Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

January 26, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

THE THOUSAND INJURIES OF MAUREEN DOWD....I like Reed Hundt's posts over at TPMCafe: they're short, pithy, and usually full of common sense.

Today, though, Maureen Dowd has pissed him off, and short and pithy go out the window. Still full of common sense, though, except for his conclusion:

I do wish Molly Ivins had Dowd's place in the Times.

I've never really understood the attraction of Dowd's version of junior high school snark, and I'd rather read Ivins any day. However, since replacing Dowd at the Times would just put Ivins behind a subscription wall, I think I'm happy with things just the way they are.

Kevin Drum 1:38 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (99)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Mmm. Chinese spam.

Anyhow, I think if the Times replaced the subscription wall with free articles, I would happy with the way things are.

Posted by: MNPundit on January 26, 2006 at 1:46 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, it seems you missed the Max Boot article in the LA Times today. It would have been worth a few lines. What a hoot.

Posted by: lib on January 26, 2006 at 1:49 AM | PERMALINK

The indomitable Molly is always a good read but who gets better lines off the Maureen Dowd?

Before you sell her down the highway, re-read her "going-away" column for Judith Miller. When Dowd was done, you needed a forensic pathologist to put the pieces together again.

Posted by: Neil Sagan on January 26, 2006 at 2:19 AM | PERMALINK

I agree about Dowd; I've never found her cheap jokes very clever. But Ivins does deserve a wider readership.

Posted by: KathyF on January 26, 2006 at 2:39 AM | PERMALINK

Mo cheap jokes may not be that clever but her expensive ones can be brilliant.

Posted by: Kenji on January 26, 2006 at 3:13 AM | PERMALINK

It always struck me as a proof in itself that the 'liberal' media was conservative that any batshit blonde from the Scaife factory could get prime editoral space in the big papers, but the wise and witty Ivins is confined to second string papers.

Posted by: tavella on January 26, 2006 at 3:43 AM | PERMALINK

Wow, what a misplaced article ...

Did we really need the whole history of the 2000 election recapped to make that point about Gore? I mean, not that I disagree ... but this guy didn't get beyond MoDo's first sentence.

Is it any mystery that MoDo's an equal-opportunity snark? Has she ever self-identifed herself as a "liberal columnist?" She goes after people in power, and has raised the ad-hominem argument to an elegant art form.

But to claim that she wasn't bangin' on the Bush for five years is just false. I have her "Bushworld" sitting on my bookshelf. The columns she wrote on the buildup to war, with the Boy King conferring with Rummy Sensei, were just devastating.

Of course, MoDo can be a self-indulgent whiner, especially with her recent angst about not being married. Like Camille Paglia, it's best to see her social ideas spun around the armature of a unique personal psychology.

Which means that her barbs miss at least as often as they hit.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 26, 2006 at 3:54 AM | PERMALINK

i like them both, and arianna and riverbend and avedon, also.

buncha cool women advocating for our cause right now.

what's not to like? why does it have to be a competition?

maureen is a fine writer for the times. too bad molly is a writer instead of a talker, because she'd be great on air america!

or, hey! does the washington post have a female pundit? maybe she could rock out over there!

i'm just trying to say that it's silly to wish molly had mo's job. there are plenty of good jobs. maybe molly needs a better one, but the idea that she deserve's mo's is...oh, go figure it out for yourself...

Posted by: neal in long beach on January 26, 2006 at 4:54 AM | PERMALINK

And yet, the paragraph Hundt quotes from Dowd is so true. And junior high snark (hough of much lower quality) is what wins elections for the Republicans.

Posted by: JS on January 26, 2006 at 5:05 AM | PERMALINK

For the love of God, Montresor!

"Yes," I said, "for the love of God!"

But to these words I hearkened in vain for a reply. I grew impatient. I called aloud:

"Fortunato!"

...

Against the new masonry I re-erected the old rampart of bones. For the half of a century no mortal has disturbed them.

In pace requiescat!

Posted by: bad Jim on January 26, 2006 at 5:34 AM | PERMALINK

I'll bet Molly gets read a hell of a lot more in the Red States where we really need her than should would if she got a job with the elite press and was preaching to the choir. Any self respecting red stater would not read the New York Times lest they leave a scent for the red state thought police to detect. Where she is now, Molly might actually create some doubts in the minds of dittoheads who read the St. Louis Post Dispatch in Rush's homeland.

Reed is way off the trail if he thinks Dowd has not ripped GW many new ones.

Dowd does let her narcissism creep into her writing way too much as evidenced by her obsessive observations and comments of the clothes people wear.

Posted by: lou on January 26, 2006 at 6:56 AM | PERMALINK

Molly rocks.

I don't miss Ms. Dowd in the least. Possibly the single most overpaid and overrated columnist at any major paper. IMHO.

I do miss Gretchen Morgenson and Floyd Norris - some of the best business reporting anywhere - and I've had no luck finding other sources. Oh, and some of the sports columns, too.

It's not just the Op-Ed page columns that are sequestered behind that damnable subscription wall.

It's relatively easy to read Krugman or Herbert but apparently the blogs surveyed by Techorati don't include business columnists.

Posted by: CFShep on January 26, 2006 at 7:22 AM | PERMALINK

You guys who praise Dowd for her criticism of Bush are missing Hundt's point.

Dowd is one of the prime examples of the fallacy of balance, with her bipartisan snark. She treats Bush starting a war based on lies and Gore wearing earth-toned clothes as equivalent, treating torture, domestic spying and offensive war as annoying personality quirks rather than the atrocities they are.

Posted by: rea on January 26, 2006 at 7:30 AM | PERMALINK

"I've never really understood the attraction of Dowd's version of junior high school snark..."

Kevin Drum

That's because you're too "erudite" to get it.

Posted by: Econo Buzz on January 26, 2006 at 7:41 AM | PERMALINK

"You guys who praise Dowd for her criticism of Bush are missing Hundt's point. Dowd ... treats Bush starting a war based on lies and Gore wearing earth-toned clothes as equivalent..."

Posted by: rea

No, you and Hundt are missing Dowd's point that lots of voters DO find the two equivalent. Dowd points relentlessly to stupid shit that WE have to change to win elections. If our so-called leaders and their consultants are too fucking stupid to read her humor and change their behavior accordingly, it's not her fault.

Bill Clinton traded it all for a blowjob. Gore couldn't stop fabricating and exaggerating. Now Hillary is "triangulating." Our leaders are a fucking joke. Dowd is just documenting it with sarcasm.

Dowd and Rich -- and Ivins -- are the solution, not the problem.

Posted by: Econo Buzz on January 26, 2006 at 7:56 AM | PERMALINK

Ivins over Dowd any day. Don't you want a real meal when you sit down to dinner? But geez, guys, why does there have to be a "woman's seat" on the op-ed page? Can't we replace Kristof or Brooks or Tierney with Ivins or Ehrenreich or Pollitt?

Posted by: JulieB on January 26, 2006 at 8:31 AM | PERMALINK

Ivins is a liberal moron... but a hundred times better than Dowd, who, though not as liberal, is just a horrible writer.

Posted by: Frank J. on January 26, 2006 at 8:38 AM | PERMALINK

Dowd is a fun read but she lacks the intellectual heft of someone like the late Flora Lewis. But this is all part of the general trend to dumb down journalism Jonah Goldberg, case in point.

Posted by: Botecelli on January 26, 2006 at 8:53 AM | PERMALINK

>I do wish Molly Ivins had Dowd's place in the Times.

I do which Molly had David Brooks' place in the Times. She know more about "Brooks' America" than Bobo ever will.

Posted by: bartkid on January 26, 2006 at 8:56 AM | PERMALINK

About time someone took-on Ms. Dowd, and Hundt does a great job of it. Her Pulitzer Prize was largely won the verbal exploitation of Bill Clinton's libido. Looking back, those were trivial times, and she was the perfect muse for them. But these are more serious times, and Ms. Dowd has never placed a serious policy suggestion in print. More than ever, her snarky columns are an indulgence we simply can't afford. The Times would be better to use the column inches on a serious liberal.

Posted by: Dodger on January 26, 2006 at 8:59 AM | PERMALINK

I don't miss Ms. Dowd in the least. Possibly the single most overpaid and overrated columnist at any major paper. IMHO.

And she's responsible for some of the worst lies spread about Al Gore in the 2000 election.

Bob Somerby at the Daily Howler has done an excellent job detailing Dowd's hatchet job on Al Gore.

See here, here, here, here, and here

Posted by: "Fair and Balanced" Dave on January 26, 2006 at 9:02 AM | PERMALINK

"Gore couldn't stop fabricating and exaggerating." Lather. Rinse. Repeat. Please read the Daily Howler pieces Dave linked to above.

Posted by: Hoyt Pollard on January 26, 2006 at 9:09 AM | PERMALINK

I agree about Dowd. Even when I like what she says I feel the strained effort of someone trying to make clever conversation at a cocktail party. I agree with what she says and I still get the willies. Perhaps its because this is what the present leadership of the greatest newspaper in the world thinks is 'fit to print'.

Posted by: NeilS on January 26, 2006 at 9:14 AM | PERMALINK

In a stunning development ahead of official election results, Prime Minister Ahmed Qorei said Thursday he and others in the Palestinian Authority government will resign in the wake of Hamas' apparent parliamentary victory.

Bush wanted democracy in the Middle East.

Now that he has it, he objects.

When militant Shiites take over the government of Iraq democratically, the full results of his intellectually dishonest and delusional foreign policy will have come to fruit.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 26, 2006 at 9:15 AM | PERMALINK

I do wish Molly had David Brooks' place in the Times. She knows more about "Brooks' America" than Bobo ever will.

D'oh.
Time for another quart o' coffee.

Posted by: bartkid on January 26, 2006 at 9:16 AM | PERMALINK

Ivins is a liberal moron -- says the narrow-minded dweeb, Frank J.

Franky, yes, Molly is a proud liberal, but she's certainly not an idiot like her fellow Texan who brings dishonor and ruin upon our once great country. Molly speaks colloquially, but she's perspicacious . . . or as Ivins might say . . . she's got the eye a hawk and wit liked barbed wire.

Posted by: Bragan on January 26, 2006 at 9:32 AM | PERMALINK

Bragan,
Ivins may be as dull-witted as a sack of wet mice, but she's still head and shoulders above the commenters here. Maybe "moron" was too harsh in retrospect.

Posted by: Frank J. on January 26, 2006 at 9:39 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, but Dowd is a moron. I think we can get a bi-partisan agreement on that one.

Posted by: Frank J. on January 26, 2006 at 9:41 AM | PERMALINK

"I do wish Molly had David Brooks' place in the Times. She knows more about "Brooks' America" than Bobo ever will."

Hmm... Canadian-born, NYC-raised, U. of Chicago-educated (kind of), Beltway-dwelling... yep, Brooks sounds just like all the people I know here in flyover country.

Posted by: MJ Memphis on January 26, 2006 at 9:42 AM | PERMALINK

What I found interesting in Kevin's original posit is the notion that we must replace one woman's voice with another? Did I read that correctly? Can we only have one woman speaking out at a time in the same venue? Must all women write the way a man would? And when she veers off on some tangent, we must resort to put downs? Is the sly, self deprecating comic neurosis of Dowd (when not doing brilliant microsurgery with literary and culturally astute zing) unseemly because guys never do that sort of self analysis dishing? Or so infrequently delve into ancient Greek or English Romantic literary illusions? Gawd. Must we always endure soley the sports metaphors?

Men cannot seem to bring themselves to go see a gay cowboy movie without dragging their woman along so they won't seem "gay" according to a Time Mag article. I'd bet women everywhere would say that is juvenile and psychologically a bit neurotic--and tiresome. But women don't complain because we've seen that before a million times. And we love our guys despite putting up with the sometimes ridiculous facade. So we all have neuroses. So what? So women just finangle a free movie night out outta it and go on our way. (Who is the dumb one, eh?)

See, this is the same thinking that comes up with the "women's vote" thinking. My genitals do not control my brain. Well, not ALL of the time. "To label me is to negate me." I think that was Kierkegaard. (Or maybe Wayne Campbell in Wayne's World?) Kudos to Maureen. Thank God at least she and Ivins have the balls, uh,..the ovaries...to be themselves. Neuroses, warts and all. I find it refreshing in this overly homogenized, prepackaged, prescreened, poll tested, ticket-admission only country of ours that someone still can work the room with style and humor.

Posted by: mama on January 26, 2006 at 9:43 AM | PERMALINK

FYI--Molly Ivins worked for the NYTimes in the past. She couldn't bear it.

Posted by: anonymous on January 26, 2006 at 9:49 AM | PERMALINK

So you guys don't like Dowd -- well fine, as far as I can see you guys are only happy when you are being trounced and beaten down by Republicans, lied to by TV commentators, and flamed by wingers. Nothing pisses you off more than to have someone remind you that you are out of power, less popular than the least popular president in American history, and are so far away from regaining power that the light at the end of the tunnel is smaller than the head of a needle.

Democrats and liberals eat their young, hate their allies and lose elections. I suppose that the fact that they are not slimy Republicans is at least something in their favor. It's a small thing, but at least its something.

Posted by: Dicksknee on January 26, 2006 at 9:52 AM | PERMALINK

D'oh!
Meant to say allusion. Not illusion. But perhaps illusion is rather funnier.

Posted by: mama on January 26, 2006 at 9:54 AM | PERMALINK

There's nothing dull about Molly, Frank J. It's pretty clear she's pricked more than a couple of your core beliefs.

Posted by: Bragan on January 26, 2006 at 9:54 AM | PERMALINK

Didn't Molly write that she and the Times ultimately parted ways when she described a religious chicken sacrificing act (Santeria, I presume) as a "gang pluck"? :-D

I love Molly's writings. Maureen, not so much. But then I am a Texas native (albeit long removed with no plans to return), so maybe I'm genetically programmed to get it?

Posted by: DK on January 26, 2006 at 10:04 AM | PERMALINK

Frank J: Ivins may be as dull-witted as a sack of wet mice, but she's still head and shoulders above the commenters here.

Well, at least the commenter with the nom de guerre "Frank J".

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 26, 2006 at 10:04 AM | PERMALINK

Frank J: Ivins may be as dull-witted as a sack of wet mice, but she's still head and shoulders above the commenters here.

Well, at least the commenter with the nom de guerre "Frank J".

If only you had Molly Ivins wit, Advocate...

Posted by: Frank J. on January 26, 2006 at 10:12 AM | PERMALINK

I'm with Mama on this one. We need them both. At her best, Dowd is a close to Dorothy Parker as we are going to get. She doesn't hit it out of the park at every trip to the plate, but who does? She is a great hater.

Molly Ivins is a great columnist who has very little in common with Maureen Dowd except gender. I don't see why liking one should mean disliking the other.

Posted by: Steve High on January 26, 2006 at 10:16 AM | PERMALINK

To be fair to Dowd, David Brooks is just as shallow, but hides it behind a facade of "I'm so boring, I must be serious." But "Bobos" and "Patio Man" are really not any deeper or more in touch with the actual world than Dowd complaining about people's clothes and complaining that feminism hasn't been operated as her personal dating service.

Neither is as shallow as Tom Friedman and if the Times is going to keep the token woman columnist spot, I vote it go to Barbara Ehrenreich. Or, in a more sensible world, they'd have all three.

Posted by: Dan P. on January 26, 2006 at 10:16 AM | PERMALINK

Ivins and Lyons in Arkansas are two of the great liberal commentators.

Krugman just blows away everyone else on NY Times editorial page.

And what I can't figure out is why the heck the Times leaves all the great news stories (and their sucky ones too, like Buhmiller) out there for free. While asking people to pay for Friedman, Dowd and the other twits.

It's their right to do whatever they want - but it just stumps me.

Posted by: Samuel Knight on January 26, 2006 at 10:28 AM | PERMALINK

Ivins is a liberal moron... but a hundred times better than Dowd, who, though not as liberal, is just a horrible writer.
Posted by: Frank J.

You should know Frank.
Anyone need better evidence that both Ivins and Dowd are perfect?

Posted by: ckelly on January 26, 2006 at 10:30 AM | PERMALINK

Why even ask Ivens or Dowd ? Yes they are both women but so what.We (the peeps)need more women on major pages. Dowd IS hot by the way.They both have class and wit.David Brookes that swarmy mouthpiece who at least feels a little guilty? History will brand that fool..In closing ,I love M.D's sharp toungue even when it veers to pot shots at the bastidz..

Posted by: dan dolan on January 26, 2006 at 10:37 AM | PERMALINK

At her best, Dowd is a close to Dorothy Parker as we are going to get.

Jesus wept.

Posted by: Gregory on January 26, 2006 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

As the Oregonian attempts a "fair and balanced" approach, they print Kathleen Parker and Deborah Saunders on the right, and Dowd, Ivins, and Marie Cocco on the left. However, they only print selected columns of the writers.

In the gardening world, Maureen Dowd would probably write about heirloom roses and color in the garden, but Molly would write as Ann Lovejoy about the structure of the soil and root development and the entire garden as an entity of joy. Molly would also write about the "Antique Rustlers" of Texas who have kept the old, old roses alive and well. Molly would write of the "dirty hands" people in the gardening world.

And, by the way, Molly Ivins can speak very effectively - She has destroyed O'Reilly more than once.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on January 26, 2006 at 11:12 AM | PERMALINK

This is the difference between liberals and right-wingers. Liberals do not suffer fools in their midst (eg, Dowd), whereas the right-wingers spend their lives puffing up and providing a place for the Jonah Goldbergs and David Brookses.

Dowd has maybe a few brilliant columns per year. Instead of just writing good, solid columns the rest of the year, she constantly tries too hard to be witty day after day. If she needs the practice, she should just write those "witty" columns and then throw them out, and publish a perfectly mediocre column 80% of the year instead of constantly sounding like a teenager trying to impress her parents' guests at their cocktail party.

Posted by: Constantine on January 26, 2006 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

In the gardening world, Maureen Dowd would write of open houses, flower shows, and make snarky comments about the dress of visitors and hosts. She would write of the estate gardens. She would extoll Monrovia.

Molly would write about green manure and real manure, would trash the chemical crowd, would deride Miracle Gro and write about community gardens and P-Patches. She would write for the hoi polloi. She would write about the legion of small propagators who are the backbone of gardening. Can't think of two finer people; Ivins in political writing and Ann Lovejoy in gardening.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on January 26, 2006 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

My dear Oregon compatriot, oh, you are so right with the gardening analogy! Molly would be an organic gardener in bibs. Miss Maureen would definitely be in the Ladies Gardening Society worrying over which shoes to wear to the meeting. Interesting that the are both the product of the south but are oh, so very different! Making my constant and entirely tiresome point that we cannot judge people entirely by the mere top dressing mulch in their beds. Nobody with better bona fides than an Oregonian to talk about roses--both those of the horticultural and metaphoric variety. :)

Posted by: mama on January 26, 2006 at 11:40 AM | PERMALINK

...but they both so amuse me! Molly would make a much nicer neighbor but Maureen makes for better theatre. Need both.

Posted by: mama on January 26, 2006 at 11:42 AM | PERMALINK

Meant the roses remark as a very high compliment so you did not take it as snark. You folks grow the most stunning ones outside of the UK. The Portland rose garden is phenomenal. I am perennially jealous.

Posted by: mama on January 26, 2006 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

As Bartcop said many times on his site: Maureen Dowd -- She Hates Everyone.

I concur with whoever said it was fitting Dowd was the person to win a Pulitzer for Lewinsky coverage. In an shallow era of journalism, the epitome of shallowness is the best representative. But to say -- as some are suggesting above -- well, lots of voters are shallow, so shallow pundits are good...well, that's pretty much tossing this whole republic into a toilet.

Dowd isn't a pundit; she's a glorified gossip columnist -- one who buys into every piece of conventional wisdom spin floating around DC (the latest? "Bush is a disaster, but the Democrats will never win" Check back in November to see if that's true). She and her cohorts on the Times and Post newspages did everything they could to legitimize false stories about Al Gore in 2000 (the Love Story canard actually more infuriating than the Internet misquote). Now, though she hates what Bush has done (though carefully exempting her buddy Poppy from any blame) she demeans any Democrat who might have a chance at reversing the course. Spare me from her "analysis" -- let along her "help". She's as worthless as anyone in the bloated DC press corps.

Posted by: demtom on January 26, 2006 at 11:50 AM | PERMALINK

We have a winner. Demtom aptly captures the essence of MoDo and brings this thread to a fitting conclusion.

Posted by: Bragan on January 26, 2006 at 11:59 AM | PERMALINK

Maureen Dowd is way hotter than Molly Ivins!

Posted by: Fred Flintrock on January 26, 2006 at 11:59 AM | PERMALINK

anonymous: FYI--Molly Ivins worked for the NYTimes in the past. She couldn't bear it.

She was the sole NYT reporter covering seven Western states. Too many miles. Columnists don't need to travel so much.

DK: I love Molly's writings. ... But then I am a Texas native ... so maybe I'm genetically programmed to get it?

Nah. I'm a dyed-in-the-wool New Yorker and I love her wit.

Kevin Drum: However, since replacing Dowd at the Times would just put Ivins behind a subscription wall, I think I'm happy with things just the way they are.

I read Krugman's columns many places, so there are ways around that.

Like so many NYT columnists Dowd is seriously overrated. Her only saving grace is that she's not a whole hog idiot like Friedman.

Krugman is a great polemicist, and sometimes uses funny things called "numbers". Watch out for him though - he has the talent to convincingly argue that black is white. While I agree with most of what he says nowadays, try his "free" trade stuff from the '90's. Great debater - takes a while to figure out where he's full of shit.

I miss Bill Safire. I rarely agreed with him but he was a good columnist. By contrast, has Brooks ever actually said anything?

Posted by: alex on January 26, 2006 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINK

Maureen Dowd is way hotter than Molly Ivins!
Posted by: Fred Flintrock

Word!

Kevin's probably just intimidated by a good looking woman who is also very smart. Furthermore, anyone that pisses off the Bush administration so much that she can't get a WH press pass has got to be doing something right.

Posted by: Jeff II on January 26, 2006 at 12:09 PM | PERMALINK

In the gardening world, Maureen Dowd would write of open houses, . . . (etc.)

Molly would write about green manure and real manure, would trash the chemical crowd, would deride Miracle Gro and write about community gardens and P-Patches. . . (etc). Posted by: thethirdPaul

Yes, yes Paul. But who would you rather see watering the hanging baskets in shorts and a halter top?

Posted by: Jeff II on January 26, 2006 at 12:13 PM | PERMALINK

Last sycophantic comment on this thread, I promise.

At her best, Dowd is a close to Dorothy Parker as we are going to get.

Jesus wept. Posted by: Gregory

Give me a break Gregory. Parker was biting and hilarious. But no one would mistake her for an intellectual. Her targets were just as soft and obvious as Dowd's.

Posted by: Jeff II on January 26, 2006 at 12:21 PM | PERMALINK

I read Krugman's columns many places, so there are ways around that.

Posted by: alex on January 26, 2006 at 12:08 PM

Where? In the web? Gotta have it, gotta have it!

Posted by: Brazil Connection on January 26, 2006 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin,
Much agreed on the Dowd/Ivins comment. Status quo is best for everyone. I do take exception to the love affair w/ Al Gore. The guy has "loser" written all over him. Also, if recall correctly, a statewide recount of the undervotes would not have produced a Gore victory. It was only if you included the overvotes.

Regardless, can we please find someone who isn't in bed w/ the Moveon.org/Kos kids crowd? I'd like to see a competitive race in 2008. The Republicans are likely going to have a moderate/mild conservative on the ticket (e.g., McCain or Guiliani) and the Democrats will need a moderate to avoid being put into minority status for the foreseeable future. Al Gore's recent speeches have put him outside the mainstream.

Posted by: Chris on January 26, 2006 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINK

I do take exception to the love affair w/ Al Gore. The guy has "loser" written all over him.

Posted by: Chris on January 26, 2006 at 12:38 PM

Didn't he win the popular vote? After the intense hatchet job of the US press on him? And only lost the presidency due to the intrincacies of the US presidential election system and a hefty dose of suspicious counting in Florida?

He may have lost it, but I wouldn't call him a 'loser'.

Posted by: Brazil Connection on January 26, 2006 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, yes Paul. But who would you rather see watering the hanging baskets in shorts and a halter top?

Scarlet Johanson.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 26, 2006 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, yes Paul. But who would you rather see watering the hanging baskets in shorts and a halter top? Scarlet Johanson. Posted by: Pale Rider

Like, duh.

Posted by: Jeff II on January 26, 2006 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK

Parker was biting and hilarious.

Which puts her at least one up on Dowd.

But no one would mistake her for an intellectual.

I don't recall claiming Parker was an intellectual. I just think that she's much wittier than MoDo.

Posted by: Gregory on January 26, 2006 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK

[Parker's] targets were just as soft and obvious as Dowd's.

Oh, that is so ignorant. You've never read "Arrangement In Black and White," have you?

Posted by: hamletta on January 26, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

well, if we're extolling Ivins and giving her 'spokesperson' status for the progressive movment, we better be sure that what she writes is accurate. In her most recent article (dissing, for good reason,Hilary) she cited certain statistics. T'would be great to know where those impressive polls/stastics came from. Where do they I'm very dubious: see below:
--65% of the american people want a single-payer health care system --86% favor a raise of the minimum wage --60% favor a repeal of the Bush tax cuts --66% would like to reduce the deficit by cutting DOD budget or raising taxes --77% think we should 'whatever necessary' to protect the environment --87% think the oil companies are gouging profits and favor a windfall profit tax.

Posted by: Larry on January 26, 2006 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

Good grief! Are there no other women columnists from the left better than Dowd or Ivins? Having to choose one or the other is just choosing between dumb and dumber.

Posted by: Yancey Ward on January 26, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

It really irked me when the Times put their columnists behind the subscription wall, but lately I've come to view it as walling them in, not walling me out. Kind of like a condom.

Safe opinionating, all.

Posted by: Cal Gal on January 26, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

Maureen Dowd hot? You've got to be kidding. Or blinded by the red hair straight out of a bottle. If she didn't die her hair, you would give her a second look.

Here's what she is. Snide.

Posted by: Cal Gal on January 26, 2006 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

Maureen Dowd hot? You've got to be kidding.

I've tried to point this out, but we have a small minority here who have a fetish for over-50 women who wear cowboy boots...

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 26, 2006 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

Here's who IS hot.

Norah O'Donnell. Maureen O'Dowdie isn't in the same league.

Posted by: Cal Gal on January 26, 2006 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

How about an over-50 woman who wears duck boots?

But even in the "over-50" "good Catholic girl" class, she loses to Peggy Noonan. I can't stand Noonan, but she's much hotter than O'Dowdie.

Posted by: Cal Gal on January 26, 2006 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

There are plenty of hot women over 50.

MoDo ain't one of them, that was my point. Now, Kim Basinger is 50--if you can believe that. She is far and away hotter than MoDo.

Youth doesn't automatically equal hotness. How in the hell can Tori Spelling be considered anything other than a horrorshow?

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 26, 2006 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK

I am forced to agree with Pale Rider for once. Kim Basinger is still very attractive (I am 39 by the way). And Tori Spelling, while not quite a horror show yet, is clearly on her way.

Posted by: Yancey Ward on January 26, 2006 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

Well, now that we're getting out of the realm of journalism, you'll have to admit that one of the hottest women over 50 is Sigourney Weaver. In fact, she's over 60!

And I must admit that I think Kim Basinger gets hotter as she gets older.

Posted by: Cal Gal on January 26, 2006 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

Hmmm, Kathleen Turner, Helen Mirren, Catherine Deneuve and Isabella Rosselini for starters.

Plus Jessica Lainge [sic]? - Just saw Broken Flowers last night.

Posted by: stupid git on January 26, 2006 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

As a voting Democrat for 60 years, I think that Maureen Dowd is a national treasure. She fears no man.
Comment apropos of nothing:
When anyone uses the word "ilk" in their writing, right or left, Democrat or Republican, I tend to be dismissive of whatever it is they are saying. I don't know why.

Posted by: Mary Alice on January 26, 2006 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK

'But even in the "over-50" "good Catholic girl" class, she loses to Peggy Noonan. I can't stand Noonan, but she's much hotter than O'Dowdie.
--Cal Gal

You must be one of "those" types of gals, if you are opining on who the middle-aged hotties are...

We muscular, hirsute he-man types prefer the long-legged, fishnet-stockinged Maureen Dowd types to the Swedish meatball with thick ankles, Peggy Noonan types any day. Have you checked out Stephanie Miller, the Air America radio host? Va va voom! How about Randi Rhodes? Schwing...

Anything beats the skanky, bulimic Anne Coulter who looks like a harpie from Hell with a blond wig...

Posted by: Fred Flintrock on January 26, 2006 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK

I had no idea Peggy Noonan has thick ankles. I take back what I said about her being hot, unless, of course, she's wearing cowboy boots.

Re Stephanie Miller and Randi Rhodes, that's the problem with radio, the pictures just don't come through very well, tho I admit Randi's got a hot voice.

I can tell, Fred, that you are definitely a leg man. Dowdie face, with her pointed chin and nose, could break a mirror.

Posted by: Cal Gal on January 26, 2006 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK

"Good grief! Are there no other women columnists from the left better than Dowd or Ivins? Having to choose one or the other is just choosing between dumb and dumber."

As said by dumbest.

BTW, MoDo is hot. I'd do her in a heartbeat.

Posted by: brewmn on January 26, 2006 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK

Are there no other women columnists from the left better than Dowd or Ivins?

There's plenty of female liberal bloggers that are better than Dowd or Ivins; certainly can't think of any nationally syndicated female liberal woman print columnists that are.

Posted by: cmdicely on January 26, 2006 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINK

Its somewhat interesting to note how much of this discussion has been dominated by debate over whether or not MoDo is "hot" rather than, say, worth reading.

Somehow, when the topic is George Will's column, or a John Lott op-ed, we don't spend much time talking about that. I wonder why...

Posted by: cmdicely on January 26, 2006 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINK

'Cause they are definiitely not...hot.

Posted by: brewmn on January 26, 2006 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINK

George Will: not hot. He look like a pederastic priest.

Lott. Not. Hot.

Posted by: brewmn on January 26, 2006 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK

Helen Mirren, . . . .Posted by: stupid git

She's terrific looking.

Posted by: Jeff II on January 26, 2006 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINK

Norah O'Donnell. Maureen O'Dowdie isn't in the same league. Posted by: Cal Gal

The big difference is that Norah O'Donnell was hired simply because she's attractive. She's nothing but a telegenic talking torso. Dowd, on the other hand, is smart, can write, and good looking.

Posted by: Jeff II on January 26, 2006 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINK

What an amusing thread ...

I think I'd go with MoDo in the hottie dept. She's not a TV hair pundit; for better or worse, it's her words that make her.

What makes MoDo hot doesn't have so much to do with her looks (though she's not bad, for a spindly Irish girl) and even her wit than a certain sexual charge that runs through all her columns. It's hard to describe, exactly. She doesn't sound like a flirt or a traditional innuendo-dripping gossip columnist. Her persona *is*, though, highly gendered, whether a lady in haughty dudgeon or an insecure teenage girl.

It's like you can smell the cosmetics on every column ...

Why I find this "hot" I have no idea, truthfully. It's a little old-fashioned.

Call it a mystique.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 26, 2006 at 6:44 PM | PERMALINK

Ivins is probably too populist for the New York Times, her ideology be damned.

Posted by: Vincent on January 26, 2006 at 6:47 PM | PERMALINK

How on earth did Dowd get her job?

The focus on her looks in these comments is just a further reflection of how weak she is intellectually, at least in what she writes in her columns (she may well be smart outside of her writings).

Dowd holding such a prestigious position is a continual and worsening embarassment for the Times and for liberals in general. The consensus has developed among both liberals and conservativs that the star liberal of the Times is a joke. I am struck by how little support there is for her even on this site.

The Times would be smart to fire her and appoint a young brilliant liberal woman willing to write seriously about important issues. I can't think of who that would be, and I cannot imagine that the Times would have the courage to fire her, but it would really help the Times.

The appeal here for Ivens is surprising. She also is not a very serious writer; she simply uses the different schtick of Texas country gal (notwithstanding here pure bred background). I never find much of serious analysis in her writing. She is sort of the Dowd of an earlier, less hip, time.

Posted by: brian on January 26, 2006 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINK

"Al Gore's recent speeches have put him outside the mainstream."

Along with the Geneva Convention and the Constitution of the United States, or so it seems to pseudo-moderates like Chris . . .

Posted by: rea on January 26, 2006 at 7:22 PM | PERMALINK

brian:

Well, you're basically a right-wing jackwad, so your "suggestions" to "help" us liberals and the Paper of Record you so dearly love are duly noted and filed approprately in the circular file.

MoDo isn't a "liberal columnist;" she's a critic of the culture of power. Her touchstone is more Aristophanes than Walter Lippmann. She's gotten all kinds of heat over the years for being a snickering nihilist because, unlike the rest of Murderer's Row, she avoids discussing policy. Some people have read that to imply that she has no core beliefs. I personally don't think that's true at all.

I'll hasten to add that though I thought the Clinton White House deserved much of what she dished out, I don't think she was very fair to Al Gore, who is a policy wonk's policy wonk, and whose main political problem may have only been a surfeit of earnestness.

If one of MoDo's main schitks is to mock the empty cynicism of the powerful (and her skewerings of Bubba's Hollywood fetish were its sine qua non), piling on Earth Tone Al and his Kissing Bride was over the top and barely forgivable.

Until, you know, we started marching to Baghdad. I'd suggest to anyone who doubts MoDo's capacity for perspecatious outrage to have a review of the columns she wrote on that journey. They're collected in her book Bushworld.

Love her, hate her, want to pull her bottly red hair out and smack her upside da head with it -- nobody does the Aeschelyating Bush family psychodrama better than Maureen.

She's a keeper.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 26, 2006 at 9:51 PM | PERMALINK

MoDo doesn't dye, unless she is dying the carpet as well as the drapes. While I would no longer "do" MoDO, I would pay to watch her, Ivins and Catherine Crier and Kay Bailey in a nude jello wrestling match on the front lawn of the Texas state capitiol. Winner takes on Perry for the governorship.
Oh those good ol days in Austin.

Posted by: Pickle on January 26, 2006 at 9:55 PM | PERMALINK

Aeschelyating = Aeschylating ... sigh.

MoDo's pun, of course.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 26, 2006 at 9:57 PM | PERMALINK

Pickle:

You speak as if you had inside information ...

Is this just silliness, or are you alluding to something you could sell for cash to the Enquirer?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 26, 2006 at 10:00 PM | PERMALINK

MoDo doesn't dye, unless she is dying the carpet as well as the drapes.

Posted by: Pickle on January 26, 2006 at 9:55 PM | PERMALINK

Ick. She's my mom's age.

Posted by: McA on January 27, 2006 at 2:04 AM | PERMALINK

Love her, hate her, want to pull her bottly red hair out and smack her upside da head with it -- nobody does the Aeschelyating Bush family psychodrama better than Maureen.

She's a keeper.

Bob Posted by: rmck1

I'd say this discussion is closed. Well said Bob.

Posted by: Jeff II on January 27, 2006 at 11:34 AM | PERMALINK

Another vote for MoDo being hot, if not much else. I'd do her -- but only if she promised to shut up.

Posted by: sglover on January 27, 2006 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

"The focus on her looks in these comments is just a further reflection of how weak she is intellectually, at least in what she writes in her columns"

No, the focus on her looks in these columns is because some of us find her physically attractive. That and it's a pleasure to get off of the wingnut/moonbat line for awhile.

And, if you don't think Molly Ivins writes seriously about politics, you are a moron. You just don't like her because she fillets your boy Bush like a prize trout.

Posted by: brewmn on January 27, 2006 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

写真,照片,音乐,歌手
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here

Posted by: fdfdfd on January 27, 2006 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

Arianna Huffington is hot too!

Posted by: Fred Flintrock on January 27, 2006 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly