A narcissist tends to have difficulties maintaining healthy interpersonal relationships, stemming largely from a lack of empathy and a propensity for taking advantage of others in the interest of self-aggrandizement.
Maureen Dowd pretty much only does one thing. She makes fun of other people. So, no one expects her to make nice about Hillary Clinton. However, the article which is winning her praise from DUers is actually a nasty little piece of propaganda straight from the Faux News playbook.
http://www.newshounds.us/2007/11/19/ingraham_hillary_clinton_is_bush_in_a_skirt.php Speaking of the Code Pink heckler who interrupted Hillary Clinton at a policy discussion on global warming over the weekend, host Gretchen Carlson said on FOX and Friends this morning 11/19 "I don't understand why they go up against the Democrats," insinuating that all Democrats are on the same anti-war page as Code Pink. Laura Ingraham explained, in a later segment.
Ingraham asserted that the other Democratic candidates need to go after Clinton issue by issue; she's really George Bush Lite - on the war, on immigration, on China, on free trade deals... they need to paint her as another version of George Bush, George Bush in a skirt, they really have to paint her as that, and they're really not willing to do that for some reason.
Now, why does Fox News want the Democrats to call a likely nominee Bush in a Skirt? Because America hates Bush. If Hillary goes into the election tainted as the “same as Bush” we have the 2000 election all over again, with voters confused about which candidate will end the war. We have 1968 again, with the Democratic Party divided. If Hillary is the nominee and the other candidates are unable to mend fences because the nominating season has been too bloody and divisive, it will be entirely to the Republicans benefit.
In her piece about Hillary, Dowd does just what Ingram asks Democrats to do.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/opinion/21dowd.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin President Bush is not so enamored of Obama’s foreign policy judgment. He gave a plug to Hillary on ABC News last night, calling her a “formidable candidate,” even under pressure, who “understands the klieg lights.”
Asked by Charles Gibson about Obama’s offer to meet without preconditions with the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea, W. declared it “odd foreign policy.”
Laura Bush also gave Hillary a sisterly — and dynastic — plug when she told the anchor that living in the White House and meeting people everywhere would be “very helpful” to a first lady trading up.
In a recent journal, I wrote about the movement to equate Hillary with George Bush. This parallels the 1968 efforts by McCarthy and his followers to equate Humphrey with LBJ as commander in chief of the Viet Nam war, which lead to the implosion of the Democratic Party and Richard Nixon's very narrow win. Any time you see a journalist writing about how buddy buddy Hillary and Bush are you have to ask yourself 1. Is this journalist a fool? or 2. Is this journalist a tool (of the RNC), since equating a likely Democratic nominee with the most despised president in U.S history can only spell doom for Democrats' chances next fall.
Bonus points to Dowd for
"She brazenly borrowed Republican talking points" and “She was a top adviser who had a Nixonian bent for secrecy and a knack for hard-core politicking.”
One has to wonder if Dowd remembers what happened in 2000, when careless, idiotic people spread the tale that Gore was no better than Bush. She wouldn't want to be guilty of doing that, would she? Except--oh my god! She was one of the people that spread the big lie!
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/61619/ Maureen Dowd boiled the choice between Gore and Bush down to that between the "pious smarty-pants" and the "amiable idler," and made it perfectly clear which of the presidential candidates had a better chance of getting a date. "Al Gore is desperate to get chicks," she said in her column. "Married chicks. Single chicks. Old chicks. Young chicks. If he doesn't stop turning off women, he'll never be president."
"I bet he is in a room somewhere right now playing Barry White CDs and struggling to get mellow," she wrote in another.
Meanwhile, though Dowd certainly questioned Bush's intellect in some columns, she seemed to be charmed by him one of the "bad boys," "rascals," and a "rapscallion." She shared with the world a charged moment between them. "'You're so much more mature now,' I remarked to the Texas Governor. 'So are you,' he replied saucily." And in another column: "You don't often get to see a Presidential candidate bloom right before your eyes."
Today’s is not the first smear that Dowd has aimed at the Clintons. Check out the wild and crazy story of “GiftGate.”
http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020216Baker.html ...she DID use the word "registry", and worse (as others have noted) this smear was carefully constructed. Dowd never said that Hillary had a bridal registry -- she simply created false context so that everyone would THINK she had said that Hillary had a bridal registry. This is an advanced propaganda technique....A smear machine needs one prominent celebrity voice to publish something that is misleading though perhaps technically true. Then others can "misunderstand" what was said. When they are caught at this game, the propagandist can say, "I never said what you are accusing me of saying" The rest can say that they were simply repeating what they thought Dowd was saying.
Dowd's vagueness is not accidental, but an essential part of the smear game.
And who can forget Dowd’s obsession with all things Monica, as detailed here in this piece from Salon:
http://www.salon.com/news/1998/06/18news.html “Dowd writes that Monica asked her point-blank why she wrote such scathing things about her -- something many readers must have wondered during the past few months. Dowd lists a litany of pathetic reasons that she might have given: Women shouldn't mess with married men, the photo shoot was a tactical mistake, she reserves harsher criticism for Clinton and Ginsburg. But in the end she "wimps out" and answers simply: "I don't know."
I love that “I don’t know.” Those are the words of someone compelled by an addiction. Dowd must write in order to get attention. Not just praise. She needs to feel that she is wielding power. She needs notoriety. She wants the combination of approval and hatred that only a well crafted piece of political propaganda can garner. From Clinton bashing to Bush bashing, she is game for anything, as long as it pleases some powerful political faction. That way, someone loves her and someone else hates her, and she can be the center of attention, basking in the illusion that Maureen Dowd, with her mediocre mind and writing talent is important and powerful.
P.S. Hillary makes a great target for some one like Dowd, because of that high disapproval rating. That means there is a built in fan base for anything Dowd writes.
Regarding the logical flaws in her essay, Bill ran in 1992 offering a two for one special, Bill and Hillary for the price of one president, so Hillary’s tenure as First Lady was unique. Dowd conveniently ignores that when discounting Hillary’s service to the country in the 1990s. Also, she makes the mistake that many writes with only a modicum of intelligence make—she underestimates her readers. She goes for the easy jab; Hillary failed to deliver national healthcare. However, the typical reader of the New York Times knows that the health insurance industry played a large part in that failure and the Republicans in Congress were determined to keep Democrats from providing the nation with healthcare for political purposes. As a result, instead of nodding their heads in agreement with Dowd, the New York Times readers shake their heads and think themselves that she is clever but has a shallow fund of political knowledge. Truly intelligent writers like Paul Krugman do not underestimate their readers like this.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
