Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Saturday, February 23, 2019

Maureen Dowd rang in 2016 with yet another scathing column about Hillary Clinton. It’s the latest in a long line of critical pieces aimed at the Democratic frontrunner by the New York Times columnist, whose vitriol for Clinton has only increased in the last year-and-a-half, according to a new study from Media Matters for America. The politically progressive media watchdog group said that Dowd’s tone had become solely critical towards Clinton since a similar study it completed last year.

The study was performed as a follow up to its 2014 study, which concluded that nearly 75 percent of the columns Dowd wrote about Clinton had a negative opinion of her. The study involved analysis of 195 columns that contained significant mentions of Clinton over a 23-year period. The 17 columns that Dowd has written about Clinton since that study have been all entirely negative.

In her latest column, ‘Leo, Hillary and Their Bears,’ Dowd tied in pop culture with her criticism of Clinton, who was described as akin to Hugh Glass, the 1820s-era frontiersman protagonist of Leonardo DiCaprio’s latest movie, The Revenant. She wrote, “And finally, of course, there’s the politician most like Glass in her willingness to crawl through glass, flip her positions and persona, and even bear up under a mauling by a merciless, manic bear to reach that goal most yearned for. In Hillary Clinton’s grimly relentless trudge toward the White House, the part of the bear is played by Donald Trump.”

If Trump is Clinton’s indomitable enemy, lobbing lewd ad hominem attacks at her, it seems he has a comrade-in-arms in Dowd, who shares his pastime of discussing “the Clintons’ tangled conjugal life.” Dowd wrote that Trump started targeting her personal life because he can’t emasculate a woman quite as easily as he has emasculated his male rivals in the Republican race (although that wouldn’t stop him from insulting Carly Fiorina’s appearance).

Dowd’s latest stab at Clinton, likening her to a DiCaprio character, is nothing new really. In the past, she has compared Clinton to Elsa from the Disney movie Frozen: “Those close to them think that the queen of Hillaryland and the Snow Queen from Disney’s Frozen have special magical powers, but worry about whether they can control those powers, show their humanity and stir real warmth in the public heart,” she wrote in June 2014.

The columnist’s plainly personal attacks are never particularly subtle. She has insinuated that Clinton is something of a vampire, writing in 2004 that “nothing but a wooden stake would stop” Clinton’s plans for a presidential run in 2008. Dowd claimed that the former secretary of state’s Machiavellian tendencies even go all the way back to her commencement speech at Wellesley University in 1969. When Clinton was in the Senate, Dowd described her as “a manly girl” who “has been so cautious and opportunistic about weighing in on everything from Schiavo to Alito and Iraq.”

The accusation that Clinton has been overly cautious or inconsistent on a multitude of topics, flip-flopping according to what is expedient, is not an unfounded one. But any criticism along these lines loses much of it authority when its wedded to needlessly spiteful, personal attacks.

Photo: U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton addresses supporters at the Electric Park Ballroom in Waterloo, Iowa January 11, 2016. REUTERS/Aaron P. Bernstein

  • Share this on Google+0
  • Share this on Linkedin0
  • Share this on Reddit0
  • Print this page
  • 93

184 responses to “Maureen Dowd’s Decades-Long Campaign Against Hillary Clinton Gets Even Nastier”

  1. Eleanore Whitaker says:

    When your party is in the toilet, you send out your attack dogs to find any woman you can to slash and burn Hillary…your most hated, most fearsome opponent.

    The Republicans fool no one. Women like Maureen Dowd represent the worst of the emotionally dependent females in this country. Her legacy has been to fight abortion, fight contraception and anything else that would help OTHER women to be her equal.

    Women like Dowd can’t stand the idea that any woman can or IS more successful than her, especially if the woman in question did it all on her own. Dowd can pass a bowel movement with her Big Daddies’ approval.

  2. Did Maureen not get a job she wanted with one of the Clintons like that X-friend of theirs that likes to suck toes and is always on fox?

  3. I of John says:

    Dowd has negative credibilty. She should give up journalism and take up yoga or something to get the chip off her shoulder.

  4. latebloomingrandma says:

    I never read any of her columns, but she sounds a little like Ann Coulter.

  5. Just another indian says:

    The New York Times has a pretty grim track record of late on its reporting of Hillary Clinton and her history. It underlines the fact that ALL media should be consumed with a very large grain of salt. In a landscape where nothing is “True,” it is so much easier for the likes of Donald Trump to gain traction. It’s good to have media watchdog groups to help, but again it doesn’t help to have the partisan ‘left-leaning’ in front of the Media Matters for America. Is there any impartial forum for truth in the media?

    • lorilaj82 says:

      That is exactly what Media Matters stands for, truth in Media, and the truth is, our Media does not serve us but instead their corporate owners. Anytime anyone or any entity calls them out they are then labeled liberal, progressive leaning as if any one of those are bad things for this country and the people in it. So in today’s climate you just have to call a spade a spade which I believe Media Matters does no matter what the topic or who responsible for the content, they stand for truth in Media and they can’t help that entities that are called out the most are also the most impartial. It does not change what they stand for.

      • Just another indian says:

        That was my impression, too, and thanks for stating the case so well. I did not mean to cast aspersions on Media Matters but on the article’s use of the ‘left-leaning’ phrase. My last question indeed casts a jaundiced eye on the organization. My apologies to them. May they keep up the good work.

  6. LoboVeritas says:

    vote hillary, what are you stupid boy!

  7. Rusty Inman says:

    There is a reason why the NYT started limiting Mo to one column per week and moved her over to the magazine (I think she’s had one—two at the most—articles published there in the past 18 months). People are weary of her. Weary of her self-loathing attitude. Weary of her constant attacks on those she simply doesn’t like. Weary of her writing, which seems intended to either show off her vocabulary or show off her facility with a thesaurus. Weary of her wearisome psycho-babble diagnoses—she might do well to see a therapist to get a better understanding of her need to posit an insurable diagnosis on everyone she despises. Just weary of Mo.

    The Times apparently decided that a lot of us didn’t want no mo Mo. We didn’t.

    • Jinmichigan says:

      Why she is still employed is the real question.

    • alphaa10 says:

      Both a Pulitzer finalist and Pulitzer winner, Dowd has been a regular writer for the Sunday edition, typically the most widely-read edition of the Times. And a frequent contributor to the Times Opinion section, one who continues to make friends and enemies for speaking truth to power and celebrity.

      But “self-loathing?” “Psychobabble?” Speaking of Dowd, you sound like a Republican from the Rush Limbaugh show, managing to demonstrate only you are sensitive to, and weary of Dowd’s criticism of Hillary Clinton.

      Now, a counterpoint– people want more of the same critical commentary, not less, and precisely because every public figure sends gales of publicity through a content-hungry media every day. That same non-issue oriented, attack-dog, self-promotional discourse is what truly wearies most Americans because it is not dialogue, and seldom factual and true to context. But in finding reliable guides to criticism, people would do well to fact-check their critics– all of them.

      In any case, and through the history of punditry, the really effective, probing columnists never bow and scrape before celebrity, and regularly offend the powers-that-be. In that much, Dowd should not surprise us.

      • Rusty Inman says:

        I have just now seen your comment, a month after it was written. That Dowd won a Pulitzer—and it was well-deserved—is meaningless per this conversation. Meaningless. And she is a weekly contributor to the op-ed pages, having been cut back from twice-weekly. “Speaking truth to power and celebrity????” Maureen Dowd???? Let me stop laughing and catch my breath.

        Yes, “self-loathing.” And, yes, “psychobabble.” Both of those characterizations being commonly ascribed to her. Though you are correct that I am weary of her ceaseless eviscerations of Hillary Clinton. If you read the comments to in the Times to one of her laparotomies of Ms. Clinton, you would find that I am not alone in that, either.

        Your counterpoint is hilarious. Dowd’s unending hostility to anything Hillary took on attack-dog status a long time ago. Indeed, she has been given a public scolding by the Times public editor for taking things too far too often. And, again, there is a reason why she only writes one op-ed a week and why she seldom has anything published in the magazine.

        Offending the powers-that-be is quite fine with me. But her personal—seldom policy-oriented—attacks on Ms. Clinton make Mo offensive. To many of us.
        Hence, save your lecture for someone else who is willing to carry water for Ms. Dowd.

        • alphaa10 says:

          Yes, by all means, recover your breath– hypoxia already has addled your attempt at argument. “Meaningless” was actually what came to mind at reading your own comment, applied to the distinction without a difference between Dowd once weekly and twice weekly.

          If Dowd were scolded by the New York Times public editor, that is hardly the embarrassment you might be tempted to claim. For those who understand, the public editor is a defensive nod by the Times to Propriety, surely also honored by the Times more in breach than observance. In fact, to be admonished for anything by the PE can be a badge of honor, since the public editor frequently adopts a contorted rationale to seem impartial when no impartiality ever was intended.

          Yes, every organization has its enforcers, but when the Times needed an internal regulator over issues far more important than the alleged impropriety of criticizing Hillary Clinton, such as Cheney-style psychobabble about Saddam Hussein’s clear-and-present danger to the United States (all patiently dictated to Times reporter Judith Miller), readers were rapt and Miller was elevated immediately into sainthood with editors.

          No, for really significant, telling criticism, give us risk of impropriety, any day. Not every offensive comment is completely incorrect, nor every plaudit fully deserved. There is almost always a subchannel of context that may be even more revealing. And that, after all, is why so many read Dowd with interest.

  8. Otto Greif says:

    Dowd knows the true nature of the Clintons.

  9. Louis Allen says:

    Typically, no mention at all of whether Dowd’s allegations about Hillary are true or not. The important fact is that Dowd dared to confront her.
    Dowd, how dare you??!!

    • Jinmichigan says:

      Was that the point of the article? Don’t think so.

    • Mr Corrections says:

      OK I’ll help: After exhaustive research, I have determined that Hillary Clinton is not Elsa from Frozen, nor any other character from a work of fiction.

    • MVH1 says:

      Lots of people confront Hillary. In fact, to some of us it would seem there’s never been a time when she hasn’t been confronted so Dowd is guilty of piling on and being vengeful. Not much more and who cares if she’s telling the truth or not. Is there anything at all about Hillary or Bill that we haven’t heard forever and a day? Will it ever be otherwise?

    • Bob Eddy says:

      Typically, no mention that in twenty five years of right wing scrutiny and right wing blathering they have come up with no proof of any of the multitudes of accusations.

      • MVH1 says:

        Because if they had, of the extreme level of crime of which they’re accused, someone would be in jail by now. There haven’t even been any charges filed, ever.

      • itsfun says:

        over 1600 classified emails and 7 secret emails has been proven. She denies telling the families of the Benghazi victims that a video caused the problem and the video producer would be arrested, but every family says she did tell them that. She said she was dodging bullets in Bosnia. How many more lies has she told us.

        • Mr Corrections says:

          Absolutely none of that is true.

          • itsfun says:

            Every word of what I posted is true.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            None of it is. They had multiple investigations of this, in case you missed them – Clinton was found to have done nothing wrong, unlike the Republicans who stripped State Dept. security.

            I hope that helps!

          • itsfun says:

            Lying to the families was not a crime. Her emails are still under investigation. So far 1608 have been found to be “confidential” and 7 have been found to be “secret”

          • Mr Corrections says:

            She lied to nobody. The total amount of classified information in her emails: 0. Stop believing idiotic conspiracy theories.

          • itsfun says:

            You are living in fantasy land.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            Nah. You’re living in conspiracy theory land. The X-Files was not a documentary.

          • MVH1 says:

            You finally got it right. The emails are being investigated by that idiot Trey Gowdy and his dishonest band of investigators who tried to suppress parts of statements and information so as to cast Hillary is a bad light even though they knew the truth. It’s ridiculous and she is NOT under criminal investigation, no matter how much you want her to be.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            The investigation has concluded, as far as I know. Nothing was found.

          • MVH1 says:

            They actually haven’t officially concluded it yet. Gowdy is way under cover. He just endorsed one of the contenders last week. It’s so important, I can’t even remember which one. It should be concluded. I wonder how much of a whimper they will announce it with when they finally do. This is one of those situations where they were simply outclassed by Hillary. It’s exactly what you’d want in a leader the way she handled that day.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            Oh, not the pretend investigation – the DOJ one.

          • MVH1 says:

            LOL. I don’t know anything about that one. I do know about the pretend one.

          • itsfun says:

            The FBI is investigating her, don’t you watch the news or read a newspaper?

          • MVH1 says:

            You better check again, Pardner.

          • MVH1 says:

            It’s just simply not. That doesn’t mean you don’t believe it but nobody else who’s sane does. You are blinded by hate. Sorry the facts aren’t what you want them to be.

        • Bee Nice says:

          How many times have you “lied” about a situation? You cannot name one person on earth over the age of 4 who has not lied at least once. Most people lie a lot more than that. Give it up. Stop casting stones.

          • itsfun says:

            This isn’t a school yard spat. This is the SOS of the United States lying to protect her image and not caring how much she hurt the families of the victims. This is a person trying to President of the United States. How can you or anyone believe a word she says anymore. She lied about Benghazi, she lied about dodging bullets in Bosnia just to make herself look good. She lied about have classified US documents on her personal unsecured email server. Now even Top Secret documents have been discovered that were on her server. One document is even her telling her employee to just removed the classification and send a certain document anyway. The FBI is investigating her now. They don’t just investigate shop lifting, this is a criminal investigation. Words mean something and character means something. I will never stop reporting the truth of what she has done.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            She didn’t lie about anything.

            I hope that helps!

          • MVH1 says:

            What a load of garbage. You don’t know anything about why she did this or that. Not anything.

        • MVH1 says:

          So if she did tell the families that, so what? It matters not one whit what she might have believed caused it at one time. Does it have to be that one reason or could it be caused by any other of a few things that were happening simultaneously in that very, very unstable part of the world? Things change rapidly over a period of several days in many of these situations. What they thought the cause was first may have changed as more information trickled in. Besides, you don’t have a clue what she told them I’m quite sure. And no one except the fringe nuts has said what you’ve said.

          • itsfun says:

            I have seen the interviews of the families. If you call these people fringe nuts because they didn’t like the SOS lying to them about how their loved ones lost their lives in service to our country, then you are completely without feelings or compassion. for these people. We are talking about someone that wants to be the leader of this great country and you approve of her lying to every citizen. Lets just teach all of our children its okay to lie and make up stories.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            So because the families were traumatised (something something) it was definitely a conspiracy 9/11 George Soros.

          • itsfun says:

            Would you want to be lied to if you were put into that type of situation? Word mean something, and we must be able to believe what the President of the US says.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            Good thing nobody lied, then.

          • MVH1 says:

            And words change as information is gathered. What’s wrong with you? I mean really.

          • MVH1 says:

            “I have seen”, okay, Carly, is this like one of those kicking, screaming, thrashing stories? I guess you can’t read or comprehend or something along those lines. You’re just stuck on stupid, as the great General Russell Honore said once not so long ago. Lying and revising the story after more facts come to light are not the same thing, dunce. Your hatred is showing and it’s making you say some really really dumb things. Gather your thoughts, think the situation through, maybe take a cold shower but you really ought to consider how you damage your own authority.

          • itsfun says:

            Every word I have posted is true and you know it. You just are ignoring the truth because you want to keep your head in the sand and just vote for who the left tells you to. The families of the victims have done several interviews pointing out what she told them. Videos have been show of her getting off the plane in Bosnia with no problems. Yet she tried to make us believe she was dodging bullets. You just keep believing everything she tells you to instead of doing any research at all.

          • MVH1 says:

            You have taken words that are true, cut them into separate words, stuck them all in a box, shook the box and threw all those words on the table and started picking them up one by one and arranging them in a nonsensical fashion. You really ought to catch up with what’s been happening the last seven years. Just saying. I know that’s taxing since you hate facts and all.

          • MVH1 says:

            You’re just hopelessly dense and sad.

          • itsfun says:

            You just refuse to believe the truth, or do any research.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            Here’s a tip – the investigation is now over. Go look at their findings.

  10. Eleanore Whitaker says:

    It amuses just how desperate the right wing and Republicans are to get rid of Hillary since the minute she DARED to take on Gingrich and the good ole good ole boys lined up like a military troop to prevent her from saying and doing what she does best: clean up messes Republicans always create with their high flying wheeling and dealing at taxpayer expense.

    How DARE Hillary! How dare any woman…DARE to confront the lies, cheating, deception and outright games of the men of the GOP. How DARE Elizabeth Warren take on Jamie Dimon, JP Morgan’s CEO…whose raisin sized balls couldn’t stand being confronted with his refusal to comply with the very banking regulations his bank and the other 5 Biggie Piggies decided wouldn’t allow them to steal more of our money or beg more bailouts.

    When men and women of the GOP are THIS scared of Clinton and Warren, you know exactly where this comes from: Massive guilt from years of their corruption as the biggest crooks in the USA.

    Do you know ANY crook who likes having facts and truth shoved in their face. Dowd is a paid Republican suckup. She was chosen by the crafty little boys in the back room, because she is a WOMAN…even the No. 1 GOP Come Get Me Girl, Annie Fannie Coulter is backing down because she knows their party and their conservatism is about as popular as Bubonic Plague. That’s always what the court of public opinion does to crooks.

    • MVH1 says:

      Eleanore, if you haven’t, take time to see The Big Short. It’s not perfect but it does its best to explain just how bad the 1% ripoff of the American public is and there’s a flash of a photo of Dimon in the review of the financial disaster. I think you’ll find it really interesting. Take friends who don’t understand the housing crash. It’s beginning again.

    • Larry says:

      Every time Gingrich is mentioned I start laughing LMAO. My memory goes back to last election when he decided to run and told reporters he would get the nomination. “Sure, just look at the polls,” he bragged! It’s like the fool never noticed EVERY contender was at the top of the polls for at least a week!

  11. Mike Puterio says:

    Dowd still cannot accept that she fell hook, line, and sinker for the Whitewater liars years ago. Still in denial, she ups her attacks in true right wing fashion: keep repeating lies so eventually people believe them. She is a true remnant and reminder that journalism is tanking.

    • MVH1 says:

      I can’t read her articles anymore. She is irrational about Obama and Clinton.

      • Larry says:

        Most people are irrational about Obama. He’s half black, that’s good enough for them.

        • MVH1 says:

          Maybe not most since he was elected twice but that very loud, very vocal slice of the far right Republican bunch certainly are, I completely agree. And it is good enough for them and they want to make it good enough for everybody else.

  12. Wayne Thorson says:

    Hillary talks about what she is going to do for the American People. All the Republicans running talk about is how they are going to bomb the Middle East. We have seen enough war.. Let’s give peace chance.

    • alphaa10 says:

      That would be a significant move for Clinton, since she has spent most of her career cheering for attacks on the MidEast, as though concerned she will be seen as a weak player. “Peace” in this campaign may become a relative term, although Sanders has been consistently skeptical of military remedies.

      • Wayne Thorson says:

        Hillary has never said she wanted to bomb the Mid East. You have been listening from to many Republican sites.

        • alphaa10 says:

          Sorry, but I do not frequent them. My source is the AP and Reuters, which have reported Mrs. Clinton’s frequent votes for military action, an expansive military budget and public statements urging aggressive posture toward Iraq, in particular. As for whether she “wanted to bomb the Mid East”, you apparently did not get the word– Clinton voted to endorse G.W. Bush’s plan and its option to use military force against Iraq.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            Uh huh.

          • Wayne Thorson says:

            Liar, you obviously frequent Republican sites. That’s how you got my comment. Yes Hillary wanted to bomb Iraq and so did I. We were lied to by George W. Bush that he had inside information of WMD’s over there. I was referring to the Mid East now.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            Think you replied to the wrong person there.

          • David L. Allison says:

            Wayne, Wayne, Wayne…Iraq is in the middle of the middle east.
            You begin to sound like a diehard Clintonista. Try supporting her strengths in stead of defending her serious weaknesses.

          • Elliot J. Stamler says:

            On this point I share your view. I too supported the invasion of Iraq–I believed the President of the United States, the Vice President, the Secretaries of State and Defense, the Director of Central Intelligence, the National Security Advisor, the Director of Defense Dept. Intelligence, all of whom told us of the imminent danger to us of Hussein..a true monster… who had and would soon use WMDs against us. Sen. Clinton and a MAJORITY IN CONGRESS similarly accepted these declarations. She and all of us did not know that the president and his manipulative vice president lied to us, cherry picked the intelligence, and worst of all, had no coherent, workable plan to secure the peace and exit Iraq leaving it better than we found it.
            I do not however believe, Mr. Thorson, that there is any possibility of peace in the middle east any time in the foreseeable or even distant future and I think it is a pipe dream to believe otherwise. We are in it for the long haul and have been since 9-11; the issue is if we have the kind of presidential leadership that is smart as hell, prudent, listens to all sides of all proposals, and has the ability to convey to and convince the nation of the wisdom of our policy. We didn’t in Bush and frankly we don’t in Obama either although he is much improved over his predecessor. Personally I think Hillary Clinton is the right one…we have to be very tough but also very smart.

          • Larry says:

            I never once supported the Iraq war, and even more interesting, my Republican brother didn’t!

          • Elliot J. Stamler says:

            Larry, my comment was not directed at yours.

          • alphaa10 says:

            Only a coherent, factual argument matters. You lack any facts about my site preferences, and your argument– as you admit– is somewhat inconsistent, at best.

            Here is your original comment (which brought my own)–
            “Hillary has never said she wanted to bomb the Mid East. You have been listening from to many Republican sites.”

            Here is your (modified) retraction–
            “… Yes Hillary wanted to bomb Iraq and so did I…”

          • Bee Nice says:

            She voted to allow him to go to war if the results of the inspection resulted in finding WMD. Bush, however, lied about the results (remember Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame?) And, he had Colin Powell go in front of the world and lie about what Hussein had. While Bush was doing all that he was already sending supplies and soldiers to get ready for the war he was going to have no matter how the vote went.

          • MVH1 says:

            He doesn’t care about the facts. How dare you bring them up? Facts are not allowed in his world.

          • Larry says:

            What does Valerie have to do with this? The last I heard they discovered a Democrat inadvertently exposed her.

          • alphaa10 says:

            “Scooter” Libby a Democrat? Exposed (Plame) inadvertently? Libby had been caught for his indiscreet statements to the conservative columnist Robert Novak.

          • alphaa10 says:

            The AUMF against Iraq (2002) was not contingent on going to war if WMDs were found. Instead, the AUMF held the implicit threat of direct military action if Saddam refused to negotiate to open Iraq fully to inspections.

            Biden, Kerry and Clinton voted for this war proposal of G.W. Bush, although its military payload was festooned with prose about seeking peace. But make no mistake, Bush and Cheney intended their AUMF on Iraq as a final, political sign-off by the senate, not a hindrance to their plan for war.

            The assent of Clinton remains a disappointment for its lack of critical, skeptical resistance to Bush and his intentions. The country was aflame after a steady GOP media campaign promoting escalation, aided and abetted by unskeptical corporate media.

            Yet, it remains the constitutional responsibility of the senate to advise and consent, expecially in matters so weighty as going to war unilaterally, and without a declaration of war. The senate and its members are our last defense against political opportunism, and those who would violate the trust of the American people.

          • MVH1 says:

            I guess you’re not aware, G. W. hasn’t been in office for seven years now. A lot has happened in the last seven years. You might want to catch up.

          • David L. Allison says:

            Bush has been gone for seven years and he is still defending the invasion of Iraq in the media and in speaking performances for right wing crazies all across the country. The destruction of the stability of the middle east by invading Iraq is the seed from which all of the horror in all of the middle east has grown.

          • alphaa10 says:

            The Clinton record on public policy is written during her time in the senate, which votes occurred when she was busy voting “yea” under G.W. Bush– that is, while preparing for her run at the presidency.

            As Secretary of State under Obama since his first days in the White House, Clinton pushed for military aid as a solution to a variety of “small” MidEast crises centered in Libya and in Egypt and in Afghanistan and in Iran and in Saudi Arabia. And not to mention, in Iraq, as well, leaving us the implicit partner in a complex religious war between MidEast neighbors of every description.

          • MVH1 says:

            I’m not reading what you say and I’m finished commenting on this topic.

          • alphaa10 says:

            Then why bother to comment at all, if you cannot deal with factual response?

          • MVH1 says:

            Okay, you’re an ass. I’m done with you. Don’t be like the creep boyfriend who hangs around outside the house looking sick and sicker. Just get the message loud and clear. Go away.

        • David L. Allison says:

          What she says is, against all military and strategic counsel, she wants to establish a no-fly zone over Syria and parts of Iraq even though that would generate conflict directly between the US and Russian military. So she supports a possible world war.

          Clinton has also repeatedly supported Netanyahu’s war-mongering policies advocating bombing Iran which, I believe, is in the middle east. She also advocated using ship based rockets against Libya while in the State Department. So, maybe rockets instead of bombs – “not a dimes worth of difference”

          Hillary is at least a war hawk, if not an actual war-monger of the MIC gang.

          • Bee Nice says:

            That is not true. You have no idea what you are talking about. She knows 1000 times more about the situation over in the Middle East than you will ever know in your lifetime. Who do you think you are?

          • David L. Allison says:

            Those have been and are her positions. I think I am just a guy who pays attention to the news.

          • MVH1 says:

            I think you’re a guy who revamps the news to fit what you want it to have said and nothing more. You couldn’t be more incorrect if you had made up the story on purpose. Oh, right, that’s what you did.

          • David L. Allison says:

            Unlike some folks posting here, I don’t have to make up stories to make a point. it was Clinton who, contrary to the positions of officials in the pentagon, called for a no fly zone over Syria and parts of Iraq even though I would mean confronting Russian fighters. It was Clinton who called Netanyahu, the major proponent for bombing and opponents of negotiating with Iran.

            You can’t make that kind of crazy up. Even you find it difficult to believe.

          • alphaa10 says:

            The public record on Clinton speaks volumes about her hawkish votes and issue statements. As if to make her point, Clinton made every effort to seem “strong” to voters by her assent on most continued, heavy military spending in the region. This is not one who promotes anything but further tensions, and the means to further conflict.

  13. Jinmichigan says:

    The sad thing is the NYT’s give this b*tch a forum.

  14. alphaa10 says:

    With colorful style and never understated value judgment, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd becomes a political force in herself. Dowd’s unmatched history of political caricature is a treasury of laser-sharp portraits of major political figures, most from the standpoint of character. Dowd seems convinced politics issues from the level of personality, carefully focusing on personal traits as both explanation for the past and the likely course a political figure will take. And she is often enough correct to madden her critics.

    As resident curmudgeon at the Times, Dowd has irritated us over the years with her criticism of the Clintons, as another opportunistic, raw-boned political dynasty to match the Bush family. Dowd at first welcomed Obama in extremely hopeful terms as a vast improvement on G.W. Bush, but subsequently lost her enthusiasm with a series of scathingly negative columns on Obama’s perceived inability to lead politically to his own goals.

    Today, we might wonder whether there is anyone left whom Dowd actually likes. Yet, if the task of a columnist is not to adopt favorites– as so many clearly do– but to examine each carefully and critically, Dowd perhaps will be among the first to discern important new directions. As both Sanders and Clinton vigorously contest the primary, Dowd’s own assessment of Clinton, so far, reinforces her commentary about the foibles of the Clinton family. Is Dowd merely prejudiced toward Hillary because of Bill’s history, or is her assessment of Hillary on target? A columnist owes readers the truth.

    If Dowd is correct about Hillary, this could be the years of her best work, tracing the influence of Hillary’s character on her behavior though an intense period of political transition in this country. Dowd bears watching.

    • Mr Corrections says:

      Yeah, this soulless, inarticulate Reagan mouthpiece sure is something or other.

      • alphaa10 says:

        Dowd accurately characterized both G.W. Bush and Dick Cheney from the moment they seized office, and has been a model of opposition to the ideas both Bushes and Reagan represent.

        Except for the relatively brief tenure of Bill Kristol, the New York Times does not suffer Reagan “mouthpieces” gladly. Dowd was recently characterized by Fox News as a “liberal favorite”, which is the ultimate confirmation of her political beliefs.

  15. yabbed says:

    Dowd is pathologically jealous of Hillary Clinton’s national and international statue. She needs to see a therapist and work out her issues. Or call her mother, if they are on speaking terms.

  16. DemocracyInaction says:

    Dowd’s style of writing in general is at the college freshman level. In fact, it is pathetic that a major newspaper would employ or even publish this level of amateur tripe. As far as Clinton is concerned, Dowd’s obsession with her is akin to stalking….and stalking indicates deep mental problems that should not be tolerated by a newspaper even in opinion columns.

  17. Elliot J. Stamler says:

    Ho hum. Does it matter what Maureen Dowd thinks any more than if matters what Ann Coulter thinks? Except for the chattering classes voters pay no attention to chatterboxes who with no credentials of ever having achieved anything substantial themselves make a lucrative career of trashing others.

  18. LeftCoastLeftie says:

    C an’t
    U nderstand
    N ormal
    T hinking

  19. plc97477 says:

    Maureen’s attack is sounding more and more like sour grapes.

  20. Maureen is someone who has a degree of hate that surpasses the upper threshold of “normal” by leaps and bounds. For an adult to waste their time as she has, and carry a chip on the shoulder as huge as hers, shows a paucity of spirituality that places one in a realm of darkness.
    The behavior she exhibits, it would appear, projects an “anti-Christ” character. Such behavior is wholly irrational and the very antithesis of what it means to be a Christian.

    (What a burden to needlessly carry in this life, and into the next world).

    It’s one thing to be angry with someone, to want to rebuke what is false, and point out injustices; but to allow yourself to be so consumed as to waste your energy in ad hominem attacks and with such animus, and do so on a regular basis, is the sign of a lonely person afflicted with a clinical illness that requires professional attention.

    “O Son of Being! Bring thyself to account each day ere thou art summoned to a reckoning. For death unheralded shall come upon thee, and thou shalt be called to give account for thy deeds.” (from “The Hidden Words” by Baha’u’llah).

    • alphaa10 says:

      These are your own inferences, but rest assured many others, like, you, take exception to anybody speaking ill of public icons and/or speaking truth to power.

      Yet, rather than presumptuously “love the sinner”, but hate her “anti-Christ” behavior (you are quite over the top, here), consider others may see the matter differently.

      Pulitzer finalist and Pulitzer winner Dowd is a columnist and pundit, and has paid her dues along her career path as reporter and editor. The New York Times continues to publish her regularly, and after some 20 years as OpEd columnist, her work is widely quoted through the national media.

      Here is Dowd’s especially incisive, nuanced portrayal of the Benghazi witch hunt–

  21. David L. Allison says:

    There are many substantive bases for objecting to the nomination or election of Hillary Clinton but the entire focus of Dowd on Bill Clinton’s sexual indiscretions is among the thinnest and least substantive. A rich person can fairly advocate for protection and support of poor people. A black person can fairly advocate for policies supporting white people. Liberals can support fiscal conservatives and a philanderer can fairly support feminism. And certainly a the wife of a philanderer can fairly advocate for her husband.

    If Dowd wants to attack Hillary Clinton let her choose the flip flopping on same sex marriage, support for and then half-hearted and limited opposition to the TPP and support for NAFTA: reluctance to even mention KXL in her campaign even though she advocated for it during her time in the State Department and then waiting to finally “oppose” it until the administration was preparing to reject the application.

    Until Dowd limits her challenges and attacks on Clinton to some of those substantive issues and policies of importance to the 99% of fed up US voters, she is going to deserve all of the complaints that Clinton’s supporters wage against her.

    • alphaa10 says:

      Enjoyed your comments, and agree Hillary should have publicly stated her opposition to KXL, instead of allowing a subordinate quietly to outsource and vet the environmental impact statement– prepared by an oil-industry service firm.

      But with Hillary Clinton, it is not easy to know where to begin, and with which criticism. It seems only her fans seem to understand the approved order of criticism.

      Despite her fans’ sensitivity to critics, however, Clinton continues as though not particularly sensitive, herself. Clinton is not a rich study in foresight and carefully considered absence of insider influences in her statements and campaign. Public sympathy counts for a great deal when justified, but when her fans make sympathy their principal argument, we tend to wonder how much of the drama is contrived as a campaign tool.

  22. Broos says:

    It’s just(ly) Dowd for decency.

  23. nana4gj says:

    There’s nothing uglier than a jealous, resentful woman, digging in with her claws, ruffling her own feathers, and using the most inane with which to insult….another woman’s marriage according to her; another woman’s ambition, so unattracatively not like her own ambition; etc. One thing can be certain, however, and never flip flops.

    Dowd seems to hate everyone, some more than others.

  24. Deb Brouhard says:

    Until news columist like Dowdy start talking about Trump’s many infidelity, lying and cheating I see no reason to listen to them. Maybe she is sour on Obama because he didn’t fall for her winking and blinking. Maybe she mad because man wants her, or she’s just jealous of Hillary, but who cares? In spite of her attacks Obama won again, he will go down as a great president in spite of adjective racist among the people, and newsoapers. The GOP has tried everything they could short of assination, which I believe has been discuss, except they would have to deal with Biden, who fortunately knows were the bodies are buried. Dowd is tired angry rich white beetch, but whose she nad at is really not known. I see her Hillary attacks as misplaced anger. Did Hillary diss her when Hillary was first lady and she’s never forgiven her? Dowd, who gets her plagarism brushed aside, is even nastier now– why, because she is hiding her lack of real skill and intelligence behind mean and nastiness. Anyone can be mean, but it takes a smart reporter to understand, and interpret and write for the average person to under stand the issues. Being mean is easy an a great cover. (Funny how white folks get to say oop’s I decided I didn’t plagiarize on purpose and everyone else says OK. Change Dowd from white woman to black and she would have been out on her ass.)

  25. oldfed says:

    Of course the Memo coverage of Trump Cruz and the rest of the Rep party has been 100% negative since Soros funded it. Its hardly a bastion of integrity

    • Mr Corrections says:

      George Soros doesn’t fund the National Memo.

      I hope that helps!

    • Linda Rae says:

      The republican party are full of corrupt neanderthals, and should continue to be exposed. God bless Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders for their willingness to lead our country for at least the next 4 years.

    • Daniel Max Ketter says:

      Well I believe the memo provides very accurate political information, along with MSNBC, CNN, PBS Bill Moyers, and NPR.

      Now Faux and Forbes, that is all mumbo jumbo fiction which is 100% inaccurate.

    • Daniel Max Ketter says:

      Me and my dear Linda Rae have talked it over, and now we both agree Sen Bernie Sanders should be our next Commander In Chief. A little socialism will unite our divided country that moron Tramp is peddling. God bless Hiliary, but perhaps we’ll see her in 2020.

    • alphaa10 says:

      Thanks for your comment, oldfed, because it displayed the same public relations skills enjoyed by T.Rump (as in a T.Rex running through GOP ranks, scattering every other candidate in terror)– sheer genius for making stuff up.

      T.Rump is in his campaign for the blood sporting amusement of it, and because it happens to fascinate him to hog the spotlight and grab the press with better skill than Ted Cruz or John McCain.

      Actually, many readers frequently consider National Memo a “bastion of integrity”, as you put it. So, you are disappointed? Somehow, it seems you plan to continue reading any publication which stoops so low as to include you on its mailing list, as you requested.

  26. Sheryl1235 says:

    I make something like $6,000-$8,000 monthly doing an internet task. Anyone considering to finish simple at home tasks for 2-5 h /day from your home and make solid benefit while doing it… Test this task


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.