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.