piece of shit website? Why did they let me go on DU and hang my ass out like that? Someone used you--and you should be pissed at that person.


I think you need to quit while you're behind. You should think about deleting that ill-advised post that associates you with a far-right media outlet. And more to the point, you need to stop defending them, lest people start believing you didn't make a mistake but you actually mean what you are posting.

[KoKo]

45. Let us put it this way, again........

I think you maybe are having a bad week or something. We all have those times...but, taking out a venting on me really isn't worth your time. I've been here since 2001...and if I was being fed RW Sources I would have been MIRT'd long ago. You know that....so that's why I'm assuming it's not as personal against me as you make it but something going on with you.

I stand by my record on DU. I've been here longer than you..unless you were here under another name before the "change over." I was "KoKo01" at first (because I signed up on AOL and picked a number) after Skinner gave us the okay after 2004 Election I dropped the 01 and I am and have been KoKo since. My record on DU is an open book to search. And, you certainly should know that by now. Anyway, whatever is going on that you suddenly have some problem with me is probably not as personal as it seems but, something else going on with you and I just was an obvious target at the moment.

I am a voting long time Activist Democrat...and I will speak my voice as a Democrat. This site is still registered as "Democratic Underground."

Peace to You!

[MADem]

46. Huh? I'm not "venting on you." You are bringing a wingnut source here and expecting us to take you

seriously. You've been told this --and not just by me -- and you double down. Your source is CRAP. Research them--it's like bringing the Koch Brothers to a Sanders Meet-Up, what you did.

This site is DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND--not "far right freeper source underground."

In DU2 you'd have been sanctioned for using that source. Here, all I can do is tell you that your use of that source reflects very poorly on you. I took the best possible path, and assumed you did it unwittingly, but this post of yours suggests you knew what you were doing--and that is even MORE troubling.

Making this about "me" and "having a bad week" is a pathetic, sad, lame attempt to pivot and divert. I had a GREAT week, FWIW, and I'm not making you a "target." I am simply telling you that if you come here carrying conservative water you will be called out on it--and deservedly. And you know this.

FWIW, I signed up on the 2nd day of DU, and switched computers/lost my sign in in 2004. I've been here since the beginning, as well.

Peace to you, too.

[muriel_volestrangler]

47. So why don't you 'speak as a Democrat', rather than posting Washington Examiner hitpieces?

You posted a right wing attack on Media Matters. You have given no evidence that Media Matters has 'annointed' Hillary; I showed they defend all kinds of Democrats. Please explain your problem with Media Matters, with examples, as a Democrat.

[MADem]

21. You want "legitimate analysis?"

Here, start with this:

http://anitafinlay.com/2014/07/15/is-maureen-dowd-necessary-defanging-a-hillary-basher-via-a-chapter-from-dirty-words-on-clean-skin/

[KoKo]

30. Post #18.... n/t

[MADem]

32. Post #31. nt

[geek tragedy]

23. Lol, irony. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

24. Your attention is flattering!

Following me from post to post.

A bit creepy, but mostly flattering.

Your nonsense is slightly entertaining, too, in a local context.

[geek tragedy]

25. What is nonsense is that those who produce

a steady stream of hit pieces, in defense of someone who writes hit pieces for a living, while professing to object to a "hit piece" is pretty darn rich.

[MannyGoldstein]

26. Exactly. She produces 'hit pieces' for a living.

So why should she make an exception for Our Next President™?

Unless Our Next President™ is too fragile, of course - I guess that must be your concern.

[NYC_SKP]

39. Media Matters seems a bit defensive. They did, after all, get a mention in Dowd's article.

If you want it that bad, go ahead and be president and leave us in peace. (Or war, if you have your hawkish way.) You’re still idling on the runway, but we’re already jet-lagged. It’s all so drearily familiar that I know we’re only moments away from James Carville writing a column in David Brock’s Media Matters, headlined, “In Private, Hillary’s Really a Hoot.”

I LOVED this article, she called it just like it is.

[BigDemVoter]

22. Dowd is a tiresome BORE.

AND she cannot write worth a shit.

She's not funny. She's not witty. She's not interesting.

She would take Smirky GWB over Hillary. I may not be a huge Hillary fan, but Dowd's constant, unrelenting attacks on Clinton make me sick.

[KoKo]

29. Nah! See Post 18....about Media Matters........

Explains..a lot...

[MADem]

33. Don't see post 18....see posts 27 and 31--they will explain what kind of "source" is at post 18. nt

[Thinkingabout]

28. She must think Hillary is something special, huh.

[libodem]

36. Honestly

It really makes me feel very defensive if anyone else writes anything negative about her. After all she is ours.

Leave Hillary ALONE!