By MAUREEN DOWD
Seriously, do you think the NYT editorial staff is getting sick of this? Dowd and Frank Rich just keep printing the same anti-Hillary crap week after week. This, I am sure, is in no small part why Krugman keeps printing anti-Obama screeds week after week. I still contend that Nicholas Kristof wants to kick all their asses.
Channeling her inner Cheney, Hillary Clinton dropped a fear bomb, as Michelle Obama might call it, implying in a new ad that if her opponent is elected, your angelic, innocent, sleeping children could die in a terrorist attack.
It’s always good journalism to put the name Cheney next to Hillary Clinton’s. Like you told us last week, the media has been bending over backwards to help Hillary, so you best make sure you balance it out. Also “fear bomb” is what Michelle Obama might call it? I guess… but it’s also what Tim Robbins might call it or the ghost of Dr. Seuss, why Michelle Obama? Also, it is explicitly what you, Maureen Dowd has called it, why not take credit for your particular brand of journalism?
Only she has the wise head to go nuclear, should that Strangelovian phone call from a power-mad Putin come into the White House at 3 a.m. Her ad shows how composed she would be at the dread moment when she picks up the phone. Her nuke look is feminine, in a tailored camel-colored jacket and gold necklace, yet serious, in Tina Fey black reading glasses.
Seriously, if you ever ever claim to be a feminist ever I again… I swear… Also just to note, I do appreciate that Tina Fey has gone pop culture enough to be a Dowd reference. That makes me happy.
It’s hard to discern the message of the ad. The scariest thing is not the persistently ringing phone but an Andrea Yates-looking mother who’s creeping up on the sleeping babes in the dark. The point can’t be that Hillary is superior to Obama in international crisis management, because she’s done no more of it than he has. She’s only done domestic crisis management, cleaning up after Frisky Bill.
Good lord, could this be the worst paragraph since the deleted one at the end of The Great Gatsby where Fitzgerald was about to reveal that Nick Carraway was a ghost the whole time. “It’s hard to discern the message of the ad”? There are 3 year old children who have been raised by wolves, maybe even these wolves, who could discern the meaning of this ad. Dowd must have severe psychological issues to be more afraid of the mother than the phone in this ad. I mean, she just compared a mother who checked in on her kids to a woman who drowned five of her kids in a bathtub. This isn’t even yellow journalism, it’s kind of a vomitous goldenrod. Next she asserts that the point of the ad cannot be the obvious point of the ad because of blanket assertion that has no truth to it whatsoever.
Is the message that Hillary is Ready on Night One? That she won’t have to waste any time if she’s rousted out of bed in the wee hours, because she’s wearing a pantsuit under her pantsuit? (Or is it just, as Wesley Clark said during an appearance with her in
Alright, I am give Maureen a point here, the “pantsuit under her pantsuit” line made me chuckle. But still the score is AOTG: 3478239085798245980241, Maureen: 2.
It’s rather Mommie Dearest for the first serious female contender to try to give the kiddies nightmares. How maternal is that? But since her nightmare is losing, she doesn’t mind scaring the pj’s off of little Jimmy and Johnny.
There is absolutely no reason to refer to the movie Mommie Dearest here (one of the creepiest movies ever).
Obambi-No-More briskly dismissed Hillary’s attempt to cast him as a global ingénue. “Senator
There is no greater sign that Maureen is completely in the tank for Obama than calling him “Obambi-No-More”. It’s like he’s graduated in her mind, and Maureen is not one to give up a nickname. Also, am I the only one who thinks this “picked up the phone and gave the wrong answer” concept is a terrible mixed metaphor?
(In fact, there is no red phone in the Oval Office, but maybe Obama will redecorate. He wants to put in a hoops court.)
On “Nightline” last week, Hillary once more wallowed in gender inequities, asserting that it’s harder for her to run than her opponent — a black man with an exotic name that most Americans hadn’t even heard a year ago.
“Every so often I just wish that it were a little more of an even playing field,” she said, “but, you know, I play on whatever field is out there.”
This has nothing to do with gender and race, nothing. It has to do with the utterly uneven treatment of both candidates by the press. I don’t see how you are unaware of this Maureen, you are practically Exhibit A.
Is that how she would deal with dictators, by playing the refs and going before the U.N. to demand: “How come you’re not asking Ahmadinejad these questions first?”
What weird scenario have you just cooked up? When Al Gore complained about GWB stealing the election was this a weakness? Would Maureen have written, “Is this how Al Gore will deal with dictators? Complaining about fairness?” These are not analogous and it is perfectly reasonable to try and get a fair shake when running for office.
Tangled in her own victimhood, she snipped to Cynthia McFadden that Obama had written in his book that “he’s a blank screen and people of widely different views project what they want to believe onto him.” She said voters were projecting their hopes onto that blank screen even though “he just hasn’t been around long enough.”
In the next breath, asked about the women who feel sorry for her, she said: “I think a lot of women project their own feelings and their lives on to me, and they see how hard this is. It’s hard. It’s hard being a woman out there.”
So projection is bad with Obama but good with her?
Just because both sentences use the word projection doesn’t mean they are about the same thing. I mean god, in one case it was an expression about perception of a person, the other was about sympathy. This is seriously lame.
On a conference call Friday with Hillary’s ever-more-hysterical male strategists, Slate’s John Dickerson asked exactly when she had been tested in a foreign policy crisis. After a silence long enough to knit a sweater in, as the Web site The Hotline put it, Mark Penn cited “her work on the Armed Services Committee.”
Hillary’s boys pout that the press should find some dirt on Obama before time runs out. Their once fearsome campaign is now reduced to whining that Obama did not hold any substantive hearings of his Subcommittee on European Affairs. What’s next? Bitterly complaining that he missed a quorum call?
He didn’t hold any hearings on
Hillary keeps trying to dismiss Obama’s appeal as emotional, something that can be overcome with enough mental discipline. But behind that ethereal presence he’s a wonky lawyer, just like Hillary. He reads The Times and Philip Roth and talks about the fine points of Medicare Part B in a way W. never could have when he first ran for president. (Or now.)
There’s an awesome bar… GWB.
Hillary’s visceral attacks will not work. And the Republicans’ visceral attacks on the Obamas’ patriotism, and their usual attempt to make the Democrat seem foreign (Hussein, Hussein, Hussein!), may not have the same traction.
The president took the country to war on his gut, exploited our fears and played the patriotism card to advance his political agenda.
This time, Americans may prefer cerebral arguments to visceral ones. What a refreshing change reality would be.
It would be a refreshing change, of course it’s the opposite of what your advocating for. You’ve chosen the candidate of visceral arguments over the candidate of cerebral arguments. Cherry picking quotes and moments and flatout lying isn’t going to change that.