The conclusion of Maureen Dowd's new column, "When Hillary Clinton Killed Feminism."
Here's one of the highest-rated comments there (at the NYT):
Okay, so I'm supporting Bernie (as a Jewish male, I'm obligated to do so — right, Ms. Albright?). Even so, it's clear that none of Hillary's enemies in the top echelons of the GOP have anything on Maureen Dowd when it comes to pure, obsessive, unadulterated contempt. How many of these relentless screeds will The Times have to publish before its contractual obligations to their author are finally fulfilled? Whether it's an election year, an off-year or the (Chinese) Year of the Shrew there are simply no limits to the amount of spleen that Ms. Dowd has proven herself ready to vent when it comes to the affairs of Clinton and Clinton, Assassins at Large. I can't imagine just how many of the writer's loved ones have been bumped off over the years by this 21st Century version of the Borgias but the number must truly be immense. In any case, there's absolutely nothing in this op/ed piece that has anything new to say about Maureen's personal bête noirs. It may simply be time for her to knock off for a while, spend a few weeks (at least) on a beach in Cancun and try to find some other target for her all-consuming wrath. There IS another political party out there, after all, whose presidential candidates make Hillary look like Mother Teresa, particularly insofar as the rights of women are concerned.
Posts
64 comments:
I am of the opinion that the top-rated comment on Dowd's opinion piece is idiotic.
The Clintons are criminals who have simply never been charged. Not enough spleens have been vented on them. Terrible people who have completely circumvented the Rule of Law. We need to rid ourselves of the Clintons.
What David said. The prospect of four more years of the Clintonian sleaze is enough to get me interested in professional football again.
Once you go pro-choice, it's Democrats all the way down.
There IS another political party out there, after all, whose presidential candidates make Hillary look like Mother Teresa, particularly insofar as the rights of women are concerned.
The subject of the column is the ever present Clinton Baggage, so I don't think this holds.
Trump has prospered in a very cutthroat environment in both New York City and Atlantic City. I will grant that he has a lot of baggage -- too much to be an acceptable nominee, in my opinion. It would be nice to see some actual reporting on this, by the way. For all the media coverage of Trump, can you name any actual shady connections off the top of your head?
The rest of the candidates haven't had much baggage come to light. Cruz and Rubio are rookie Senators, Sanders has been a marginal kook with no real power.
I like the line about that other party's candidates making Hillary look like Mother Teresa. This is what a critical mass of the left believes: There is simply no flaw in their own candidates, up to and including felonies, that can't be forgiven when you look at who their opponents are.
I also like this because on this very site, Richard McEnroe invoked Mother Teresa, from a "cruelly neutral perspective":
"the Democrats really can't tell their backers that their hope for enlisting the new generation is a shrewish, drunken senior citizen whose personal probity makes Leona 'taxes are for the lithe people' Helmsley look like Mother Teresa of Calcutta,"
Um, about that Mother Theresa comparison, the author may want to consult the good nun's thoughts on the issues euphemistically referred to as women's rights.
Zach
Good question! Why has there been essentially zero coverage on Trump's past? Answer: Holding it for the general so that it will have maximum benefit for the Dems. Hillary already has the dirt on Donald and it is massive. It will be published via targeted ads on Facebook and Google.
"another political party out there, after all, whose presidential candidates make Hillary look like Mother Teresa,"
Utter nonsense, and yet I am sure it will pass unremarked at the NYT. I'll bet the writer of that line even considers himself an intelligent and perceptive individual.
Nah. The Clinton corruption machine is worth lots of wrath. They need to be shamed until they go away. Keep it up, Maureen. It's refreshing. Most of the "news' and SNL info-pop is fawning. It's the fawning that needs a time-out.
"There IS another political party out there, after all, whose presidential candidates make Hillary look like Mother Teresa.
THAT right there defines the left. They are nervous about Hillary, not in love with her, but think her corruption and lawlessness are acceptable when compared to any member of the GOP. Corrupt DNC trumps any GOP.
Moral bankruptcy.
One of MoDo's better screeds. Normally, she is a hard left shrill. I just wonder what the Clintons did to her to earn her ire. She got the basics in this time - Hillary believes that this is her turn, despite having committed maybe thousands of felonies while Secretary of State, while greatly enriching her husband and their family foundation while she was in that office. And, she went out and lied about her husband, and his sexual affairs, but now expects most women to fall in line purely because she is who she is, and has (or presumably had) a vagina.
Maureen Dowd will say nice things about Hillary as soon as Paul Krugman says nice things about a Republican.
" Hillary already has the dirt on Donald and it is massive. It will be published via targeted ads on Facebook and Google."
Apparently you have some inside information. Please share a couple of nuggets with us.
Scalia's death gives Hillary a free hand to finish off Bernie in any way she sees fit.
I usually don't care for Dowd but that one was right on target.
As for the favored NYT comment, I find it sinister (hows that for Faustian!) that a comparison is made between the Clinton Crime Family and the Borgias. I wonder if that means that the Clinton's also dabble in incest and arsenic.
As for MoDo, she jumps in and out, supporting, then attacking and finally explaining the Clinton's criminal acts. She has dropped into her column on more than one occasion that "“The Clintons will be there when they need you.”
Horseball raises a great point. Can there be any stronger evidence of the Left's complete lack of morality than attempting to use Mother Theresa, of all people, out of any human being that has ever lived, *her*, who thought abortion was an abomination, to defend a candidate who supports *all* abortion? And not just indirectly, but comparing Hillary to Mother Theresa *because* of her support for abortion?
Seriously, there are no words I have left to describe the modern Left. Except maybe "maggots".
Paul
No inside information. Just a reasonable conclusion knowing how modern campaigns work. Obama won in 2012.using Big Data and the database is in use today. DNC will let the nominee use it. Hillary may have her own. MSM won't report on it because it is already losing ad dollars to Facebook and Google.
"You can have our bright public service side as long as you accept our dark sketchy side."
Actually, I could accept their dark sketchy side if they would just keep it to themselves. It's their idea of "public service" that makes me hope they are both dying of brain cancer.
"No inside information. Just a reasonable conclusion knowing how modern campaigns work. Obama won in 2012.using Big Data and the database is in use today. DNC will let the nominee use it. Hillary may have her own. MSM won't report on it because it is already losing ad dollars to Facebook and Google."
Sorry but you claimed massive dirt on Trump. Put up or shut up.
"Why has there been essentially zero coverage on Trump's past? Answer..."
If this stuff is out there, why hasn't Jeb, with all his money, thrown it at us?
I miss Hitchens. How he could have run with the Mother Teresa angle (or Hell's Angel as it were.)
Evidently top-rated NYT commenters can't use Google.
Top-rated commenter says the Clintons are Dowd's bête noire -- which isn't nearly as strong as it once was, in French it's an all-consuming obsessive hatred, like any American to Roger Garaudy, but since we got hold of it is can be as fluffy as a pet peeve -- but this immediately struct me as nonsense given that shrill harridan's lockstep defense of Bill Clinton back in the day. Here's just one of 12,200 hits on "Maureen Dowd"+"Ken Starr".
They saw it's never too late to get religion... Harrumph! Looks to me like Dowdy is merely struggling to remain (if she ever was) kewl. The other day we were discussing the meaning of trimmer. I think this qualifies.
Typo: They saw... crap! They say...
If this stuff is out there, why hasn't Jeb, with all his money, thrown it at us?
My guess is that Trump has been living in the public eye since the 1980s and any dirt that anyone has on Trump has been published multiple times.
Everybody already knows Trump has been married three times and has had businesses go bankrupt and speaks vulgarly and has been accused of having ties to the mob (so was Joe Kennedy by the way.)
For a lot of people those are positives.
She is just channeling her inner National Review Online
Dowd is vicious + fights dirty. You can like her when she's knives out for someone you want wounded, though.
"For a lot of people those are positives."
Meh. Three wives. Ok good for him. They're all hot and apparently they speak well of him. The bankruptcies have been explained (not uncommon in that prolific a career, Chapter 11, etc.). Ties to the mob? As far as I know his dealings with "the mob" are no more or less what any big companies do to operate in NYC.
So in other words you guys got nuthin', and like Ann said if there was dirt his opponents flush with cash would have dug it up already.
The Trump haters seem to have the same arrested emotional development as the average liberal...they just hate hate hate something so they just wish wish wish the object of their scorn would crash and burn, dammit. Just like children.
Ann and Paul
No idea why more dirt hasn't been rolled out on Donald. Cruz has run some on eminent domain. Jeb's campaign is plain stupid and should have done it a long time ago. Go to Donald's wiki page for some of it. Here's one item. He sued a Street analyst for an opinion. The four bankruptcies has got plenty of stuff. Maybe ties to the Mob per wiki.
@Paul
What do you mean "you guys got nuthin?"
I'm not a "you guys." 'I'm not against Trump. Nor am I for him. I'm still making up my mind. I'm just saying that everything that could be used against him is already out there.
If you looked in earlier threads you would find that I have made the same points you just did.
No idea why more dirt hasn't been rolled out on Donald. Cruz has run some on eminent domain.
And how's that working out for him? I actually am pretty concerned about how the Kelo decision can be used to benefit powerful business interests over homeowners. But, I'm willing to put up with Trump's abysmal stance on that if he can convince me that he is serious about his stance on immigration.
Ron
I'd be statistically shocked if Trump didn't employ or have subs who use illegals working at his hotels, golf courses or construction sites. Epic hypocrite.
Trump has become rich using aliens over Americans.
What's "the bright piblic service side" that's supposed to balance the seamy underside?
Thinking that "someone is holding back dirt" on Trump hedges close to conspiracy thinking.
There's simply too many news outlets out there, too much reporting on Trump since the 1980s, for there to be anything hidden.
This is what comes from a culture that sees too many thrillers and think that government really runs that efficiently and that a pinprick of information could bring down a powerful politician.
See, the problem is not finding negative information, it's finding that one simple piece of information that everyone agrees is bad.
It's hard to get people to understand how bad Whitewater was, Travelgate, Bill's depredations. Heck, he got a blow job in the xerox room next to the Oval Office with an intern and got off twice. Hillary's got blood on her blue dress and Democrats still defend her.
Bill
Not a conspiracy re MSM holding back. MSM covers for the Libs. Still no idea why Jeb hasn't brought hell down on Trump. Ted is starting to. But after last night's debate, Trump is finished. Watch GWB bring the hammer down this week.
Sorry Ron. Didn't mean to necessarily include with the nut cases like Begley. Case in point:
"But after last night's debate, Trump is finished. Watch GWB bring the hammer down this week."
See what I mean? Just the most flagrant example of wishcasting one can imagine.
I'd be statistically shocked if Trump didn't employ or have subs who use illegals working at his hotels, golf courses or construction sites. Epic hypocrite.
Of course he is. Just like everyone else in construction, hotels, and golf courses, and restaurants, and farms, and chicken processing plants, and just about every business and industry in the U.S.
Nobody is going to be shocked by that. Nor are they going to see it as hypocrisy because they can process the fact that if he has to compete against others using low wage immigrant workers, he is going to have to do the same. The point is to stop the importation of low wage immigrant workers so that everyone will need to hire actual 'mericans.
Dubya's DUI conviction was held back until just the right time. I'm pretty sure that the Dems are holding fire until the proper moment. Some teary eyed model will come forward and tell the world of Donald's obscene requests. Perhaps we'll hear from some mob boss about how the concrete got poured at one of Donald's building sites. I don't know what the scandal will be, but depend upon it: there will be a scandal........Dowd's dumping on the Clintons is like Bill Maher's ragging on the Muslims. It shows a certain amount of integrity and independence of thought. It's very important to show these little glimmers of character if you want to pull off the long con.
The "highly-rated" comment contains zero substance. It's all vituperation. Why post such a comment? You will not change anybody's mind, because you haven't included any content. You will be cheered only by those who already agree with you; I suppose that makes you feel good, but what's the point? It's like saying "Your most recent post was idiotic".
Glad I am considered a "nut case" by some here. But I'm not nearly as idiotic as Althouse.
David Begley said.. Glad I am considered a "nut case" by some here. But I'm not nearly as idiotic as Althouse.
So, it was you who sent Althouse that email.
Hillary! will hold back the juicy stuff in order to make people love her more.
More Top-Rated rubbish from the democrat party members at the NYT and their progressive readers. Yes, Hillary is Mother Theresa compared to the EVIL republicans- Ted Cruz is INSANE and nobody likes him, Rubio is a wannabe Latino who sweats a lot, another spawn of the Bush devil, and Trump is crazy racist evil mean stupid dumb racist bad obnoxious misogynist racist and EVIL!!!! Vote for democrats always- even if they are in prison when the vote comes around!!!!!!!
Chickelit
I was being satiric. I first gave her sympathy for the "idiotic" comment and referred to "Chinatown."
Only an idiot would send an email to someone calling them an idiot.
To that top comment person:
Ya'll hang onto that Hillary anchor real tight, now. You'll even convince yourself that water isn't wet if you 'believe' hard enough.
She keeps telling you she loves you, but what did you see her do to people who stood between her and her power? I can read a long-ass list of names of women that have felt Big Dog's fingerprints on 'em that aren't exactly feeling the feminist solidarity here. Prior results are no guarantee of future behavior, but that's the way I'd bet.
Even a stopped clock... Go get 'em Doud!
Top-rated? They must like opposition for the sake of it over there. You should see the top-rated comments bashing every NYT puff-piece on how great the editors think Hillary is. Thousands of likes. Their readership is absolutely done with Hillary - sick and tired of her, the infinite internal debates and conflicts of Mo-Do's column's top-rated Jewish commenter notwithstanding.
Ann Althouse said...
If this stuff is out there, why hasn't Jeb, with all his money, thrown it at us?
Because they're hoping Trump will sink Cruz. Glenn Reynolds is right when he says the GOPe hates Trump, but fears Cruz.
Ron Winkleheimer said... [hush][hide comment]
I'd be statistically shocked if Trump didn't employ or have subs who use illegals working at his hotels, golf courses or construction sites. Epic hypocrite.
Of course he is. Just like everyone else in construction, hotels, and golf courses, and restaurants, and farms, and chicken processing plants, and just about every business and industry in the U.S.
Yep, thousands of employess, each presenting legitimate looking ss cards and drivers licenses.Yet, the contractor or business owner magically is supposed o weed out the illegals.
What proof of citizenship are you required to offer when seeking employment? None? Yeah, I thought so.
What proof of citizenship are you required to offer when seeking employment? None? Yeah, I thought so.
If Winkleheimer is an academic (and I suspect he is), that is one the most protected, closed-shop work forces out there. Thus the massive disconnect.
The NYT commenter does not necessarily argue that Dowd is incorrect, just that she is too repetitive.
But some things are so important that they require repeating. Keep it up, Mo.
I have little idea how South Carolina is going to vote in the Republican primary. But remember that there has been a big influx of population here over the last decade. Most are not evangelicals and the press overplays the lock step of the evangelicals anyway. Many of the newbies work in the factories at Boeing, BMW etc and are blue collar in attitude at least. As is most of the state. The dislike of Yankees is pretty much a myth and a memory. But South Carolinians don't like people who act like they are smarter than everyone else. I think this is going to be a negative factor for Rubio and Cruz. You would think that it would then be negative for Trump, but Trump is genuine enough to perhaps escape it. He's a rich Ivy League guy who does not talk like an Ivy Leaguer.
I still don't know who I am going to vote for. And in that I am far from alone, I think.
@Intersting, chickelit:Yep, thousands of employess, each presenting legitimate looking ss cards and drivers licenses. Yet, the contractor or business owner magically is supposed o weed out the illegals.
Civil rights law is interpreted so that it is effectively illegal for an employer to question the documents presented by a prospective employee. If you refuse to hire based on fake-looking documents, then you will be sued under Title VII and have to prove that you treated all employees in exactly the same way without discriminating against people who seem to be foreign.
However, if you accept the documents as valid, you are immune from that lawsuit.
The law has been deliberately made unenforceable. That is why employers are almost never prosecuted for hiring illegals--it is perfectly legal to hire them, provided they presented some sort of document, even fake ones, and illegal to refuse to hire them.
If Winkleheimer is an academic (and I suspect he is), that is one the most protected, closed-shop work forces out there. Thus the massive disconnect.
Actually, I'm an IT contractor who worries about H1-B visa holders and outsourcing taking my job. And, in fact, have had to train replacements that were actually located in India using teleconferencing/etc.Fortunately, I have been able to get further work each time that happened. And I have friends that had to go to India for 30 days to train their replacements or not get a promised severance package.
And I don't understand what it is that I don't get.
When I apply for work (back when it was unskilled construction labor) and now as well I have to provide an ID and social security number and employers are supposed to check with the feds to see if that social security number is legit and the person presenting it is permitted to work in the U.S.
So while an employer can't look at a drivers license and say that it looks phony to them, they are required to check with the feds, these days using e-verify.
https://www.uscis.gov/e-verify/what-e-verify
E-Verify is an Internet-based system that compares information from an employee's Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, to data from U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration records to confirm employment eligibility.
Now anyone can look around and see that employers aren't doing this, at least a lot of them aren't. So it would seem to me that if the government wanted to prosecute employers they could, but they don't do so because the powers that be in DC don't want to.
The Democrat party wants the voters and everyone that benefits from cheap labor (donor class of the Republican party) don't want to stop illegal immigration.
I'm for controlling immigration, especially illegal, I'm just pointing out the situation as it currently is. I swear, you act like you want to drive away allies because they lack "sufficient revolutionary zeal."
@Ron Winkelheimer:employers are supposed to check with the feds to see if that social security number is legit and the person presenting it is permitted to work in the U.S.
And if they say the SSN is not legit, your only option that avoids a discrimination lawsuit is to ask the employee to sort it out with SSN.
You can only use E-Verify on an employee that you have already hired.
Even with E-Verify, you cannot fire the employee for his documents not checking out. All you can do is notify the employee of the result. If the employee chooses not to contest the notice, then you are not obligated to fire the employee.
You may not terminate, suspend, delay training, withhold pay, lower pay or take any other adverse action against an employee based on the employee’s decision to contest an SSA TNC or while his or her case is still pending with SSA.
If you do fire the employee, you have to prove you have not committed national origin discrimination, that you treated all employees in the same situation in the same way. Good luck with that, since disparate impact is prima facie evidence of discrimination, and if you didn't have any Americans present fake documents, then you have disparate impact.
. So it would seem to me that if the government wanted to prosecute employers they could, but they don't do so because the powers that be in DC don't want to.
Almost true. The law is intended to be unenforceable. E-Verify is a kabuki dance designed to preserve the status quo.
Ron Winkleheimer: From E-Verify's manual, what can happen when the documents don't match up. In no event is an employer required to fire a hired illegal. The illegal must be hired before you can even check them in E-Verify.
►The employee continues to work for the employer after receiving a Final Nonconfirmation result.
E-Verify cannot verify that this employee is authorized to work in the United States. The employee had contested the tentative nonconfirmation (TNC), but was unable to resolve it. The employer chooses to exercise its legal right to allow the employee to continue to work.
►The employee continues to work for the employer after receiving a No Show result.
E-Verify cannot verify that this employee is authorized to work in the United States. The employee had contested the tentative nonconfirmation (TNC), but did not take action to resolve it. The employer chooses to exercise its legal right to allow the employee to continue to work.
►The employee continues to work for the employer after choosing not to contest a Tentative Nonconfirmation.
E-Verify cannot verify that this employee is authorized to work in the United States. The employee chose not to contest the tentative nonconfirmation. The employer chooses to exercise its legal right to allow the employee to continue to work.
E-Verify is a sham. You cannot use it to refuse to hire illegals. The law allows you to continue to employ illegals even after Final Nonconfirmation in E-Verify.
E-Verify is a sham. You cannot use it to refuse to hire illegals. The law allows you to continue to employ illegals even after Final Nonconfirmation in E-Verify.
I must admit, I was not aware that things had gotten that bad.
And yet the GOPe continues to be mystified as to why someone who is promising to stop illegal immigration and allow actual American citizens to get decently compensated work instead of becoming part of a permanent unemployed underclass is doing so well.
"It is a puzzlement," they say.
E-Verify is a sham. You cannot use it to refuse to hire illegals. The law allows you to continue to employ illegals even after Final Nonconfirmation in E-Verify.
By the way, this gives Trump an out on hiring illegals if he needs one. He can just say he was obeying the law and couldn't refuse to hire them nor could he fire them without being accused of discrimination.
Obviously, he can say, we need to change the law. And build a fence.
@Winkleheimer:e. He can just say he was obeying the law and couldn't refuse to hire them nor could he fire them without being accused of discrimination.
Every HR department in the country already knows this. The public does not know it.
Came up in Meg Whitman's run for governor of California. She had hired an illegal nanny. The law did not allow her to do anything else, until the nanny told Whitman she was illegal.
Every HR department in the country already knows this. The public does not know it.
Came up in Meg Whitman's run for governor of California. She had hired an illegal nanny. The law did not allow her to do anything else, until the nanny told Whitman she was illegal.
Yeah, but the fact that illegal immigration is out of control and the PTB want it that way is kind of Trump's thing. If he tells people that the current law makes it impossible to not hire illegal immigrants and that we need to change it so that that is no longer the case, then people who oppose illegal immigration have even more of a reason to vote for him.
You seem to think that if people knew he hired illegals then there would be a backlash against him. I don't think that at all. Trump is a developer, people know that illegals are working at construction sites. The people who are for Trump most likely either have friends or family that work in construction or actually do so themselves.
I am reminded of the Law and Order episode so incredibly stupid and leftist that I stopped watching the show. A New York developer kills a woman because she had discovered he was hiring illegal immigrants and was afraid she was going to reveal it to the public.
@RON:You seem to think that if people knew he hired illegals then there would be a backlash against him.
You have me confused with someone else... but the backlash has happened to people who are not Trump.
And I have heard, many many times, people saying that the employers who hire illegals ought to be punished and that would stop illegal immigration, and these people are always unaware that the employers are actually following the law.
Visual representation of Hillary's problem.
Regarding MoDo and the Clintons....in DC the rumor was that she and Bill...
As for the 'top rated commenter', has anyone considered that in real life they are a post-menopausal woman? Pretty much the only constituency that Hillary! has left...
Post a Comment