But people on the left just love Dowd. She's snide, affects a superior attitude (they particularly like that because they get to feel superior along with her), and every once in a while she'll even direct some of her deathless wit towards Republicans! It doesn't get better than that, kind of like a dog gnawing on a gristly bone tossed from its master's table.

In times of peace, the wise man prepares for war. -- Horace

The blade itself incites to violence. -- Homer

Dowd is the least relevant columnist in America.  She is just a tool.  Okay, I cannot assert that she is worse than Coulter, but then Coulter isn't human.

"There is hope". For The New Pravda? Surely you jest. There is no hope for TNP, WaPo or the rest within the context of the existing constellation of the ruling elite of this country. The MSM exists merely to confine, dumb down and reduce debate to parameters acceptable to said elite. Unless and until we can rebuild a sort of new FDR coalition to defeat and cage the economic royalists currently in charge and steering us over the cliff, there is NO hope for the MSM. Stick with the web (for however long voices can keep their independance here) if you are looking for hope and critical thinking. Read Dowd for chuckles and read and watch the MSM to see what the enemy wants you to think is important; for what they want you to think is reality itself. But don't delude yourself that anyone can be in their employ and tell the f'ing truth.

UA

Dowd wannabes are substance free and can't write.

Exactly! Anne Kornblut, Ceci Connelly, Frank Bruni...

and that's just naming names. She (Dowd and her wannabes) further blur the line between news and opinion. Dowd started this when she was a reporter, at least she's flat-out op/ed now, but you see it in the so-called straight coverage of the wannabes, it gets further blurred on the cable shows that these people see as the big stepping stone in their careers, and they know that some of the biggest Ringmasters in that circus (Tweety, the FoxNews buffoons) specifically want Democrat bashing.

Eugene Robinson the WaPo columnist had an interesting take on the MSM's question: "Is Obama Black Enough?" Robinson attended an Obama rally in Spartansburg, SC. The audience was 95% Black. When Robinson asked attendees whether Obama was Black enough, they had no clue what he was talking about. It was a nonsensical question. Mr robinson appeared on today's Chris Mathews show.
The polls regarding Obama and his ranking among Black voters probably reflects going from a local Illinois state Senator, to the junior Senator from Illinois ,to a national figure. Once his policies are clarified and people across the country really begin to pay attention to the Presidential race, the numbers will likely change and reflect universal appeal.
Regarding how being of more recent African descent effects Obama, Robinson pointed out that in NYC both Liberian-born Amadou Bailo Diallo
and Haitian-born Abner Louima weren't asked for their green cards prior to the trauma visited upon them. Robinson was not trying to be flippant, he was just reporting the facts.
Later in the year, Tavis Smiley will host a Presidential conference in which candidates from both sides of the aisle will be invited. This will provide all candidates a forum to address a predominately African-America audience.

What did Dowd say?

 http://wealthyfrenchman.blogspot.com/2007/02/obama-legally-blonde.html

Many years ago, I would read Dowd and occasionally chuckled at the columns she would write making fun of George W. Bush. But I quickly got tired of it. The fact is, as many note, she never has anything particularly insightful to say. She doesn't do any reporting. She doesn't mock political figures in the stupid positions they take or the stupid things they do (there's plenty of material on both sides of the aisle, as Jon Stewart knows); she's not a satirist. She doesn't even mock people. The only thing she does is belittle people in the pettiest, least important way. She's quite impressive in this aspect. I don't remember the last column of hers that I read, but I do remember that she made me feel offended on behalf of George W. Bush, someone I detest. I didn't ever want to be forced to feel sympathetic GWB again, so I have not read her since.

I guess, for me, this is a gut-check. I don't despise her for her disgusting writing on Al Gore, John Kerry, or Barack Obama; I couldn't take her writing about our stupid, nasty President the way she did. Her writing is simply vile. She should be relegated to the trash heap of irrelevancy.

Scott

I rated comment a 5, but I will allow that there are exceptions -- Krugman especially, and Robinson and Dionne at WaPo, for example. PBS sometimes. Olberman. Quality news coverage here and there. But 90+% is exactly as you describe it. Soap opera as news mixed with Republican talking points.

global citizen

I'm a former Milwaukeean, back in town for awhile. When I left a couple decades ago, The Milwaukee Journal was considered one of the finer local newspapers. I'm not sure about it's local coverage, as I don't know the scene well enough, but it's op-ed syndicated columnists list is downright scary--and skewed way right.

MoDo is there--no Krugman. No Paul Krugman! The latter amazes me as he was one of the most prescient writers in widespread circulation about what a Bush presidency would mean to the country. His only "fault" is that even he did not see just how mendacious and reckless Bush would be internationally. He nailed him on his economic recklessness and willingness to lie to the public. Maybe it's that those who are right, but not in line with the corporate/political conservative power structure aren't welcome. Oh, and Kathleen Parker is on the now-named Milwaukee Journal Sentinal editorial pages.

This is a major reason why Molly Ivens will be so sorely missed: She was about the only liberal/progressive voice allowed to appear on the op-ed pages of many, many newspapers. She was the only exposure many Americans had to the non-standard viewpoint.

She was probably there because of her great wit and style, but she got ideas and facts across to many who would otherwise never see them. (So many actual facts are only made available to so many through op-eds or editorials--so sad.)

Instead, there's MoDo and Brooksie.

Alas, poor democratic republic....how can one survive without a good free press?

Unmitigated Audacity:

What you said.^

Off topic, but 'right on.'

MoDo should do some R-E-P-O-R-T-I-N-G.

Though I don't have a high opinion of Maureen Dowd (who the hell is she to have a Times Op-ed column anyway?), she's not even close to as pretentious, ignorant, and illiterate as Thomas Friedman, the man who always gets it wrong, and whose analyses, not to mention prose, are so embarrasingly simplistic and simple-minded.

Friedman cheer-led the Iraq invasion, and once it finally became obvious that it had failed, conveniently excused himself for his own many failings and role in smoothing the invasion's path. He's a dope, an ignoramus, and a loser. Dowd, who is merely a smart-mouthed Gorgon, has no perceivable effect on events. Who would even pay attention to what she says? She calls Barack, "Obambi!" I mean, come on!