Maureen Dowd

On Tuesday, Maureen Dowd had a funny and somewhat insightful column in the New York Times, but it seems a bit like she is still sleepwalking through her column, and unsure how to use her considerable talents and opportunities. Dowd is a biting writer, has amazing access to people who shape policy, and the New York Times op-ed page as her platform.

Maybe my expectations are too high, but I have been expecting more from her, and am not that impressed. Dowd seems to care little about government policies, and much on personal foibles and speculative amateur psychiatry.

I don't think that being famous is a pass when it comes to doing reporting, research or other things that might justify the real estate she uses at the New York Times. It is not as if this is a boring time. The country is facing deep crises at home and abroad, and the democrats are just beginning to take control. Even if you don't know what should be done, there is plenty of opportunity to explain what is being done, why it is being done, and what the critics say. Some dimensions of this are partisan, and other dimensions at not.

I'm not suggesting that Maureen Dowd needs to dig into Afghanistan, the TARP or the apparently aimless work on health policy, but it would be nice if she would dig into something real, and something important.

Comments

[schicklett3]

09:06 PM on 02/18/2009

I first listened to Ms. Dowd during the presidential election.
It was very obvious to me that she was a huge John McCain supporter and she did nothing to hide it. And when public outrage began about McCain's nasty bitter words against Senator Obama during the end of the campaign Ms. Dowd gave him a pass. She basically said McCain deserved a pass because he was a former POW. I said, HUH?
Anyway, I don't care for her at all.

[HeevenSteven]

11:50 AM on 02/18/2009

I've long thought that too many celebrity journalists write for each other, and the think the rest of the media pays far too much attention to them. Dowd is a prime example.

[jameshat]

10:53 AM on 02/18/2009

It's true that Ms Down could be more relevant to crucial issues of the day but I wonder if the author of this article has read some of the more recented opniions. "Disgouge, Wall Street Fat Cats" (feb 1), "Wall Street Socialist Jet Setters" (Feb 28th) and "Trillion Dollar Baby" (Feb 11th) Were all relevant and right on the money.....

[MarionWatts]

08:58 AM on 02/18/2009

I know she liked the Clintons, specifically Hillary Clinton. I know she supported Hillary over Obama. I know she pilloried Palin. But of late, her columns just seem snarky and nasty, especially towards the President, in particular. And, in doing that, she's saying nothing and sounding bitter and personal. I'm saying that as someone who's a disappointed Maureen Dowd fan.

Tell you what, I was very much taken with her writing and also with Kathleen Parker's disappointed-conservative-reluctant-Obama-supporter stance in WaPo. Since the Inauguration, Parker's gone back into total conservative mode, but that's only to be expected. Don't know why Maureen's got a case of sour grapes, though. I could surmise ...

[MaryKathO]

11:47 AM on 02/18/2009

What ever gave you the idea that Maureen Dowd 'liked' or even supported the Clinton's? Were you being sarcastic and snarky or are you just uninformed? She DESPISED the Clinton's. She never missed an opportunity to lob 'grenades' at their personal foibles, public demeanor or psychological pathology. She has ALWAYS been a 'hit & run' writer. If she ever wrote anything of nuance or substance, it was by accident. She is clearly much more comfortable as a gossip/satirist than a cultural wit like Frank Rich. I grew tired of her tirades years ago.

[Melissa]

12:42 AM on 02/19/2009

I don't know where anyone go the idea that Dowd liked Hillary. I stopped reading her during the campaign because of the hate she had for Hillary and Bill. She was like Dick Morris, she never missed an opportunity to trash Hillary. I now read her once in a while and find it amusing that she is now trashing everyone else.