Dowd

Diuretic said:
Nice article. She writes well.
Click to expand...

No, she doesn't. She makes things up about people, and then says "you can almost see them thinking" and puts her words in their mouths. She does it no matter who she is writing about, and liberals who giggle over her unprofessional and inexcusable methods, will suddenly be screaming as she continues to feminize "Obambi" and contributes to the right wing mythification of him, just as she did to Al Gore and to John Kerry.

But never, has this seething bitch, hated anyone as much as hIllary. God, she must have wanted Bill's dick so bad.
 
I don't doubt it of the Clintons wanting Obama to lose. But wtf is the NYT doing assisting them. I thought they were a liberal pub, maybe they like a New York senator as pres more than a Chicago one.
 
Darla said:
No, she doesn't. She makes things up about people, and then says "you can almost see them thinking" and puts her words in their mouths. She does it no matter who she is writing about, and liberals who giggle over her unprofessional and inexcusable methods, will suddenly be screaming as she continues to feminize "Obambi" and contributes to the right wing mythification of him, just as she did to Al Gore and to John Kerry.

But never, has this seething bitch, hated anyone as much as hIllary. God, she must have wanted Bill's dick so bad.
Click to expand...

She could probably do better than Bill.

But she still writes well.

Anyway you can chip her a bit later if she's wrong.
 
Topspin said:
I don't doubt it of the Clintons wanting Obama to lose. But wtf is the NYT doing assisting them. I thought they were a liberal pub, maybe they like a New York senator as pres more than a Chicago one.
Click to expand...

Maybe Dowd has the leeway to write what she sees? It's not Murdoch rag so the boss probably isn't calling the editor to dictate what has to be written.
 
Diuretic said:
She could probably do better than Bill.

But she still writes well.

Anyway you can chip her a bit later if she's wrong.
Click to expand...


It’s really inexcusable for any writer, even an opinion writer, to make stuff up. She does it constantly. I know that she has a lot of die-hard fans among older, white, liberal males, and I don’t mean to get them upset, but she’s actually nothing more than a gossip columnist elevated way beyond her station.
 
Darla said:
It’s really inexcusable for any writer, even an opinion writer, to make stuff up. She does it constantly. I know that she has a lot of die-hard fans among older, white, liberal males, and I don’t mean to get them upset, but she’s actually nothing more than a gossip columnist elevated way beyond her station.
Click to expand...

You mean the older, white, liberal males will cut her slack because she looks half decent? That sounds suspiciously like the antithesis of the pimply, nerdy, adolescent right-wingers who crack one up when they see Ann Coulter slagging someone off on tv. The Ayn Randies I call them.

I saw Dowd being interviewed on tv one night here (satellite). I thought she was a wee bit insipid in the interview, quite restrained. The camera didn't cut to her legs or anything so I don't know what they're like. I wonder if she has fat ankles?
 
Diuretic said:
You mean the older, white, liberal males will cut her slack because she looks half decent? That sounds suspiciously like the antithesis of the pimply, nerdy, adolescent right-wingers who crack one up when they see Ann Coulter slagging someone off on tv. The Ayn Randies I call them.

I saw Dowd being interviewed on tv one night here (satellite). I thought she was a wee bit insipid in the interview, quite restrained. The camera didn't cut to her legs or anything so I don't know what they're like. I wonder if she has fat ankles?
Click to expand...

I mean that the only people I personally meet who are fans, are on the upside of 50, male and liberal. I think they find her “spunky”.

However, I’m not interested in her looks, nor am I jealous of them. I simply judge her by what she writes, and she’s unprofessional and most of what she writes is outright unacceptable, whether it be about McCain, Hillary, or “Obambi” whose diet and slim build she obsesses over.

She should be fired.
 
She's not a very good interview. She definitely doesn't have what one might call a colorful personality.

I like her writing, though. Thank God for her & Rich at the Times during the Bush years. I even liked this column, though I see what you're saying about it & about her Hillary hate (which is pretty clear). What a column like this does is voice my worst fears about what the Clintons have in mind. It's extremely likely that it's not true, but to me, that's what an opinion column is; you can voice your worst fear or whatever is on your mind. Most people know what they're getting w/ a Dowd column.
 
Darla said:
I mean that the only people I personally meet who are fans, are on the upside of 50, male and liberal. I think they find her “spunky”.

However, I’m not interested in her looks, nor am I jealous of them. I simply judge her by what she writes, and she’s unprofessional and most of what she writes is outright unacceptable, whether it be about McCain, Hillary, or “Obambi” whose diet and slim build she obsesses over.

She should be fired.
Click to expand...

Fired?

Unlikely.

I mean, here we are discussing her :)
 
Onceler said:
She's not a very good interview. She definitely doesn't have what one might call a colorful personality.

I like her writing, though. Thank God for her & Rich at the Times during the Bush years. I even liked this column, though I see what you're saying about it & about her Hillary hate (which is pretty clear). What a column like this does is voice my worst fears about what the Clintons have in mind. It's extremely likely that it's not true, but to me, that's what an opinion column is; you can voice your worst fear or whatever is on your mind. Most people know what they're getting w/ a Dowd column.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Placing thoughts into someone else’s head is not an opinion column; it’s slanderous.
 
Diuretic said:
Fired?

Unlikely.

I mean, here we are discussing her :)
Click to expand...

Yes, that’s probably the case. I noticed that when she opened her column up to comments last week, because she was replacing the vacationing Frank Rich (she rarely opens her column to comments), she was ripped to shreds, for very good, and many really well-written reasons. And the NY Times Ombudsman recently publically chastised her for her outright sexism in writing about Hillary during the primary.

But nothing will stop her, because as you say, yeah, people read her. I think as many people read her just to be outraged as read her because they think she’s good, but it doesn’t matter. I’m as guilty as anyone.
 
Diuretic said:
But what's the point of an opinion column if not to put thoughts in someone else's head?
Click to expand...

To express your opinion about someone’s actual words, or deeds, or both. I think if you regularly read say, Bob Herbert on the same page, over time you can really see what a top-notch opinion columnist does. Amazingly, they rarely rag on someone’s sweaters, or obsess over their bodies.
 
This board isn't too far off from an opinion column. I talk about someone like Bush here in a way that some might call slanderous; I don't care. No matter what I write about him & his lies, I'm convinced that the reality of the situation is probably 20x worse.

Dowd hates Hillary, and that's how she presents her columns about Hillary. I'm not sure the Clintons in general are deserving of too much sympathy; they're as good at character assassination as anyone else I can think of.
 
Onceler said:
This board isn't too far off from an opinion column. I talk about someone like Bush here in a way that some might call slanderous; I don't care. No matter what I write about him & his lies, I'm convinced that the reality of the situation is probably 20x worse.

Dowd hates Hillary, and that's how she presents her columns about Hillary. I'm not sure the Clintons in general are deserving of too much sympathy; they're as good at character assassination as anyone else I can think of.
Click to expand...

Onceler you are not writing for the Ny Times! LOL. Geez.
And you are so far gone with your CDS, that you can’t see clearly on this. You would put nothing including murder past Hillary Clinton, so you are definitely Dowd’s main audience. But her writing about Hillary has been blatantly sexist, from the beginning, back in the 90’s. She’s nothing more than the journalistic equivalent of a pop-tart.
 
"And you are so far gone with your CDS, that you can’t see clearly on this"

Yeah, I do know that (though I stop short of the murder/conspiracy stuff). But, like Bush, I do think that what goes on behind closed doors w/ the Clintons is probably worse than anything Dowd can say.

I always thought I had a decent sexism radar, but I never noticed it in Dowd until you brought it up. Now, I can see what you're talking about, but it never even crossed my mind previously. It's not a game changer for me, though; I just find her columns entertaining & like reading 'em...
 
Onceler said:
"And you are so far gone with your CDS, that you can’t see clearly on this"

Yeah, I do know that (though I stop short of the murder/conspiracy stuff). But, like Bush, I do think that what goes on behind closed doors w/ the Clintons is probably worse than anything Dowd can say.

I always thought I had a decent sexism radar, but I never noticed it in Dowd until you brought it up. Now, I can see what you're talking about, but it never even crossed my mind previously. It's not a game changer for me, though; I just find her columns entertaining & like reading 'em...
Click to expand...

I get that. She’s certainly writing the best snark around, and she’s clever with words. I think that if she gives Obama the full-Gore treatment, you might change your mind, but let’s hope she doesn’t.
 
Darla said:
Onceler you are not writing for the Ny Times! LOL. Geez.
And you are so far gone with your CDS, that you can’t see clearly on this. You would put nothing including murder past Hillary Clinton, so you are definitely Dowd’s main audience. But her writing about Hillary has been blatantly sexist, from the beginning, back in the 90’s. She’s nothing more than the journalistic equivalent of a pop-tart.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess I have a bad case of CDS too. I wouldn't put any of the aforementioned past her to achieve her goals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top