I can't believe that

1. Anyone still reads the NY Times; and

2. Anyone still reads Maureen Dowd.

Haven't you all learned your lesson after the Judith Miller debacle? Not to mention David Brooks and Tom Friedman.

It's not worth reading, guys. The people running the Times are blithering idiots.

Dowd is a skank of the highest degree. The NYT should do the entire world a huge favor and fire her sorry ass. Then maybe she can join up with her buddy Coulter for some truly revolting lesbo action. Excuse me, I have to puke my guts out now.

I know a lot of people love to hate Maureen Dowd. But, is she really off the mark on this one??

Her column on Obama makes this point (for those who haven't read it):

1. Obama has not attacked Hillary strongly enough. (TRUE)

2. He shouldn't be ceding the experience ground to her. (TRUE)

These points are both true. Obama definitely has not criticized strongly enough ON HER POSITIONS. Why doesn't he use the debates to ask her:

Why did you vote for the Iraq war? Why didn't you vote for the Levin amendment? Why should voters trust you to reform health care after you screwed it up once?

These are key questions, and he hasn't addressed them at all.

Misplaed metaphor. I was an officer in the Navy, and there are strict, stated protocols for enlisted-officer relationships. Dowdy is an opinion-shaper for the NY Times; I wouldn't dare put her in the same league as a private.

Your other analogies--"What if Obama was arguing with me"--are even more off the mark. I mean really, what are the odds that Obama would be perusing blogsites, and picking out individuals he disagreed with? Too farfetched.

Furthermore, please prove your claim that he's lost stature. If you can't prove it...Well, your point rings hollow. It's toothless....

Obama getting into it with Maureen Dowd is as bad as Edwards getting into it with Ann Coulter. It is just a matter of stature and when a candidate has an argument with a media figure, the candidate loses stature and the media figure gains it.

Rookie mistake

Dowd, another opportunist like Tweety and Timmeh. WAKE UP READERS...if she really cared about ANYTHING she wouldn't be writing for the NYT.

(Liberal columnist my ass)

Why is it, that Obama does not cry out against this war more forcefully. Yes he voted against the war. True. But since he has not shown great opposition. Is it, because he does not, or cannot take the final step against his Muslim brothers?

I stopped reading Dowd a few years ago. If I want to hear frustrated Irish girls sniping and snipping, I'll go to church.

Before Obama ever entered the race, Maureen Dowd wrote a column encouraging him to run. She was very enthusiastic. Since then whe wrote a column "suggesting" that Michelle Obama cool down the jokes about her husband as she made him look like a fool. Now, Michelle again makes little jokes about her husband - at his expense. Calls him "snorey and stinky". How dumb of her and him. Maureen will now run with that expression. I for one think she is great. (and I like Obama!)

There is plenty to criticize about Ms Dowd but she is lucid enough to avoid trying to be like or copy Molly Ivans. The late Ms Ivans was a product of an era in Tejas & the USA that is long gone. The passing of that unique era is mourned by some, missed by many; but, it won't return ever. Ms Dowd is quite aware of these facts. It's doubtful if Ms Dowd is trying to copy any other writer. She strives to be unique. She is aware of the American tradition of humor in reporting politics. Love or hate Ms Dowd, she's unique.

Message to Dowd: get out of the beltway. Meaning your words don't matter to real Americans.

I once adored Maureen Dowd, how could you not enjoy her "dicing and slicing" of Bush and Cheney and an email address of liberties@nytimes.com? But since 2004, I have yet to read anything of hers that has some positive to say or note. It is one diatribe after another. Yes she is witty but wit can only get you so far. Having a podium unlike few if any others, you would think standing for something might be in order. I know what she is against, but she is for? What does she espouse? I look for balance in pundits and op-ed columnists. It is easy to critique and deconstruct but what do you offer in its place? Paul Krugman remains heads above anyone else. In a scant few hundred words, he both disassembles policies and offers plausible alternatives. Ms. Dowd has become a shrill mole, digging everywhere but always in the dark never elucidating nor coming above ground to shed light. She is an endless tunnel to nowhere.

Yeah,

I found that editorial witless and presumptious as well as vacuous. So Obama positioned himself as an outsider. Compared to Hillary, he is.

MoDo is doing Obama a big favor. He can only take this "man o'destiny" crap so far. People who already love him swill it like free beer, but most Americans need to be convinced that this guy can lead the country. She's a liberal, but her job is not to make you feel good about inadequate candidates. She grew up in DC and is a full-time student of the manners of the Uberclass of American power. Her barbs wouldn't hurt if they didn't contain an element of truth to them.

Maureen is a Molly Ivins wannabe without the wit or the clear writing skills.
Half the time you read her column not having a clue whether she's dissing someone or praising them.
I miss Molly.