Sunday, September 19, 2010

Maureen Dowd's Irrational Rationality

Is Maureen Dowd attacking Christine O'Donnell in her latest column or Barack Obama?  It's hard to tell.  Both?  Probably.  She begins with one thesis and ends with another and I completely miss the rationale that ties them together.  Did she write two columns and a poltergeist in her computer blended them?  I don't know.  She tries to tie it together but it just doesn't work.

She begins clearly enough mocking Christine O'Donnell and her "Palin Mini-Me" look, (because that's what matters so much about politicians, right?  Their looks?) then picks up the witchcraft and Tolkein threads that have moved through the blogs this week. 

This is the line where Dowd attempts to ties her two threads together...

She’s also smart to think of politics in terms of passion and myth — two elements Barack Obama was able to summon during his campaign that are sorely missing from his presidency.

 ...because now she's mentioned Barack Obama and now she can spend the rest of her column about him without another word on O'Donnell (which isn't necessarily a bad thing.)

The last third of  Dowd's column deals with Obama's lack of passion and empathy.  She spends two thirds of her column mocking O'Donnell's passion yet then bemoans Obama's lack of it.  Which way do you want to go, Maureen?

This is actually the closing line which Dowd seems to believe ties it together:

The insane have achieved political respectability while the sane act too good for it all. The irrational celebrate while the rational act bored and above-it-all.

Is she calling O'Donnell "insane" or just people with passion?

If this is best high dollar talent the New York Times can offer, there's hope for us all when it comes to making the big bucks.

(H/T:  Memeorandum)


Fenway_Nation said...

I view Dowd as being as being about as 'useful' to conservatives as Bill Maher, Eugene Robinson, Jeanine Garafalo and other frothy, unhinged lefties and their unrelenting snide, unvarnished contempt for conservatives and the red states.

Simly valuable as 'bulletein board' materiel and not much else.

Doug Thomson said...

thanks .. finally someone points out that Maureen Dowd is a lightweight! Can't the Times find anyone better than MD ?

Laurence L. said...

This person represents the main reason why NYT has had to be bailed out by 'Mexico Slim' with $250 million and more.

She writes and acts like a 3 year old who needs a time out. This article is so all over the place it is darn hard to follow; your review is very kind. You didn't hit the high(low)points---I was drop jawed to hear another femlib on Hannity's TV show (of all places!) the other night make the same criticism of O'donnell for a certain stance on shall we say, "personal sexuality"...truly hitting below the belt! If that and comments a candidate for senate made 7+ years ago is all she can muster, she must be really scared. Those people don't want to play that kind of hardball, they have too many quotables of there own kind that can be brought up.

NYT will likely stop printing soon, as it is hemorraging readers and advertisers. I haven't read it in over 10 years (although I have a sibling who still finds it interesting and keeps sending me articles in my inbox), and Maureen Dowd is just a rat on a sinking ship.

Sarah said...

Ugh, she gives women everywhere a bad name.

Anonymous said...

This "reporter" is just about as out of reality as the things she writes about. She is biased and unable to tie two ideas together in a coherent commentary. She dare not call herself a reporter. She is a biased distributer of uninformed information and deserves to be relegated to a weekly newsletter in someplace like maybe Alaska!