Unhinged: Six Of Last Seven Columns By Maureen Dowd And Frank Rich Bashed Hillary

[SexyGalFan]

February 13, 2008
Talking Points Memo

It's kind of striking that Maureen Dowd's last four columns in a row, and two of Frank Rich's last three, all bashed Hillary. I mean, the duo has gotten so utterly predictable that even The Times's editors must be dimly aware of it.

It's really not an overstatement to say that their columns at this point read as if the two -- who have a long journalistic history together -- are just writing for each other.

Given the astronomical salary the paper's two marquis political columnists must be pulling down, you'd think that they would feel a bit of an obligation to offer something a tad more original than the same old obsessive and borderline unhinged Clinton bashing week in and week out. It's just "Billary, Billary, Billary," as the two keep putting it with such startling originality. So boring. One can only imagine what the paper could accomplish with that money if they invested it elsewhere.


link

[AX10]

1. Dowd and Rich are just as bad as Drudge.

If not worse.
:puke: :argh:
:thumbsdown:

[babylonsister]

2. Maybe they just don't like her? There are a lot of pro-Clinton articles

in the NYT, and twisting of facts in her favor to boot. Why, just today I read about one. Search GD/P and you'll find it.

[Muttocracy]

5. like, um, their endorsement of her? nt

[SexyGalFan]

10. Look at this wonderful NYT article about Michelle Obama today

Outspoken, strong-willed, funny, gutsy and sometimes sarcastic, Michelle Obama is playing a pivotal role in her husband’s campaign as it builds on a series of successes, including a sweep on Tuesday of contests in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/us/politics/14michelle.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1202964803-L1d6jWcXH1zgE0YlV4MGAw

Leaving out the one-day endorsement of Clinton, in which the NYT criticized Clinton even more than the guy they didn't endorse, the NYT has been pro-Obama. Both the news and column department. Just the other day they ran an overhyped article about the Kazakhstan mines and Bill Clinton.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

3. And for GOOD REASON

.........who created BILLARY.

the Clintons.

I supported the Clintons for the last 18 years, but enough.

You can't have it both ways. SHE is running. Not him.

They lost me three weeks ago and they have no one to blame but themselves.

[aquart]

4. Of course, dear.

"They" lost you. SO much easier to attack the couple rather than the woman. When you attack the couple, people don't rise up, recognize exactly what you're doing, and vote for the woman.

It's a simply brilliant strategy. Remarkably insulting to the woman, but as long as you include the man, NOBODY CARES!!!

Ain't you clever.

[Muttocracy]

7. I think a lot of people liked her campaign better before Bill dove in

And before she started emphasizing her First Lady experience, the twofer thing, etc. But that was a long time ago now so I don't know if that's what that poster meant.

[aquart]

14. Female candidate not allowed to use spouse. Got it.

Male candidates allowed to use spouse.

It's perfectly clear.

[Muttocracy]

16. no, that's NOT what I said.

I was talking about her switching from emphasizing her Senate and other personal experience to emphasizing being First Spouse as her big experience.

If a female Governor's husband ran for office and made a big deal about bringing her along it would be the same thing.

But you think your responses are cute and that I'm a misogyist, so I don't expect that to change.

[SexyGalFan]

8. And why can't Dowd and Rich criticize Bush or McCain every once in a while?

Do any of us believe that Hillary is among the biggest problems facing our nation?

These two are losing focus. And they call themselves "progressives".

[fightthegoodfightnow]

9. EXACTLY

SHE STOPPED RUNNING AND ............ HERE'S THE POINT YOU MISSED................. THEY STARTED RUNNING.

[aquart]

13. But that isn't what Michele is doing?

Is it?

[Muttocracy]

17. I haven't heard the Obamas talk about co-presidency

But if they have, or if he's running mostly on her experience, then, yeah, that's bad.

[SexyGalFan]

6. Yeah, the same good reason why Rich called Gore a fearmonger for his "high school movie"

RICH (5/28/06)

We are also treated to a heavy-handed, grainy glimpse of Katherine Harris, Michael Moore-style, and are reminded that Mr. Gore is not a rigid blue-state N.R.A. foe (he shows us where he shot his rifle as a farm kid in Tennessee). There's even an ingenious bit of fearmongering to go head to head with the Republicans' exploitation of 9/11: in a worst-case climactic scenario, we're told, the World Trade Center memorial ''would be under water.'' Given so blatant a political context, the film's big emotional digressions—Mr. Gore's tragic near-loss of his young son and the death of his revered older sister from lung cancer—are as discomforting as they were in his 1992 and 1996 convention speeches.

If ''An Inconvenient Truth'' isn't actually a test drive for a presidential run, it's the biggest tease since Colin Powell encouraged speculation about his political aspirations during his 1995 book tour. Mr. Gore's nondenial denials about his ambitions (he has ''no plans'' to run) are Clintonesque.

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/05/28/opinion/28rich.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=frank+rich&st=nyt&oref=slogin

[stahbrett]

11. Counterbalancing Krugman's anti-Obama articles (eom)

[thepatsyguy]

12. Sounds fair, 4 Clinton haters vs. a pro-Clinton one

Don't forget that Herbert is as obsessed with Obama as those two are. And I don't even have to remind you who right-winger David Brooks is rooting for. All you have to do is read him.

[aquart]

15. Clinton Rules.

Give it up. They're being played like violins and all they hear is the beautiful symphony.

[stahbrett]

18. Not exactly - don't forget the endorsement of Clinton, plus their weird delegate counting (eom)