Poe and Dowd
"The thousand injuries of Fortunato I had borne as best I could, but when he ventured upon insult, I vowed revenge."
As I recall, so begins 'The Cask of Amontillado,' certainly one of anyone's favorite Poe stories. I thought of it when I read Maureen Dowd today. I will not post her piece; there's some firewall and I can't be troubled by all that.
Suffice it for me to repeat that she says "As the White House drives its truckload of lies around the country, it becomes ever clearer that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Al Gore are just not the right people to respond to the administration's national security scare-a-thon."
I seek revenge by words.
Let's start with Al Gore. He was the subject of never-ending ridicule from Ms. Dowd while he was in the White House, while he ran against George Bush, and since that date. Many of her colleagues at the Times and most other mainstream media writers have for years repeatedly disparaged Al on a variety of personal grounds, burying as deep as they could his obvious qualifications for the Presidency. They have distorted facts, exaggerated minor matters, and ignored major advantageous comparisons between Gore and his political rivals.
If you can catch one of the critics off-guard, they will tell you that Gore is to be blamed for 2000 because the "election should not have been that close." Actually, for an incumbent vice president running for the Presidency the election is almost always very, very close; it is very hard to win against a 'change' candidate when there's an 8-year record to carry, no matter how good it may be. And let's just skip over the fact that in the third quarter of 2000 the country had negative economic growth, thanks to Mr. Greenspan's earlier interest rate rise and the onset of the stock market crash.
Despite all that, Gore won the popular vote nationally by a reasonably large margin. More important, perhaps, researchers have demonstrated that by a margin as high as 100,000 he prevailed in the popular vote in Florida as it was cast. Specifically, a very large number of voters, particularly in African-American precincts, punched the Gore chad, did not leave it hanging, but emphasized their vote by writing in Gore's name. The machines did not count their ballots because the handwriting negated the punch. These Gore votes would have been counted in any statewide recount by hand.
The Gore lawyers erred by not seeking a statewide recount until dangerously late in the process; the Florida Supreme Court dithered; but in the end the statewide recount would have occurred and the Florida electors would have voted for Gore, but of course the Supreme Court voted on strict partisan lines to stop the counting, even though they were so ashamed by their reasoning that they declared the case not to be precedent.
Now this is all old news. It would be old news for Ms. Dowd if she had reported it or written it at the time or since. But instead it is, we must suppose, part of her basis to declare that Gore is not the "right" person to represent in public the views that she herself holds, although she is a representative part of the media assault that belittled Gore all along and helped produce the result in 2000. Somehow, she apparently blames Gore for not overcoming her contribution toward delivering the election to the wrong person. Gore at any rate has not pitied himself or asked for apologies from her or anyone else. But, like someone whose bad driving helped cause a car wreck for others, perhaps Ms. Dowd could at least not belittle those who were wronged, a group that includes the plurality of voters in the United States.
I fast forward to the present. Gore is now publishing a book on global warming -- something that no other Presidential candidate has ever had the depth or ambition to do. He has done a documentary on it. He tours the country to address large crowds on the topic. She doesn't mention this, or perhaps even know about it. This is leadership, but in her view he is not "right."
Gore has given a series of speeches, more than once in Constitution Hall, on the subject of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Lawyers praise these speeches. Thousands on the Internet read them and praise them. Ms. Dowd could have attended any of them, or read them all if she so chose. The Administration took the last one so seriously that it responded immediately and vigorously, and continues to do so. But Ms. Dowd does not mention any of that; her paper scarcely mentioned Gore's last speech; she certainly won't quote it. Instead she blithely declares him not to be a "right" person for responding to the Administration. Just why would that be? Because she doesn't like his jokes (too self-deprecating for her?), or the fact that he is sincere (too sincere for her?), or his deep knowledge of the issues (too much thinking, when that's her line of work?). Maybe she doubts his motives -- after all, he has nothing to gain economically and isn't running for President, so he must be hiding something!
But it's not only Gore she disregards. Her own views of the Administration are what matter to her, and she is evidently all the more noble in her self-presentation if she claims that no Democrats rise to her standard of criticizing the Administration. She herself certainly is in her own view a "right" person to comment; that's her job. But Nancy Pelosi isn't. Why not? No information provided. Ms. Pelosi has been speaking out for months with hardly any press coverage. Wouldn't you think the press is part of Ms. Pelosi's problem? Not Ms. Dowd. She is willing to help get Judy Miller fired, because that's about her own turf, but nothing can make her even quote Nancy Pelosi. That could be helpful to the causes she allegedly favors, and it's better to insult wittily than try to make change.
We can end with noting that she never ceases to calumniate the Clintons. It took her the better part of five years, and two Presidential elections, to get up the gumption to make even occasional fun of the current incumbent, so it's not even-handedness we see here. She just likes making cruel fun of Democrats much more than aiming at those now in power. We understand David Brook's impulses and Peggy Noonan's motives a little better, because they explain themselves more clearly. But Ms. Dowd wants to walk on the left side of the street, or to have us think she belongs there along with her readers, while at the same time accepting the other side's personal attacks on the left as the starting point for her mockery. So when Ms. Dowd automatically criticizes Hillary Clinton now, we can apprehend that if Senator Clinton runs for President she can depend on Maureen Dowd to pound on her, while letting the Frists/McCains/Jebs get off comparatively easy. Yes, Ms. Dowd is entitled to mock, and she's as good at it as anyone in America, but shouldn't she swing at all the pitches and not just those thrown by left-handers?
In its way, this sorry tale resembles that of many other erstwhile liberals in the mainstream media who, when invited to the never-ending Washington cocktail party, have chosen to smile obligingly at the contemptible remarks made about progressives rather than to express repugnance for the viciousness. Ms Dowd is famously shy in person, they say, but in writing she's laughing it up at the bar with the rest of the crowd. The original movie version was Gentlemen's Agreement, starring Gregory Peck.
Writing this is all the revenge I can ever have, or hope to have, and I thank the readers for granting it. I will read Ms. Dowd's columns in the future, and enjoy the art of ridicule she displays. The thousand more injuries I will bear as best I can. But I do wish Molly Ivins had Dowd's place in the Times.
life is short: why spend it reading maureen dowd unless you're paid for it? because she's good at ridicule? there are plenty of writers, past and present, good at ridicule, and if you want to spend 900 words several times a week with mencken, go right ahead.
let's face it: we're at the end of the pundit era. it will take a few years, but basically, if blogging proves anything, it's that pundits aren't worth their wages, and in a problematic economic environment for newspapers, why keep these unproductive, often fact-free pundits on the roster?
and what will hasten the end of the pundit era - and not one moment too soon for the reasons reed outlines - is if we don't read people like dowd, people who are fundamentally frivolous.
January 25, 2006 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, thank you for posting just exactly what I've been complaining about re Dowd for the past five years. You did a better job than I could have but I, too, wish Molly had wider coverage in more prominent papers. ( We don't even have her regularly here in Austin.)
I wrote Dowd off a loooong time ago and rarely read her anymore. Life is too short for me to bother with phoney "liberals" and turncoats.
Thanks again for a great post!
January 25, 2006 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was fixed up on a blind date by friends when I made a trip to New York last year, and the guy told me that he thought I resembled Maureen Dowd.
I didn't slap him. But the evening didn't end well.
January 25, 2006 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I think Maureen Dowd's columns are usually pretty good, and Molly Ivin's are usually very good.
January 25, 2006 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
It isn't all that difficult to find clever ways to sarcastically insult someone. She is a one-trick pony. I've yet to hear her ever come up with any realistic solution to the problems that beset America. I also agree that the age of punditry has gone pretty dry, which is why I turn to blogs. After 9/11 I felt the media had gone slightly insane -- I wasn't angry with them, just felt kind of sorry for the people themselves. For around a year I stopped reading newspapers and watching TV news and I found it very refreshing. Oddly, I still found I knew the headlines of the day -- maybe living in NYC and walking past so many newsstands explains it.
But I never had a doubt of what would happen after Bush got into office -- both times. I didn't need to read or listen to the news to know that.
Now I've discovered the blog universe. It suits me much better. I do look at the news again, but only to find out what facts I can. As far as opinion and analysis, blogs like TPM Cafe, Washington Monthly, Washington Note and for passion, Daily Kos (among others), beat the New York Times hands down.
January 25, 2006 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, I won't defend Dowd here, and Molly's terrific! Except for Krugman, who's a straight A columnist, everyone else on that oped page scores in the C-/D+ range... Quite a collection of mediocrities.
However...
(1) Gore has been terrific lately! He's showing courage, originality, gumption. I say, run, Gore, run! Give it another shot!
(2) His 2000 run was ghastly! Almost as bad as Kerry's. His Elian Gonzales stand made him look like a phony. I know, I know, he "won." But he was pathetic.
If he wants to redeem himself in '08, I say, run, Gore, run!
January 25, 2006 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why should this person be taken seriously? She fails to take the issues seriously enough. She exemplifies all that is wrong with the media, liberal or otherwsise.
January 25, 2006 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
thank you, thank you, thank you... I hate that she speaks in the name of the left, in the name of 'women', in the name of us outraged citizens. I don't like her language even when I agree with her views. Ok, 10% of the time she is funny but she tends to undermine her own points with her despair to be spicy... Let her be. Others will come and do a better job.
January 25, 2006 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Al Gore got hung up over what image he should project and how to project it. In all other realms, he has a record of intelligence and competence for which it is difficult to find an equivalent. There is an element in the electorate that spans both major parties, the Modish Bourgeois, who require candidates who can cater to their intellectual foppery. Al Gore has just too much substance.
January 25, 2006 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why should this person be taken seriously? She fails to take the issues seriously enough. She exemplifies all that is wrong with the media, liberal or otherwsise.
And you nailed it perfectly. Dowd is supposed to be entertainment; she should be laughed at - not even laughed with, but laughed at. But she's taken seriously by "real" journalists to the point where she's influential, or at least has been. And all she ever does is lob insults at everyone she can -- that's her entire schtick. Why do real journalists pay attention to such a nasty, venomous creature, to the point where she was able to influence a presidential election with her vicious mendacity?
Ultimately, Dowd isn't even the problem, especially now that she's on the leash of Times Select. It's the memes she starts and amplifies, that journalists and other pundits pick up and spread, that are the problem. The "Democrats have no leadership" one is current; the one before that was "Kerry will say anything;" "Gore is a crazy liar" before that. I'm not so sure that Reed's revenge is going to do a damn thing about this pattern, although I give him full credit for trying. It isn't just Dowd who needs to experience a little revenge.
January 25, 2006 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, in terms of her criticism of Democratic leaders, you are entirely right in that Dowd's attack on Gore is entirely unwarranted and unjustified. You are much more impressed with Pelosi than I am; she seems typical of the Democratic hacks who are in office. At least Reid fights. In terms of Hillary Clinton,your choice of Ivins (over Dowd) said much more (and with greater substance and eloquence) on why she wouldn't support Hillary. I thought the Ivins piece was eloquent and on the mark.
January 25, 2006 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
You shoulda. He meant your make-up was a little too Goth.
January 25, 2006 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trying to fight back the growing public outcry over his illegal domestic wiretapping program, President Bush used the Bin Laden bogeyman once again during his remarks Wednesday at the National Security Agency.
For the full story, see: "Bush Flip-Flops on Bin Laden."
January 25, 2006 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Al Gore got hung up over what image he should project and how to project it. David N
Dowd angers Hundt and Somerby, because on some level they know that she understood Gore's campaigning weakness and thus, his electability. He never seemed comfortable in his skin, and Dowd pointed it out.
For me, the first time Gore charged up on stage in his painted-on blue jeans, Bradley had my vote.
January 25, 2006 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dowd has done me and countless other NY Times readers a favor. When NYT went to Times Select, I thought of Dowd and saved my money. Whenever Kristoff tempts me, Dowd reminds me to save my money.
January 25, 2006 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ouch! And right on.
Dowd Ivins X
Ivins
Is that an over-vote Maureen? Would you like to throw it out?
Maureen Down (She hates everyone, in a thousand words or less)
January 25, 2006 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
In some ways Maureen Dowd is more deserving of scorn than Judy Miller. At least Judy Miller is a believer and acts on her believes no matter how misguided. Maureen Dowd and her ilk in the Sally Quinn Special Class are nihilists. All they want is to be cool and hip and attacking your own side, raison d'etre of the New Republic, is the ultimate in coolness in Dowd world. In reality Dowd has no side except her own cozy clique of cynical pundits in Washington.
Dowd spent the 2000 election ridiculing Al Gore's wardrobe. Social security, taxes, foreign policy.......so boring, so Al Gore. She liked Bush because he made funny faces and entertained her. It is all about her.
As much as I despise the Robert Novaks of Washington deep down I have more contempt for the Maureen Dowds because in my view Dowd does more damage to political discourse in this country. She reduces the important to trivial and inflates the trivial to important.
We know which way Dowd will go in 2008 because she stated it in a TV interview. She said of all the candidates she likes John McCain the best. Yes, that is the same John McCain who has supported Bush 99% of the time. Again it all goes back to being the cool kid in high school. Among the Washington media elite there is nothing cooler than gushing over McCain, who cares about his voting record or position on the issues.
One more thing; "character journalism" of which Dowd is the leading practitioner. That is trying to figure out a politician's character from trivial things about them, like the earth tones Al Gore wears. Dowd has written many columns about it. According to character journalists that is more important than what they have done in life or their policy positions.
Thank God for the Internet because pre Internet liberals were limited to the Maureen Dowds of the world if they wanted opinion that wasn't conservative.
January 25, 2006 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's our sister. My fellow Americans, ask not what liberal female columnists can do for you, ask what you can do to throw the bums out. Want inspiration? Try reading that other Gore, Gore Vidal, where he writes:
I know Molly Ivins, I've had dinner with Molly Ivins, and Maureen Dowd is no Molly Ivins. But thank the Lord for that! Maureen is frustrated - she sees no King Kong that can crush the liar lizard Bush. (She has no man either.) Molly is pissed - she sees no Washington democrats able to carry the water or chop the wood. (Men are irrelevant.) When I read their columns (faithfully) together with these critical remarks, I, like Dwight Eisehower, find that, "It's hard for a mere man to believe that women don't have equal rights." Peace brothers.January 25, 2006 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is their idea of coolness.
What is sad is that Maureen Dowd and her ilk (Margaret Carlson, Richard Cohen, the entire New Republic crowd) take up the liberal slots in op ed pages and TV talk shows on the rare occasion a non conservative is invited to TV talk shows.
It is only now with the Internet that we can read opinions of non apologetic liberals.
January 25, 2006 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you that she helped damage Gore's image and I think your essay, in directly confronting her is a great idea (I am sure she will end up seeing it) and will hopefully make her think more about what effect she has....
all that said--
Has anyone ever seen her say anything truly supportive about ANY politician? Right, left or center?
She hates politicians! That's the way I always understood the gig! In the process, she provides hard-edged, bitter, cynical D.C. gossip.
It has always sort of struck me as strange that she's labeled a "liberal". When she does pop culture stuff, she talks blue state liberal social values. But she doesn't seem to support politics of either stripe. I suspect it was the earlier gig as a campaign bus reporter.
She is not a political pundit, I have never thought of her that way. I never understood why people took her as such. She's more of a social commentator in the tradition of the old version of Vanity Fair or Punch in England. We don't have high society to comment on anymore; she does politicians instead.
But I agree that perhaps she needs a look at the power of her position of popularity, and what ill and good it can effect, and tone the cynicism somewhat while retaining the wit. Because she might just have more effect than she thinks she does.
January 25, 2006 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. It also strikes me the other way around: if the advisors of a Gore or a Pelosi or a Reid can't handle and repair the damage of a Maureen Dowd attack, how are they going to handle a giant, more organized blogosphere machine attack? Doesn't she sometimes serve as a canary in the coal mine purpose? If something seems phony politics to her, will it not to others?
January 25, 2006 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
January 26, 2006 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think we can say, tlees2, that our friend Good 4 A Merica really, really, really, really doesn't like Maureen Dowd.
January 26, 2006 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why should Pelosi get criticized? Try this column from Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=6202
Why should Hillary get criticized? Try this column from Justin:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8428
Oh, I get it. Josh supports Hillary, so now we get Reed Hundt to support her, too.
Personally I find Maureen Dowd's articles to be polemical, but right on. But that's irrelevant, since the purpose of this article is to tout the Democratic hawks (I'm not sure where Gore is on the Iran issue, but he's a known Israel supporter, and he's been a hawk on Iraq, so I suspect the worst.)
In other words, this site is a member of the "War Party Blog Ring"...
January 26, 2006 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. It also strikes me the other way around: if the advisors of a Gore or a Pelosi or a Reid can't handle and repair the damage of a Maureen Dowd attack, how are they going to handle a giant, more organized blogosphere machine attack?
It's not just a "Maureen Dowd attack." It's Maureen Dowd, and whichever of her fellow stable of hacks at the Times climbs on board, and then the Republicans and their hacks see a good thing going and hop on for the ride, then the late night comedian set gets involved. No advisers can "handle and repair" something when essentially the entirety of the media establishment have decided to pile on. How many "Gore claimed he invented the internet" jokes have you heard? How many do you still hear, years after it was thoroughly debunked? What would you suggest the Democratic advisers do about that? About the smearing Hillary gets nearly every day? I've come to loathe Hillary nearly as much as I loathe Howard Dean, but the attacks against her are so overtly silly and demonstrably false that I end up defending her anyway -- they are that bad. And many of these attacks come from "liberals," like good old Maureen Dowd. Well, she's old, anyway.
January 26, 2006 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
No advisers can "handle and repair" something when essentially the entirety of the media establishment have decided to pile on.
You're barking up the wrong tree with me, I will never be convinced that "the media establishment" is the problem. It's a straight line smear mahcine from Hogarth to Thomas Nast to Walter Winchell to Johnny Carson to Rush Limbaugh to the blogosphere. The only difference is the number of participants and the speed of the meme viruses infecting.
The only time there was an attempt at even rectifying this was in the idea of "professional journalism" introduced with newspapers of the 2nd half of the twentieth and people like Murrow. It didn't last long because people saw the power of television to continue what they had always done before with the Kennedy/Nixon debate. The blogosphere smear and ridicule machine is killing any chance that it had to gain a foothold; there's even a pride in proving that every reporter out there is a prejuiced as can be, at hounding them until they admit. Rarely does one see praise for talent and professionalism; mud wrestling and wit and smear is what everyone wants. Actually, I am spending time here hoping that this might be an alternative, but I see an awful lotta of straight-out spin, an awful lot.
January 26, 2006 1:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
pre-emptive p.s. Before you start on it: the NYTimes print edition and other print newspapers had this editorial tradition, an attempt to at least control the problem: opinion is clearly demarcated. The op-eds are, every single day, put at the back of the A section under big headings that say "editorials" and "op-ed." Reviews are marked as reviews. Columnists are marked as columnists. Most of the blogsophere makes virtually no distinction; indeed many proudly bleed it all together and then advertise themselves as "reality-based."
Come to think of it, Dowd sells because snark sells in our current culture; you see it's popularity in the comments of most big blogs. The "major media" is just a mirror, it gives more of what people buy.
January 26, 2006 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rarely does one see praise for talent and professionalism; mud wrestling and wit and smear is what everyone wants.
and,
Come to think of it, Dowd sells because snark sells in our current culture; you see it's popularity in the comments of most big blogs. The "major media" is just a mirror, it gives more of what people buy.
When has snark not sold? And the first quotation, above, is exactly accurate. So why expect different, here or anywhere else? If you don't give the people what they want, they'll find it elsewhere, and what people want is to be entertained. About all you can do is point out the absurdity of it.
This does not, however, absolve creatures like Dowd of responsibility for inventing news rather than reporting and/or commenting on it, which is rather the point of all this.
January 26, 2006 1:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
They COULD handle a Dowd attack if we had liberal versions of Will, Krauthammer, Noonan in the mainstream the media, op-ed pages, on TV and radio. Unfortunately we don't. Dowd is pegged as a liberal. So if a Democratic politician is being discussed by Will and Dowd he/she is getting hit both sides without anyone defending him/her.
Example; Meet the Press regularly pairs right wing partisan pundits like Bob Novak and William Safire with David Broder. Broder is NOT a liberal and he is certainly not a Democratic partisan. The corporate media structure is set up in such a way that we have partisan right wing pundits representing republicans and Broders and Dowds who are not committed to any ideology or party. They are committed to the Establishment. This is a HUGE problem for Democrats. It means they don't have any passionate defenders in the media.
January 26, 2006 2:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
January 26, 2006 4:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Y'all miss the point on Dowd pretty badly, IMHO.
You don't like it when she says Gore's speaking style is lousy because she's being too superficial? Well, guess what? American politics has a very large superficial element. And Gore's speaking style really is kinda lousy.
If otherwise smart liberals paid a little more attention to the imperatives of stagecraft, we might end up with more successful Democratic candidates.
Dowd is a pretty insightful chronicler of the style side of politics, and rather than shooting the messenger, folks ought to take her message to heart.
January 26, 2006 5:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
It strikes me that she hates almost everybody, especially men.
January 26, 2006 5:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
You don't like it when she says Gore's speaking style is lousy because she's being too superficial? Well, guess what? American politics has a very large superficial element. And Gore's speaking style really is kinda lousy.
This is an example of how pernicious Dowd and her crew have been. Gore is a bad speaker? What about Bush? The man can barely get a sentence out, and he utterly and completely humiliated himself and the country in the debates. Where's the "Bush is a bad speaker" meme?
In fact, Gore is certainly not a bad speaker. He's not Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, but nobody is. He's about average as far as politicians go, which makes him a damn sight better than George Bush. But Dowd never talks about that with Bush, see. With Bush, she always objects to his policies, not the man himself.
With Democrats, no matter who they are, she always focuses on the person, inventing and distorting things to do it, and the meta message is always the same: they are a loser. It's you who've missed the point, and Dowd is one messenger who deserves to be shot.
January 26, 2006 5:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
"This is an example of how pernicious Dowd and her crew have been. Gore is a bad speaker? What about Bush?"
Bush is actually pretty good. He's not Clinton/Reagan good, but he's still pretty good.
The standard that counts is not articulateness. The standard that counts is evoking a soft emotional connection with the viewer.
And based on that standard, Bush is miles ahead of both Gore and Kerry. It's why he managed to tie one election and win another one, when the lay of the land said he should lose both.
"With Democrats, no matter who they are, she always focuses on the person"
She does that with Republicans too. Dowd's whole shtick is to focus on the personal. It's why so many politically committed people hate her - they care deeply about issues when she's talking about personal style.
My point is that if you want to be effective in getting your issues implemented, you'd better pay attention to style too. And reading Dowd is an excellent way to take a course in Political Style 101.
January 26, 2006 5:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can someone explain why that self-important bag of wind got a Pulitzer?
Has she ever said anything of substance?
National finances going over the precipice, military close to breaking point, homeland security a bad joke, President proudly trampling on the Constitution, global warming endangering the planet.....and it's more important to some to be one of the Kewl Kids, more important to sneer with the witty (I'm told) bon mot than to actually address real issues.
I suppose she inadvertantly offers a window into that peculiar insulated living-on-another-planet Sally Quinn Beltway social hierarchy. But by taking her seriously as a pundit, those who like her only help to disseminate and legitimze a narrative whose only purpose is to impress at the dinner table, not to enlighten the national discourse.
Thank you Reed for a nice (and well-deserved) takedown. I agree with others that you strayed in your last paragraph. I for one am glad that Times Select has locked the airhead behind a firewall. Long may she languish there. Can we send Broder to join her?
January 26, 2006 5:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
During the 00 debates, I and many thought Gore won the debates hands down and Bush was an embarrassment. Guess what, polls right after the debates agreed.
Then the punditocracy got started with the meme that Gore was overbearing, too much orange make-up, yadda yadda. Guess what, the polls changed.
She and her ilk bear their share of responsibility for the reckless mismanagement of the country for the last five years. Trying to fob that responsibility onto the same politicians they have spent years ridiculing just isn't going to fly anymore.
I don't think she has a thing to contribute to the discussion.
January 26, 2006 6:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bush is actually pretty good. He's not Clinton/Reagan good, but he's still pretty good.
How to throw away all credibility in two sentences.