MORE DOWD

Actually, I’m going to disagree with Tim here: I was struck by how decidedly non-horrible this morning’s Dowd column was. After months of Boy Emperor gibberish and “What? You can’t wear miniskirts in Jeddah?” missingthepointism, today’s column was actually good. That is, by Dowd standards.

Is this because the object of her scorn was W.J. Clinton instead of G.W. Bush? Only partly. Mostly, it’s because her too-familiar scorn was illustrated with articulated reasons. Dowd smacks Clinton for criticizing Bush’s pre-9/11 al-Qaeda standpatism — while neglecting to cite his own failure to take terrorism seriously. Meanwhile, Dowd’s “observations” of Bush are usually limited to pointing out that his father was president, and now he is president too, and he kind of seems dumb when he says things like “subliminable” and oh, isn’t this so delicious? I can deride him as a little child!

Ha ha ha.

Tim is right on the money pointing out that Dowd and her fellow Bush-bashers in the press are making a significant tactical error by underestimating the “Boy Emperor.” She still is — as Tim ably put it — “a bloody fool.” I highly recommend the following article, by Oxblog blogger Josh Chafetz, The Immutable Laws of Maureen Dowd, which indeed puts forth a GUT (Grand Unified Theory) of the NY Times “Liberties” column — or, as I like to call it — the biggest waste of the best real estate in journalism today.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, December 4th, 2002 at 13:34 by wwb and is filed under Miscellaneous. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.