<i>Forbes</i> Credits <i>NYT</i>'s MoDo With Liberalism, For Some Reason

Forbes Magazine has assembled this list of "The 25 Most Influential Liberals In The U.S. Media," and somehow or another, Maureen Dowd of the New York Times is on it, which is just bonkers. And then you see that they have her ranked ahead of Salon's Glenn Greenwald and your grey matter literally starts leaking from both nostrils. I think that if silly nicknames, musical theatre citations, and inveighing against ostentatious demonstrations of wealth on one day only to bask in them on another constitutes "liberalism," maybe more people should give nihilism a try.

Here's the "let's negate our own premise in fifty-words-or-less" text from Forbes:

Known for her exclamatory columns, Dowd writes about politics with a biting, pop-culture-infused spin. She is much better at meowing at her own side, though, so the Obama administration could see her recover the cat-wit she appeared to have lost in her formulaic Bush years.

So, to summarize: Liberalism? No. "Cat-wit?" AWESOME. "Influential?" Sure! I mean, one can be under the influence of peyote.