Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NJCher

(35,670 posts)
Sun May 22, 2016, 12:13 AM May 2016

Mo Dowd's Column on Bernie is 2nd Highest Trending

at the NY Times site.

It's a look at how frustrating it is for HC that she can't "put away" Bernie. Has some factual errors, such as referring to the chair throwing. Shows you how shallow these columnists are--they can't even put the time in to finding if something is true or not. And where are the NY Times fact checkers?

Anyway, there are a few funny lines, such as "Hillary’s Bataan Death March is making Republicans reconsider their own suicide mission with Trump.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/opinion/sunday/weakend-at-bernies.html?_r=0


Cher

9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Mo Dowd's Column on Bernie is 2nd Highest Trending (Original Post) NJCher May 2016 OP
I hope many people direct her to Snopes Melissa G May 2016 #1
it shows how weak of a candidate she really is. nt antigop May 2016 #2
from the column grasswire May 2016 #3
the irony is almost too much NJCher May 2016 #5
Haven't read dowd in years. elleng May 2016 #4
When I hear "Maureen Dowd" I always think about delrem May 2016 #7
I think of someopne dumbe enough to eat a candy bar with 100 mg of THC n/t eridani May 2016 #8
I actually did something like that, once. delrem May 2016 #9
They don't put the time in to appraise the truth because they're propagandists. delrem May 2016 #6

grasswire

(50,130 posts)
3. from the column
Sun May 22, 2016, 12:31 AM
May 2016
Hillary says Sanders needs to “do his part” to unify the party, as she did in 2008. But even on the day of the last primaries in that race, when she was the one who was mathematically eliminated unless the superdelegates turned, she came onstage to Terry McAuliffe heralding her as “the next president of the United States.” She then touted having more votes than any primary candidate in history as her fans cheered “Yes, she will!” and “Denver!”

elleng

(130,905 posts)
4. Haven't read dowd in years.
Sun May 22, 2016, 12:32 AM
May 2016

Aside from her obnoxious attitude, she's not good with facts, as you've noted.

delrem

(9,688 posts)
7. When I hear "Maureen Dowd" I always think about
Sun May 22, 2016, 01:08 AM
May 2016

Nicolette DuClare's opinion of Stanton Dowd in the game Deus Ex.
Classic gaming....

The comparison fits so skintight that the coincidence in name makes me laugh.

delrem

(9,688 posts)
9. I actually did something like that, once.
Wed May 25, 2016, 04:18 AM
May 2016

I can be dumb as a brick.

I didn't realize how superconcentrated cannabutter could be, when the large leaves of 3 plants are boiled down into a concentrate contained in 1/2 lb of cannabutter. I spread a thin coat on a cracker and ate it. I OD'ed. This was psychedelic beyond anything I'd ever imagined possible with weed and it scared me because it left me totally out of control - I'll never do that again!

Physically I couldn't even crawl anymore, I was so into the zone.

I don't think of anything like that when I think about Maureen Dowd.
She's just a paid political propagandist for the MSM.

delrem

(9,688 posts)
6. They don't put the time in to appraise the truth because they're propagandists.
Sun May 22, 2016, 12:39 AM
May 2016

They're extremely well paid. Overpaid, in terms of production except in the sickest sense, IMO.

They aren't "journalists", and the "journalists" like Ralston get away with flat out lies because it furthers their employer's interests.

It's much easier for them to just ignore into nonexistence any opposition to their employer's politics, since their employers own the press that gives them voice.

Then, the truth doesn't matter. "Liberal television hosts" like Rachel Maddow make $7 million a year, I hear, for earnestly pontificating about politics and interviewing "liberal pundits" like E. J. Dione of the NYT and Eugene Robinson of the W. Post, and so on through a roster of paid political propagandists. Rarely, if ever, a let up. And we lap it up, just as others lap up Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Bernie Sanders»Mo Dowd's Column on Berni...