HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Maureen Dowd's readers do...

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 08:25 PM

 

Maureen Dowd's readers don't like her anti-Obama column written on Friday

Maureen Dowd wrote a column on Friday attacking President Obama for being condescending, unlike Ronald Reagan. The link is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/opinion/sunday/dowd-showtime-at-the-apollo.html?_r=1&hp#commentsContainer

The top-ranked comments (based on readers' recommendations) strongly criticize the column. Write to the NYT public editor and ask him why they keep such an unpopular, clueless writer, who hated the Clintons and now is writing nonsense about Obama: public@nytimes.com

49 replies, 5777 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 49 replies Author Time Post
Reply Maureen Dowd's readers don't like her anti-Obama column written on Friday (Original post)
Weisbergkevin Jan 2012 OP
Ron Green Jan 2012 #1
Pirate Smile Jan 2012 #2
baldguy Jan 2012 #3
BumRushDaShow Jan 2012 #4
spooky3 Jan 2012 #18
Gman Jan 2012 #5
2banon Jan 2012 #23
montanacowboy Jan 2012 #6
2banon Jan 2012 #22
Art_from_Ark Jan 2012 #28
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2012 #33
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2012 #7
2banon Jan 2012 #25
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2012 #32
Post removed Jan 2012 #8
ProSense Jan 2012 #9
coalition_unwilling Jan 2012 #10
LuvLoogie Jan 2012 #11
Robb Jan 2012 #20
LuvLoogie Jan 2012 #49
Major Nikon Jan 2012 #12
2banon Jan 2012 #13
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2012 #38
MH1 Jan 2012 #41
Sheepshank Jan 2012 #46
Hamlette Jan 2012 #14
Honeycombe8 Jan 2012 #15
spooky3 Jan 2012 #17
Honeycombe8 Jan 2012 #19
spooky3 Jan 2012 #47
Enrique Jan 2012 #36
MH1 Jan 2012 #42
spooky3 Jan 2012 #16
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2012 #34
Number23 Jan 2012 #21
Laura PourMeADrink Jan 2012 #24
Zalatix Jan 2012 #26
Beacool Jan 2012 #27
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2012 #35
Beacool Jan 2012 #43
boston bean Jan 2012 #48
magical thyme Jan 2012 #29
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2012 #39
trumad Jan 2012 #30
_ed_ Jan 2012 #31
BumRushDaShow Jan 2012 #37
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2012 #40
ehrnst Jan 2012 #44
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2012 #45

Response to Weisbergkevin (Original post)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 08:31 PM

1. What struck me when I first read this column

was that Dowd seems to acknowledge Reagan as a paragon of politics as well as governance. It shows how far we've slipped in three decades.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Weisbergkevin (Original post)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 08:32 PM

2. Good. I read it and she is full of crap (as usual).

I swear she thinks her job is to act as the reigning "Mean Girl" in the press.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Weisbergkevin (Original post)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 08:37 PM

3. That damn liberal media!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Weisbergkevin (Original post)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 08:47 PM

4. Just got done reading it

She sounds like Cornel West or Tavis Smiley or god knows how many others who somehow feel that they should have been invited to some affair at the White House, and since they weren't, then the President is somehow "elitist" or "disconnected"... because ya know, they are so badass and how DARE he!

Truly sad that during this phase of their careers, they have made this Presidency so personal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #4)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 10:41 PM

18. I inferred that also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Weisbergkevin (Original post)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 08:50 PM

5. She's a friggin' nut anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #5)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 11:48 PM

23. Her Columns going after Bush and Cheney were spot on, and not at all "nutty".

 

I don't recall a single disparaging remark against her writings during those 8 years. Did I miss those comments from you at the time?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Weisbergkevin (Original post)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 09:19 PM

6. Remember the shit she said about Al Gore

this POS is the bottom of the barrel and really belongs on Fox Snooze

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to montanacowboy (Reply #6)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 11:46 PM

22. No I don't. But I remember her going after Dubya and Cheney for 8 years.

 

And everyone here seemed to enjoy those columns as much as I did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2banon (Reply #22)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 03:30 AM

28. Dowd blasted Gore for wearing "earth tone" clothes

And she really did a hatchet job on Gore with this piece of shit article masquerading as political commentary:

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/11/opinion/liberties-his-lyin-sighin-heart.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #28)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 10:26 AM

33. She also went after John Edwards relentlessly, and well as Hillary Clinton.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Weisbergkevin (Original post)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 09:34 PM

7. I've never liked this woman. She is always going after Democratic candidates.

 

I can't stand her!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #7)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 11:55 PM

25. Bush and Cheney were not Democrats.

 

She went after those two like fly on poo. Not only could we stand her then, we relished her weekley onslaughts which we saw were so deserved, and we looked forward to reading her.

We cherished her for her courage, and cheered her on for astute musings and ascerbic wit.

We adored her. No one but rabid freepers held a disparaging word against her.

I don't see what all the fuss is all about, frankly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2banon (Reply #25)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 10:24 AM

32. I've never adored her, so don't include me in that list.

 

I think she's a terrible writer and not very intelligent. However, I'm sure that she does well and people like her for a reason. I just don't like her at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Weisbergkevin (Original post)


Response to Post removed (Reply #8)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 10:00 PM

9. Which

"Uh oh, someone said something bad about his holiness.

Que the, "LEAVE OBAMA ALONE!" brigade. LOL "

..."brigade" do you belong to: the "LEAVE SILLY COLUMNIST WHO WRITE STUPID SHIT HYPING REAGAN" brigade?

Reagan didnít socialize with the press. He spent his evenings with Nancy, watching TV with dinner trays. But he knew that to transcend, you canít condescend.

Yeah, and Mitt does laundry.

Oh, and "his holiness" doesn't apply to the President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #9)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 10:05 PM

10. You and I often disagree, but on this we are in full accord. Reagan and his

 

Junta presided over a constitutional coup d'etat (Iran Contra). Aside from that, I have very distinct memories of Reagan being condescending as all get out to President Carter ("There you go again" and so on), so I think Dowd is wrong on the facts and on her spin of the facts as she remembers them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Weisbergkevin (Original post)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 10:19 PM

11. I mostly like her writing.

I think some of these reactions to her are more appropriate for an Ann Coulter. Maureen Dowd can be cutting, but it is nuanced. She just wants President Obama to toughen up. What she has no patience for is hubris and/or wobbly equivocation. She slices and dices Republicans as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/opinion/dowd-hunting-dear-sir-delighted.html?ref=maureendowd

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LuvLoogie (Reply #11)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 11:22 PM

20. "Cutting" and "nuanced"?

Oooooookay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #20)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 10:30 PM

49. A dictionary might help.

Kind of like combining "sweet" and "savory." It could also possibly describe neural surgery or vivisection, perhaps.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Weisbergkevin (Original post)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 10:25 PM

12. "Reagan didnít socialize with the press."

Raygun didn't socialize with the press because he was dumb as a stump at best and suffered from brain rot at worst. His handlers didn't let him near the press unless he had a script to read.

In the few instances Raygun went unscripted with the press he came off as dazed and confused old man who couldn't even remember his own cabinet members.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Weisbergkevin (Original post)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 10:25 PM

13. I was introduced to Maureen Dowd with her terrific attacks on Dumbya

 

I haven't read this article, don't know if I will, maybe.

But I loved her stuff during "W"'s Reign. Couldn't get enough of the red meat she tossed our way.

I seem to recall a ton of highly favorable reactions on DU in those years, not so long ago. What happened?

Did she get all Rethuglican on us?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2banon (Reply #13)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 11:04 AM

38. If you haven't read this article, then how can you criticize us for our disparaging remarks?

 

You sound as if you're younger, since you didn't remember all of her condescending articles about the Clintons in the 90s or her praise of Reagan.

Before you have something to say to us, I think you should do a little research on MoDo and then you'll understand why many of us do not like this woman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2banon (Reply #13)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 11:19 AM

41. I'm not going to dig out the links

but I've been a registered member here since the Bush years (unlike yourself) and as I recall, even then, MoDo was NOT a particularly popular columnist here. She had occasional columns that were 'red meat' to liberals, as you call it, but for the most part she sucked then, and she still sucks, only worse because the cluelessness is even more on display.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2banon (Reply #13)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 01:12 PM

46. You sure have flogged that dead horse a lot on this thread....

 

seriously, you've said that shit already...what 4-5 times? and it's only reply #13

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Weisbergkevin (Original post)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 10:27 PM

14. the comments are very hopeful

people are seeing through the chattering class. Couldn't read her column. Gave her up years ago. Won't go back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Weisbergkevin (Original post)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 10:29 PM

15. I like Dowd. She's one of the most knowledgeable, creative, interesting writers....

around these days.

But she missed the mark with this column. If I understand it, it's basically saying the Obamas don't realize they have to go to more parties and reach out to others.

BTW, I don't think the article is an attack. It's not mean or hostile. She has a view about one thing, and she expresses it. She has positive views about Obama, too, and has written about them.

She does have a point about one thing, though. Obama's not creating a relationship with prior Presidents is odd. There are only a few of them in the world. And they have a wealth of information and knowledge they could impart to the current President. Even if Obama disregards what they have to say, I think it's a mistake not to create a relationship where he can at least tap into that experience. Plus, he will soon (whether it's one year or four years) be a member of that tiny club himself.

Maybe he doesn't want that kind of influence on his decisions. But not to invite Carter and Clinton and even Bush over for dinner is odd, I think. But for the parties, I agree with Obama. He has a young family and wants to spend time with them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #15)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 10:39 PM

17. How does she know what relationships he has?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spooky3 (Reply #17)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 11:19 PM

19. Read the article. Interviewer questioned Carter...

about his relationship with Obama (there isn't one). The President's social events are public knowledge and/or known by the Washington crowd. Everyone knows he didn't call McConnell the first year in office (all recent prior Presidents have called the adverse party's Congressional leaders to start establishing working relationships with them).

No secrets about these things. And Obama readily talks about not having them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #19)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:19 PM

47. Uh, I did read the article. Good journalists NEVER rely on someone else's books as primary sources.

Did Dowd interview the Obamas about the concerns she expressed in her column? No.

The Obamas said they did NOT talk with the book's author about these matters.

If I judged your relationships with people based on whether you attended certain parties, you would very likely tell me I have no idea whatsoever the nature of your relationships, and you would be entirely correct.

It's absolutely ridiculous to claim otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #15)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 10:34 AM

36. I agree she missed the mark

however I think she misses the mark about 99.9% of the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #15)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 11:30 AM

42. Try reading Charlie Pierce, for "knowledgeable, creative, interesting". Then get back to us

on how MoDo stacks up against a real writer.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Weisbergkevin (Original post)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 10:37 PM

16. is she now in her PJs in her mama's basement, relying only on books as a source for her columns?

That's what appears to be the case, for this column, anyway.

Seems she is POd that the Obamas aren't throwing parties and inviting her, too. Geez, this sounds like something you might expect in a second rate high school newspaper. My apologizes to all the fine teenagers out there who would do a much better job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spooky3 (Reply #16)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 10:29 AM

34. Exactly! She's a petty woman, and her columns are almost always based on heresay and second-hand

 

accounts, not on facts.

As I stated before, I can't stand her!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Weisbergkevin (Original post)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 11:30 PM

21. Some of the commenters are eating her alive. Good

"So shame on you Ms. Dowd! You do yourself no credit with this tripe!!"

To think, I used to like her many, many moons ago. Even bought and read "Are Men Necessary?" She is obviously having a very hard time keeping her name in the papers if this is the angle she has chosen to take.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Weisbergkevin (Original post)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 11:49 PM

24. shoot....comments closed at nytimes. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Weisbergkevin (Original post)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 11:58 PM

26. When will that... abomination... retire and emigrate back to whatever world she came from?

 

Or maybe miss "Are Men Necessary" and "Disappearing Y" was sent here as a declaration of war against humans?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Weisbergkevin (Original post)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 12:16 AM

27. Pardon me if I laugh.

MoDo is a huge Clinton basher. She went after Hillary relentlessly in 2008 and thought that Obama was just wonderful. She now appears to have changed her mind about him.

Oh, the irony...........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #27)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 10:31 AM

35. I'm with you on this, Beacool. That some people are championing and praising her in this thread

 

Last edited Mon Jan 23, 2012, 11:09 AM - Edit history (2)

is beyond belief. She went after the Clintons, the Gores, the Edwards. She is relentless in her attacks against Democrats. Yeah, she may have had a few bad words to say about the Bush Crime Family, but her attacks against Democrats are legendary. I can't stand her or her smug face when I see it on t.v.

I don't think she particularly liked Obama; I just think she never liked the Clintons. I didn't like her then and I can't stand her now.

Here's something that you and I can finally unite over. There are few Democrats that she really likes, but she praises Reagan. Go figure...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #35)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 12:21 PM

43. MoDo is one bitter woman.

She did go after Gore pretty hard, but she absolutely despises Hillary. The rumor around the NY social scene was that back in the 90s she had a thing for Bill and he didn't reciprocate. I wonder if she also hates Catherine Zeta Jones.

I don't know if she truly liked Obama, but she praised him in several columns. She now seems to have changed her mind.

Frankly, who cares what she thinks?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #43)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:22 PM

48. They do the same thing with Chuck Toadie and Tweety.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Weisbergkevin (Original post)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 07:36 AM

29. there those who listen to (or read) criticism and choose

 

to learn from it.

And there are those who choose to tune it out.

The danger with the former is that you may (or may not) get 1. bogged down or 2. sidetracked by it.

The danger with the latter is that in tuning out criticism, 1. you lose the chance to learn from it and, 2. tune everything out.

"The man who came to Washington on a wave of euphoria has had a presidency with all the joy of a root canal, dragged down by W.ís recklessness and his own inability to read Americaís panic and its thirst for a strong leader."

I think this statement says it all. I can't disagree with this opinion piece, which seems based on the facts of events and interviews.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magical thyme (Reply #29)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 11:13 AM

39. Her opinion IS NOT based on any facts. It's based on hearsay and innuendo. MoDo is well known for

 

her hyperbolic statements, NOT on facts. You may agree with this statement because you don't care for Obama and that's fine. But she's not the only so-called opinion journalist who has made this claim. Yet another one of these folks who knows nothing about governance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Weisbergkevin (Original post)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 07:43 AM

30. Bob Somersby has written extensivally about this Media Whore

 

She was big time into taking right wing talking points about Al Gore and including them into her narrative about Al.

http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/#uds-search-results

Fuck Mo Dowd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Weisbergkevin (Original post)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 09:29 AM

31. This is the same New York Times that sold the Iraq War

with Judith Miller, employed Jayson Blair, refuses to use the word torture when Americans do it, and had Bill Keller as an editor. Who cares what the New York Times said? After selling the Iraq War for Cheney, they are an illegitimate news organization.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to _ed_ (Reply #31)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 10:36 AM

37. And don't forget they had Billy Kristol too!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to _ed_ (Reply #31)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 11:15 AM

40. I had forgotten about her complicity with regard to the Iraq war and her involvement in the Jason

 

Blair fiasco. Thank you for reminding me about this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Weisbergkevin (Original post)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 12:42 PM

44. Yes, when a Black person speaks authoritatively.... it's called something other than confident

I believe the term is "uppity."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #44)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 01:00 PM

45. JoePhilly has written about this often, but there seems to be two "Obama bad" competing memes...

 

The first "Obama bad" meme goes something like this: He's weak, incompetent, "in over his head," and lacks leadership.

The second "Obama bad" meme: He's haughty and arrogant, a "dictator," marches to the beat of his own drum, "aloof."

I've witnessed these two competing, inconsistent memes here on DU and reflected in the punditry.

MoDo's column reflects this. Is he aloof, unprepared, too professorial, weak and "in over his head?" OR... he is "arrogant" and refuses to engage with anyone else that is not within his inner circle?

People can't have it both ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread