More

James Love

James Love

Posted: July 13, 2008 11:18 AM

What Happened to Maureen Dowd?


I was a huge fan of Maureen Dowd for years. Her column was bitting, funny and relevant. But in the past year, I find my self wondering what happened -- to her? Today's rambling column about Obama, which manages to squeeze in almost no real substance (reporting or analysis), and found yet another way to say something snide about Bill Clinton, occupied the column inches that Dowd could use to actually say something. In a sense, one wonders if she has much gas left in the tank. Should she should move the column to People Magazine? Can she get back to work, start thinking again, and justify the prime NYT real estate she now occupies?

Follow James Love on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jamie_love

 
 
  • Comments
  • 15
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
04:47 AM on 07/14/2008
Most of the people posting comments to this column lack a sense of humor.
02:49 PM on 07/13/2008
She's too busy being on Australian TV as an expert on...something.
http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:97-odgGUuh8J:www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1579718.htm+ABC+Lateline+Dowd&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=au
02:13 PM on 07/13/2008
Here's what I wrote the public editor at the Times' -- publiceditor@nytimes.com .
Writing the Times about her nastiness towards Hilary did make a difference, so maybe if the Times receives 500+ different emails expressing complaints about today's column, some difference may occur.

Calling Obama a hot house flower isn't funny. That's a gay slur. That's not needed to make her point, whatever it may be.

Dowd should be fired. Get her out of there. She's been given enough chances already.

Replace her with Rachel Maddow. Have an ACTUAL LIBERAL on your op ed page instead of Irish and Jewish Wasp want-to-be's who espouse received opinion of the Right, albeit with a nice turn of phrase.

Doesn't anyone edit what Dowd writes before you print it? Just how did that get in the paper?

Her entertaining emasculating comments of Gore succeeded in helping to put W into office. Are any of your co-workers at the Times proud of the 4,000 Americans dead in Iraq? the Times' negligence in supporting Dowd enabled W. Is it the paper's policy to now enable McCain? In supporting Dowd's slurs, that's what you're doing.

Oh, yes. William Kristol is happy for those deaths in Iraq and really enjoys Dowd's turns of phrase. That's the same William Kristol who admonished Terry Gross that there wouldn't be sectarian conflict in Iraq because “Iraq has always been pretty secular”.
08:21 PM on 07/13/2008
Gay slur is a bit harsh. She does have a tendency to effeminize Obama, but this was just a tortured metaphor, not any sort of homophobia.
01:51 PM on 07/13/2008
She's bored.
01:50 PM on 07/13/2008
She's just mailing it in. Her wordplay has gotten embarrassingly lame - she thinks it's funny now to use words that have the same ending, like "-ality" or "ation" all in a row or in contrast to each other. I don't know what it's supposed to be. One thing I've noted is that the general quality of ALL the Op-Ed work at the NY Times has gone in the toilet. Paul Krugman increasingly seems out to lunch, Tom Friedman is just shy of complete incoherence, and of course William Kristol was never tenable to begin with. I'm beginning to think that all these major newspapers should simply get rid of their high-priced columnists and spend all their money on basic reporting and investigative work. There are needs for that kind of work. People writing on the Internet, by and large, are much better writers and analysts, and often are in fields where they know what they're talking about, like Jack Balkin and Glenn Greenwald writing about law, for example. The average op-ed journalist has no specific command over a discipline or body of knowledge, and it often shows.
08:20 PM on 07/13/2008
Today's verbal quirk was words that begin with "re". There were eight of them in the column.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nellpost
01:41 PM on 07/13/2008
She's a hate-filled disappointed female in my opinion.
01:23 PM on 07/13/2008
William Kristol, David Brooks, Tom Friedman...
maybe being a smug hack is contagious?
01:16 PM on 07/13/2008
"What happened to Maureen Dowd?"

The short answer, is nothing. The change is in you and your expectations of her.

Oh sure, Dowd in particular was hit hard by the whole "Times Select" fiasco. She had been holding sway over the watercooler set for a few years before it, but her influence quickly dropped from a top 5'er to outside the top 100. She kept writing the same old columns of course, but nobody was READING them anymore, much less quoting from them later that day at the office.

But make no mistake, Dowd's WRITING hasn't changed any more than Keith Olbermann's sense of propriety or the true extent of Bill Clinton's residual anger and resentments. What's changed is your willingness to accept their new targets. A few years ago they were all chipping away at the Bush administration and they were uniformly ADORED by the HuffPost crowd.

Once these people turned their attention to the NEXT administration, they began to choose up sides and suddenly a person you've been agreeing with for years is starting to really BUG you. How COULD they be for the "other" candidate, and how could they attack MY choice with such base tactics? What happened to THEM?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
calluna
Hates spiders. Likes chocolate.
03:48 PM on 07/13/2008
This is very true, and happens to most commentators during a big shift in power.

Although a big supporter of the Clinton administration back in the 90s, I have to say, I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh with some regularity, just because the purity of his outrage was so outrageous, it made him pretty damn funny, and occasionally even thought-provoking. But with Bush in office, he was neither funny nor provoking.

Same today with Keith Olbermann and most of the staff of Air America. Their transition from all-Bush-bash all-the-time to the Obama love-in has been alternately shrill and obnoxious.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:02 PM on 07/13/2008
Dowd has always been a sucker for Republican men and daddy-figures, she adored Bush the Elder. She's not now or ever has been a lefty. She vilifies strong women and blames the reason men don't liker is because she's a strong woman. Boggles the mind.

I have to disagree with the author on the greatness of MoDo, except for skewering Bush over the last seven years (not hard to do), I've always thought Dowd was a Coulter wannabe without the adam's apple and extra bits & pieces.
12:40 PM on 07/13/2008
Maureen Dowd is the laziest "columnist" on the face of the planet. She does no research, gathers no facts. All she does is spout off on whatever enters that strange little head of hers. What an utter waste of 700 words on that op-ed page -- space that could go to plenty of people (like David Sirota perhaps?) who actually have something useful to say.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:12 PM on 07/13/2008
Maureen Dowd has always been snide and negative, Thats her shtick. Unfortunately for her the people who read her column are sick of negativity and crap that frankly just isn't that important when the Country at large is falling apart.

Maureen's writing is much better when the economy is booming, our Constitution is intact and out elected leaders actually care about America.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lt
12:04 PM on 07/13/2008
come on Dowd get with it, kick some republicon asss