Never forget: MoDo is a major media whore

[ProfessorPlum]

Here and at Eschaton I'm seeing all kinds of comments about Maureen Dowd on the Daily Show. Her pretty face and soft spoken demeanor seem to have caused many people to forget what a huge presstitute she is. She takes any wild story from the GOP daily fax, no matter how untrue, and writes bitchy, mind-reading columns about it, libeling Democrats and denying millions of readers of honest discourse, just because she enjoys trashing people.

Just because she is now trying to make some bucks on the fact that Bush is a jerk and people are starting to realize it, does not change this. She has trashed the Clintons, the Gores, the Deans, and will start repeating GOP fax lies on the Kerrys soon enough, if she hasn't already. Given her position, where she could actually comment on the veracity of rightwing lies (like John Stewart is starting to do), she is very much responsible for the kind of retarded national dialog people of good will have to suffer in this country.

These are quotes from Dowd, on the discredited Gore and "Love Story" story:

"It’s somewhat suspicious that Mr. Gore has chosen this moment to drop the news--unknown even to many close friends and aides. Does he think, going into 2000, that this will give him a romantic glow, or a romantic afterglow? It reminds me of Jackie Kennedy whispering in Teddy White’s ear about “Camelot.”"

on blaming Clinton for the impeachment debacle:

"Rather than tell the truth about a cheesy office affair seven months ago, he dragged Washington and America into a stupid, phony war. It’s not a war about ideology or principles or privacy rights, although the Clintons like to cast it that way. It’s a war about how much Bill Clinton can get away with and still keep our affections. He’s constantly testing the limits of our love."

on Hillery and the totally discredited "gift registry":

"In the end, she had to succumb and write checks for $86,000 worth of tainted loot. But now we know the junior senator from New York has terribly flawed judgment. And her sense of entitlement knows no bounds.

How do you even suggest that someone give you two coffee tables?

Hillary: Oh, Denise, I just love that coffee table of yours.

Denise: I'll get you one.

Hillary: Two."

On the difficult choice this election year:

"So let’s see. What’s our swell choice here?

(2) A guy who mimed being a fighter pilot on a carrier versus a guy who mimed throwing his medals over a fence?…

(5) A president who can’t go anywhere without his vice president to give him the answers versus a candidate who can’t go anywhere without his campaign butler/buddy to give him peanut butter and jelly sandwiches?"

on Gore and his "shifting principles":

"True, Al Gore looks craven for breaking with the president to lend his support to the efforts to keep the boy here. But why shouldn't he try to wrest Florida's Cuban-American vote out of the grip of the Bush brothers? This is Gore at his Goriest, standing firm on shifting principles."

on Gore's recent brilliant MoveOn speech:

"John Kerry’s advisers were surprised and annoyed to hear that Mr. Gore hollered so much, he made Howard Dean look like George Pataki."

Dowd, blessed with looks and a demeanor with which she has obviously played on all her life (and with which she now charms people on progressive blogs and message boards), has a hugely important, incredibly rare, life-and-death responsibility to help her fellow human beings: a bully pulpit column in the NYT. She has wasted that opportunity by going for the low blow, by mocking and having fun with Democrats using the lies from the GOPs lips. She has lost her right to join in the struggles of a common humanity by selling us all out with her vitriol and spite.

Much more of these examples http://www.google.com/custom?q=Dowd&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&cof=AWFID:c32a032061318778%3BAH:center%3B&domains=dailyhowler.com&sitesearch=dailyhowler.com&start=80&sa=N">here.

[West Coast Democrat]

1. Agreed. She's as bad as Tweety (Matthews)

[Plaid Adder]

2. Perspective is everything.

My aunt outed me to my family about my DU column a while back. I had to explain to them what it was. They started talking about how outrageous and radical Maureen Dowd was.

I kind of laughed at them and said that if they felt Maureen Dowd was over the top they should probably stay away from my column.

Yeesh,

The Plaid Adder

[ProfessorPlum]

4. I agree there is a spectrum

Dowd occasionally does some good by pointing her hate rays at Republicans. But she could actually use her life to better the world by bringing a bit of truth to it, and instead she repeats lies to make well-meaning people laughingstocks.

I agree that I would much rather have your excellent columns in the NYT, plaidder. But given the importance of her position, the wasted good she could have done, the actual harm she has done, it is much more important to our cause to keep our eyes on her and the other presstitutes.

[sangh0]

3. The worst thing to be in a time of war

is someone who can't recognize the enemy

[vi5]

5. I think Bartcop says it best.."She hates everyone"

She's written negative articles on almost every major figure. I think the main difference is that her ones on democrats tend to be based on petty, nitpicky stuff exaggerated whereas here ones on republicans tend to be major, huge issues, talked down into petty silly things.

[ProfessorPlum]

8. that's because, in my opinion, that's all the GOP can

throw at people. They can't argue on the merits of their policies. All they have left is mockery, and MoDo is more than happy to mock Democrats. Because it is fun for her, I presume. She isn't affected by the horrible rightwing policies like the nation's poor are. She doesn't have to worry about her healthcare. So, let's laugh at Al Gore some more.

I've seen that Bartcop quote. It's right on the money.

[russian33]

6. She just put out a book...so she's trying to sell it...

..anyway she can...and seeing how well Franken's, Moore's, Ivins' books did, she figures she get get some libruls to buy it

[ProfessorPlum]

7. Yep, might as well get some quick bucks

off of all the people she has sold down the river all these years.

[russian33]

10. isn't that the motto of the repubs?

[derby378]

9. "Presstitute?"

That's pretty damn funny!

"Wanna party, FReeper? I'll blow ya...competition to pieces in my column, that is...for a 3% increase in my market share."

[capriccio]

11. Bushworld

That's the name of her book, and it's a scathing attack on all things Bush, and it's a collection of her columns over the past four years, so it has nothing to do with trying to jump on any liberal bandwagon. Dowd is obviously left-leaning (as anyone who actually read her stuff in context over time would know), and as such she sometimes has to prove her liberalism by attacking liberals (that's if you really consider the Clintons and Gore liberals, rather than the centrists they'd be in any other world but Bushworld!)

[ProfessorPlum]

12. That's an incredibly poor excuse

The GOP creates a string of Gore "lies": Love canal, Love Story, Invented the Internet, doggie pills, etc. Also Hillary's gift registry, thefts from Air Force One, the trashing of the White House.

Instead of digging into these accusations and finding out whether they are true or not (they are not), MoDo instead writes snarky columns about the psychological pathology of the Clintons and Gores based on these untrue stories. It would be one thing to write on and on about what hypocrites these Democrats were based on real things that they had done, but she can't be bothered to find out the truth before she starts doing the GOP's work for them. She might want to consider writing some columns about what kind of people constantly put out lies for political gain, if she is actually interested in hypocrisy.

She is just lazy and shallow. She enjoys the pay she gets by writing snarkily on the latest GOP-created conventional wisdom, and she doesn't deserve to be treated in someone who is actually concerned about bettering the lives of others . . . because she isn't.

[Bridget Burke]

13. Intelligent criticism is fine, but lying isn't.

Neither Clinton nor any other of her "liberal" targets are above reproach. Yet she fills her column with lies.

Why does the New York Times need a gossip columnist? And why is their gossip columnist published on the editorial page.

If I want cattiness based in New York City, I'll read Michael Musto in the Village Voice.