Dowd and Tina Brown are two aging angry spinsters, in Brown's case an emotional role rather than legal status, and both resent the fact that Lewinsky got Clinton's semen and they didn't.
I'm sorry but I thought we stopped taking Dowd seriously years ago. Hasn't she shown again and again that she's really a Democrat hack?
It reminds of Sully, no matter how many bizarre, crazy positions he takes, or how often he flip-flops on important issues, he's somehow a "Man who needs to be listened to".
Was it really 15 or 16 years ago that Chris Matthews really ripped into clinton about the Lewinsky scandal. I've not be 'able' to watch him for the past 12 years of so. What is he saying?
Overlapping or convergent interests will smooth the way. The moral of the story is go along to get along, despite any principled and objective dissent.
Good article. It shows how dishonest and false Mo Dowdy is, and always was, about this affair. (If not everything else she writes about.) She does seem to have nanoseconds of clarity, here and there, but she always reverts to using her considerable rhetorical skills to express partisan rant.
Excellent article. This statement by Dowd shows that she knows that the Clintons (and that must include Hilary)are willing to lie and destroy women who get in their way.
"“Inside the White House, the debate goes on about the best way to destroy That Woman, as the President called Monica Lewinsky,” Dowd wrote. “Should they paint her as a friendly fantasist or a malicious stalker? … At least some of the veteran Clinton shooters feel a little nauseated this time around, after smearing so many women who were probably telling the truth as trashy bimbos. … It is probably just a matter of moments before we hear that Ms. Lewinsky is a little nutty and a little slutty.”"
If Bill and Hilary were really good decent human beings they would try to make things right with all those women they destroyed by using the powers of the White House. Dowd like thousands of other leftists know this happened but they don't care since their ideology and their own personal power is more important than these unfortunate women.
Reading the Hess column on MoDo reminded of the Ritter quote in Clear and Present Danger: "Congratulations Maureen, you've got your own little war (on women)."
First it's Tina Brown, now Maureen Dowd. Like a pair of Dante's monsters they are sideshow distractions as our nation plummets headlong to the bottom of the bottomless pit of Progressivism.
Nothing these two say or write can shock or outrage anymore, only exhaust one's appetite, like a diet of lukewarm fairgrounds hotdogs.
Notice the moral criticism is coming from a Leftward feminist point.
Wipe away the 'neoliberal' compromised old-school Dowd, or the humanitarian interventionist and comprised Hilary, and you've got a more pure feminism trying to renew itself on principle.
But yet, it seems further Left and such a moral principle will soon be used for political posturing, defending laws, gaining power and whipping up others into a secularly moral panic.
Was it really 15 or 16 years ago that Chris Matthews really ripped into clinton about the Lewinsky scandal. I've not be 'able' to watch him for the past 12 years of so. What is he saying?
Good question.
And yes, Chris Matthews was only one in the MSM (or the Left) that asked the hard questions. I wonder happened to him. Did they have pics of him with little boys or something?
Support the Althouse blog by doing your Amazon shopping going in through the Althouse Amazon link.
Amazon
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Support this blog with PayPal
Make a 1-time donation or set up a monthly donation of any amount you choose:
23 comments:
It wasn't the Clinton "narrative" that Maureen buckled under.
At the Off-The-Record bar, where the POLs were holding court for HRC, there was a considerable mention as NYT is in the bag for 2016.
Dowd and Tina Brown are two aging angry spinsters, in Brown's case an emotional role rather than legal status, and both resent the fact that Lewinsky got Clinton's semen and they didn't.
Semen envy.
Seminal.
They wouldn't do it if it didn't work.
Wow! Women being brutally cruel to other, often younger, women when those "other women" are seen as threats to their hold on power or their men.
Well, that's new & different, isn't it? /sarc
Sisterhood would indeed be powerful, if it ever existed.
I'm sorry but I thought we stopped taking Dowd seriously years ago. Hasn't she shown again and again that she's really a Democrat hack?
It reminds of Sully, no matter how many bizarre, crazy positions he takes, or how often he flip-flops on important issues, he's somehow a "Man who needs to be listened to".
Was it really 15 or 16 years ago that Chris Matthews really ripped into clinton about the Lewinsky scandal. I've not be 'able' to watch him for the past 12 years of so. What is he saying?
It would be interesting to know.
Overlapping or convergent interests will smooth the way. The moral of the story is go along to get along, despite any principled and objective dissent.
Good article. It shows how dishonest and false Mo Dowdy is, and always was, about this affair. (If not everything else she writes about.)
She does seem to have nanoseconds of clarity, here and there, but she always reverts to using her considerable rhetorical skills to express partisan rant.
Mary Jo Kopechne was not available for comment.
The word whore comes to mind.
And I do not mean you, Monica.
Excellent article. This statement by Dowd shows that she knows that the Clintons (and that must include Hilary)are willing to lie and destroy women who get in their way.
"“Inside the White House, the debate goes on about the best way to destroy That Woman, as the President called Monica Lewinsky,” Dowd wrote. “Should they paint her as a friendly fantasist or a malicious stalker? … At least some of the veteran Clinton shooters feel a little nauseated this time around, after smearing so many women who were probably telling the truth as trashy bimbos. … It is probably just a matter of moments before we hear that Ms. Lewinsky is a little nutty and a little slutty.”"
If Bill and Hilary were really good decent human beings they would try to make things right with all those women they destroyed by using the powers of the White House. Dowd like thousands of other leftists know this happened but they don't care since their ideology and their own personal power is more important than these unfortunate women.
Maureen Dowd is a prostitute. Nothing more, nothing less.
Only a fag could come up with the term a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty-so gay.
Reading the Hess column on MoDo reminded of the Ritter quote in Clear and Present Danger: "Congratulations Maureen, you've got your own little war (on women)."
First it's Tina Brown, now Maureen Dowd. Like a pair of Dante's monsters they are sideshow distractions as our nation plummets headlong to the bottom of the bottomless pit of Progressivism.
Nothing these two say or write can shock or outrage anymore, only exhaust one's appetite, like a diet of lukewarm fairgrounds hotdogs.
Dowd and Brown are two old broads that are mad,sad and envious that Bubba The Homo Rapien didn't give them any PIV.
Gee a lot of folks jumping on Mo Do. Don't you know it's unkind to pick on a person who is somehow less "abled" than others.
I don't pick on her; I just ignore her.
Illuninati:
Don't forget money. It's the unifying dream of the Left, which overcomes religious (i.e. moral philosophy), principled, biological, etc. obstacles.
Well, we have finally answered the question as to what you get when you drag $100 through a trailer park: Bill Clinton
Notice the moral criticism is coming from a Leftward feminist point.
Wipe away the 'neoliberal' compromised old-school Dowd, or the humanitarian interventionist and comprised Hilary, and you've got a more pure feminism trying to renew itself on principle.
But yet, it seems further Left and such a moral principle will soon be used for political posturing, defending laws, gaining power and whipping up others into a secularly moral panic.
Was it really 15 or 16 years ago that Chris Matthews really ripped into clinton about the Lewinsky scandal. I've not be 'able' to watch him for the past 12 years of so. What is he saying?
Good question.
And yes, Chris Matthews was only one in the MSM (or the Left) that asked the hard questions. I wonder happened to him. Did they have pics of him with little boys or something?
Post a Comment