Indeed, particularly: "He conceded that getting a coalition together is harder now, because the evidence about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is "a little fuzzier" than was his evident invasion of Kuwait. But 41 still thinks coalitions work: "The more pressure there is, the more chance this matter will be resolved in a peaceful manner." (Maybe he should enter the Democratic primary.) Its amazing. I have never had a President be SO far from doing things that represent me, not even Reagan....and that is the scariest thing of all.
MoDo still upset at the "Bushies"? If Bush doesn't win another term she'll have absolutely nothing to write about - partisan hack that she is. Friedman is the only person worth paying attention to on the NYT Op/Ed page.
Wrong on all counts. Dowd isn't upset, she obviously loves doing what she does and Bush makes for easy pickings. As for calling her partisan, I distinctly remember her ripping Clinton to shreds in much the same way as this. And she writes too well to be called a hack.
MoDo is heavy on style, low on substance and a grasp for politics. She goes to Saudi Arabia and re-hashes the obvious - "ooh! so women really CAN'T drive in S.A., Maureen. you don't say? you flew 8,000 miles to tell us that?" one of the many unflattering critiques of MoDo and her "style": http://www.washingtonian.com/people/dowd.html
I agree. Her stuff is cute to read once in a while, but I can't believe anyone takes her seriously. She's unbelievably shallow. But CP, she rips everyone. I'm sorry your memory only goes back 2 years, but she ripped on the Dems for years, when they were in the White House.
1. I think Dowd is good for an occasional snicker, but not much beyond that. And she does do well enough that some of her nastier turns of phrase register in the public discourse. You don't like her it's no skin off my nose, but your claim that she's partisan is crap. 2. The bit you link to is a marvel of pot/kettle-ism. Obviously your concerns over lack of substance don't extend to people who are saying what you want to hear. Your resorting to an ad femina attack rather than addressing what she says in the column linked in the thread starter is much the same thing too, incidentally.
It's an opinion column, a well written one with facts scattered here and there used for ones own means, but an opinion column nonetheless. If any of us, and by "us" I mean BS politicians (the whole BS double entente thing always makes me smile) had enough clout we might be able to get our names and our opinion in a column in a major publication as well. Take two asprin with a grain of salt and call me in the morning.
I know she ripped on Clinton too when he was deserving of it. But even when this Khalid Sheik Mohammad scumbag was picked up in an effective joint effort by the CIA, FBI and Pakistan, you'll never hear Maureen give credit where credit is due. She simply ignores "good" news and harps on the bad. Having her write fluff pieces a couple of times a week for the "paper of record" shows where the Times op-ed has headed the past few years. She really belongs on Page Six.