"It's only 2006," I wrote way back in March of that year over at Editor & Publisher, "and New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd has already written off Hillary Clinton in the 2008 presidential race. She warned that Democrats "are racing like lemmings toward a race where, as one moaned, 'John McCain will dribble Hillary Clinton's head down the court like a basketball.'"
But she yearned for Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois. At 44, Obama, she pointed out, was already a year older than John F. Kennedy when he became president.
"The weak and pathetic Democrats seem to move inexorably toward candidates who turn a lot of people off," she advised. "They should find someone captivating with an intensely American success story... and shape the campaign around that leader....
"The Democrats should not dismiss a politically less experienced but personally more charismatic prospect as 'an empty vessel.' Maybe an empty vessel can fill the room."
She added that it may be true "that Americans, as one Democrat told me, 'will never elect a guy as president who has a name like a Middle East terrorist.'" But the Democrats, she said, do not "stand for anything" and they have "no champion at a time when people are hungry for an exciting leader, when the party should be roaring and soaring against the Bushies' power-mad stumbles.
"They should groom an '08 star who can run on the pledge of doing what's right instead of only what's far right....Democrats think Senator Potential's experience does not match Senator Pothole's [but] Republicans won with Ronald Reagan and W. by taking guys with more likeability and sizzle than experience."
For some time, Dowd promoted Obama before, inevitably, criticizing that very lack of experience and calling him "O'bambi." But at the start she had sketched the scenario that followed pretty damn accurately.
Oh, in the same column she wondered if Tom Brokaw might fit the bill for the Dems. Oh, well, there's always the VP slot. But could Tom help them carry Ohio?
*
Greg Mitchell's new book is So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits -- and the President -- Failed on Iraq. It features a preface by Bruce Springsteen and has been hailed by Bill Moyers, Glenn Greenwald and others.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I really wonder why anyone would care. I really wonder if perhaps it was a lucky guess and I know many people predicted it. You know - the celebrity thing, the Messiah, rock star and all.
So, who cares who she picked?
Maureen loves Hillary. She doesn't know it but she truly does love her. It is hard for her to imagine life without Hillary. I can't recall many articles (if any) of hers this year that do not talk about Hillary. Even now that Hillary is practically out Maureen still talks about her. Seriously, how many columns can someone write about inspiration alone.
I predicted 4 years ago that I wouldn't read Dowd.
Sadly, every political news site you visit publishes quotes from her articles. so, you, Mr. Political Junkie, are forced to endure the thing you promised you wouldn't. So much for predictions!
She's still a dangerous wacko.
"The weak and pathetic Democrats seem to move inexorably toward candidates who turn a lot of people off,"
------------------------------
They're doing it again. Obama won't win more than five states in November.
Clinton would do much better.
I predict Obama won't win ANY...in Canada. In the US, he'll get 70% of the states. McCain will just carry his Arizona and his urine bag.
Don't be silly. Republicans can't even hold on to Congressional seats they've held FOR THIRTY YEARS. How could they possibly win the White House? The Democrats could nominate a steaming pile of dog crap and it would win over McCain.
LOL, true. Rethugs are running for their lives right now, even in hardcore red districts.
SHE IS FUNNY! but a broken clock is right twice a day, too!
By that measure, Obama will win two terms. Good enough.
Oh ! How hard is that ? Out of two candidates ?
Let`s see, here ia a quarter...two sides....flip...and I can predict too !
With age, Dowd is losing her senses, he meanness is the only thing that comes apparant...
Yes, but did she predict his inevitable loss to Grandpa Bush in November?
Ms. Dowd appears to be a pretty good wordsmith, but I do not understand her apparent obsession with agendas.
great writer but leans toward mean and petty.
I would say "was' a good writer and has become disturbingly mean and petty--when I read her, when I can bear to--I cringe at how her arguments are come out of immature hero-worship and and middle-school level vicious personal attacks. Obama may be a good candidate, but Dowd is his worst advocate.
She's a columnist, not a priest or a cheerleader.
Yep. Drudge once has a picture of her and asked for captions...this one is my favorite: "If You Want To Keep The Beer Cold, Put It Next To My Heart."
Quoting the Drudge Report speaks volumns about a person's intergrity.
Sanctimonious Boomer Intones Judgment, News At Eleven.
And Dowd will work like hell to get the straight shooter into office
on the down low so that McCain can give her a thank you wink
just as Bush did in 2000. She will always remember that as will we.
Good for Maureen. When I heard Obama speak in 2004 at the convention I thought to myself "i have no idea who this guy is but he is amazing and he should be our next presdient." I have had an Obama sign up since 2006 (the first sign said "draft Obama" since he hadn't decided to run yet). There are mant of us out there who have long seen Obama for what he is: he is our future, and our future president.
I said the exact same thing when I first saw him in 2004.
You guys have really high standards.
Just because someone is a good teleprompter reader, they should be President.
OK.
Well Bush couldn't even read a teleprompter and he still became President. Maybe a guy who can read will win this time, what do ya think?
Oh for God's sakes, we knew in 2000 that Hillary wanted to be president, and anybody who watched Obama's 2004 convention speech knew he had the charisma to captivate the populace.
Do not give Dowd more credit than she deserves--as Obama said, "cynicism is a sad kind of wisdom." I so agree (even though it has become my kind of wisdom).
I want to make love to Maureen Dowd.
The line forms to the left......
She played her small but not so small part in getting Bush elected.
You can have her.
I think she is trying way too hard to be the acerbic, sarcastic, smart woman who can talk about politics the way men do but in reality she just makes women look really bad. She also offers some really bizarre psychological explanations for the way candidates act that are way too simplistic.
And beyond that, she seems to hate women. Last week she compared Clinton to a vampire and she and her male co-workers were brutal to Clinton when she appeared to cry but they didn't seem to have any problems with John Kerry when he did it during his campaign. But of course the NYT has to have a bitter, angry woman for their op-ed pieces. They want to perpetuaate the myth that sucessful ambitious women have to be like her.
Psychology 10---None --- Everyone has so much knowledge on everything this is the MOST ASTUTE Site anywhere---Wow, do any of us really know or are we just stating OUR Personal Feelings?????
Big deal. Who cares. The real surprising thing about Mrs. Clinton is that she could get elected to any position considering the negative press she's had to sustain for the past twenty years. So it doesn't surprise me that Judith doesn't appreciate or recognize the greatness of Mrs. Clinton. It's a shame because she would of made a great President and an even greater role model for the girls and young woman of this country in a time when they need that desperately given the damage the Republican party and the national media have done to the female gender.
Absolutely agreed - who better to be a role model for women that served on the corporate board of a company that has notoriously denied promotions for women for decades? (Note sarcasm)
You can really tell how much Dowd wanted a fresh new face to be given a chance, just so she could have someone new to trash.
She is cynical and sarcastic and critical in an unproductive way.
I feel sorry for her, because I don't believe a person who is consistently negative can ever be content.
Dowd actually revealed that 'Bambi' was her favorite movie as a child, thus she calls Obama 'Obambi' more as a measure of affinity rather than animosity.
Not even by one's own hand.
I don't believe a person who is consistently negative can ever be content.
That is the impetus for this whole website. I have never seen so many angry negative people in my whole life who primarily respond to any one who offers another opinion with personal attacks and juvenile name calling. Then reply to folks with terms like racist, fascist, bigot.....yada, yada, yada.
Further, they say everything and anything they want under the banner of the first amendment but want to silence other opinions.
I would disagree with you on Dowd though. For whatever reason during this Democratic Primary her columns have been dead on.
NEGATIVITY------------Are you speaking of Hillary?
Good job Maureen, right on as usual. She's so talented.
Mo has her finger on the political pulse and her early call for Obama proves it.
Hard to believe that shed shares a page with Kristol at the Times. "How the Times have changed".
Kristol is the Rush Limbaugh rep at the times, hip deep in "operation chaos" as he touts Hillary's credentials. The New York Times teaming up with Rush Limbaugh.
Congratulations to the geniuses at the New York Times for a brilliant hire.
Maureen Dowd is one the best columnists out there. The Times has some talented columnists-- I guess thats why they work for the Times. I think Dowd may be the best of the bunch.
Maureen Dowd is talented and perceptive and usually has good judgment... that is until Maureen Dowd gets in the way.
Basically, she's a cynic and a critic, and seems somewhat bitter to me. She only feels comfortable criticizing and ridiculing people, so she was able to get on board with Obama when he was the fresh face and before he became mainstream. She was comfortable praising him when it was part of a broader argument which was focused on criticizing Hillary. Once Obama became a phenomenon and the main topic of discussion she couldn't jump on board, she had to do what she does: ridicule.
She's like someone who is realy into music but only likes underground bands and once they have a few hits and everyone likes them then they're not "cool" or "hip" any longer, so it's off to find the next underground band that only a true music lover can appreciate.
You must be
Posted May 8, 2008 | 08:49 AM (EST)