Is Maureen Dowd Necessary?

I have avoided this moment like the plague but can contain myself no longer – I must actually put ‘pen to paper’ and expend valuable time writing about the vile “McDowd,” as Senator Obama likes to call her.

Her tasteless column in the New York Times Wednesday further demonstrates that ‘the paper of record’ is now a biased rag, sponsoring baseless trash both above and below the fold. Her column is her opinion. Fine. Voicing opinion is one thing. Depraved character assassination is quite another.

I guess all it takes is for Obama to flirt with Mo, no, not that Mo, on the plane and mention how much he liked her boots (yes, he really did that) for her to sell herself out and spend endless copy trashing Senator Clinton mercilessly.

Witnessing the horrid misogyny and media bias the past seven months is made even more painful when these kinds of attacks come from another woman. Think women can’t be guilty of misogyny? Think again. I have a theory that women who engage in this sort of behavior do so either out of self-loathing, envy or…self-preservation.

They do not want to upset the status quo that has allowed them to succeed in a man’s world, so they bond with the male offender. ‘See – I will hate Hillary, just like you. I’m not that ambitious. I don’t want to be that successful. I will help you degrade her so that you don’t notice me standing here, successful, too.’

Or, perhaps Ms. Dowd, who very obviously has a need to be babe-alicious (just look at her NYT photo), believes that her siding with a woman who possesses the ultimate ambition – to be President of the United States – would forever deprive Maureen of getting a date on Saturday night.

We can look at Ms. Dowd’s 2005 book, Are Men Necessary, to help clarify her conundrum. According to CNN:

In the book she wonders about the state of feminism, the value in pursuing a mate, the belief that smart women get left home on Saturday nights and whether women’s magazines have given up thoughtful articles for beauty tips and empty sexuality.

I actually made it through about three quarters of this tiresome tome before I decided to mail it back to her publishers and tell them I no longer wanted to own it. She theorizes that feminists of the 70’s finally got what they wanted – equal rights and careers – and found out they didn’t want what they got.

Oversimplification, anyone? Or perhaps she is talking about herself…She makes almost constant reference to the fact that if you want to nab a man you’d better have long hair and you’d better not be ‘sarcastic.’

“As Dowd would have it, men simply find her intelligence, her status, her wit too daunting,” wrote Katie Roiphe in Slate. “But is it possible that there is something else at play? … [A New York magazine] piece … describes the wide variety of men Dowd has been involved with, ranging from movie stars, to important editors, to creators of television dramas. … One imagines that her intelligence, her sharpness, her sarcasm may even have interested these men. Could there possibly be another reason that the attractive, successful Dowd has not settled down?”

I have an answer for that. Could it be that she always looks like she smells poo-poo?

Have you ever watched this woman on a talk show? I am not criticizing her looks – and would never do so – only her expression. She exudes a snobby, aloof, lemon-sucking air, as if to say, ‘the coolest comments to hit the atmosphere only emanate from moi.’ Smirking, she almost imperceptibly tips her head to and fro as she holds forth, reminiscent of Lily Tomlin as Ernestine, the telephone operator, snorting ‘one ringy dingy, two ringy dingy.’

According to Dowd:

“[The book] isn’t at all pessimistic about the chances of strong, successful women,” she said. “… but a lot of times I think it’s turned out that men find those things draining and oftentimes would rather be with a woman who is in awe of them.”

Perhaps she is referring to Obama. Clearly utter adulation is what he expects and the only thing his fragile ego can tolerate. This must be why he wants his boot on Hillary’s throat – that 60 year old ‘witch’ had the audacity not to lie down when he and the clueless power players at the DNC told her to!

This may come as a shock to Ms. Dowd, but there are kind, progressive and fabulous men out there who thrill at the idea of a partner who is exceedingly capable, has an opinion, wit and a sense of humor – and they don’t give a rosy red damn whether her hair is long or not. To those of you guys out there – I applaud you.

In fact, many of these men likewise support Hillary Clinton. Gee, big surprise.

Dowd’s jealous behavior toward the accomplished Hillary is all the more surprising given this statement in her book:

“Men are simply not biologically suited to hold higher office. The Bush administration has proved that once and for all.”

Hmmm. But Hillary – no dice, huh? Why? Well, here’s a theory someone offered:

Maureen can’t live without the Clintons. She’s the one who drags them back into her columns because of her self-loathing, envy and frustration. Obama has become a figment of her fevered imagination, existing only as someone to smite the Clintons or be their plaything. If he does not batter, smear or suppress the Clintons, Dowd stamps her feet and hurls epithets at “Obambi.” No man is man enough for her. Except Bill, her not so secret obsession. Her jealousy of Hillary as a result knows no bounds. It must be misery to be Maureen, hunting the Clintons as their stalker.

That says it all. An obsession. McDowd makes this ridiculous statement in her column:

Now they’ve made Barry’s convention all about them — their dissatisfaction and revisionism and barely disguised desire to see him fail. Whatever insincere words of support the Clintons muster, their primal scream gets louder: He can’t win! He can’t close the deal! We told you so!

No. He can’t win. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is not the fault of either Hillary or Bill Clinton. And why is it “Barry’s convention?” Since when is he the only member of the Democratic Party? Meanwhile, Hillary, the far stronger candidate who bowed out ‘for the good of the party,’ acquiescing to who knows what sort of pressure, has Ms. Dowd demanding that she continue to ‘mother’ Obambi and drag his behind across the finish line.

Dowd acknowledges the DNC’s buyers’ remorse with Obama but once again blames Hillary. Dowd ignores the salient point – the DNC elites were so busy protecting their own fiefdoms, yearning for a neophyte “delegater” they thought they could control, that they didn’t stop long enough to appreciate the great candidate they were kicking to the curb.

The Clintons get blamed for everything wrong with the Democratic Party and the presumptuous nominee? What has any of his endless flip-flopping, inexperience or arrogance to do with Hillary, who has been kind enough to campaign for this vacuous media creation while he takes his family on yet another vacation?

I think it’s awfully nice of Hillary to do anything for a man who has painted her and Bill as racists. Don’t you? The Clintons have done more fund raising, campaigning and heavy lifting for the Democratic Party than anyone and if their intellect and talent is the subject of sour grapes, then the DNC sad sacks need to get themselves to a therapist and work it out.

Dowd blames Hillary’s ‘mismanagement’ in spending so much money on a campaign only to lose – but she didn’t lose – neither of them has enough pledged delegates to claim the nomination. With FL and MI seated in full, as Obama requested, it is practically a tie, with Hillary leading in the popular vote.

Ms. Mo fails to mention that Obama spent twice the money, had the press fawning over him daily, the DNC riding shotgun for him at every turn and still could not close the deal. If not for cowardly super delegates bowing to pressure from the scheming Pelosi, Dean, Reid and Kerry, this would rightfully be decided at the Convention.

What about Obama’s poor management skills? Despite every advantage he can’t lift his flagging, sagging poll numbers and is in a dead heat with McCranky? Why is the more qualified woman once again supposed to acquiesce, lie back and take it, so the less qualified man can have an easier time. Let him get off his arse and earn it. Or is he too busy body surfing?

As to Ms. Dowd’s other point, Hillary Clinton is not “encouraging” her supporters to do anything in particular – now or at the Convention, except asking them to support Obama. Not that the DNC deserves it, but she is a good and loyal Democrat to the core. Her supporters have minds of their own, and they are making their own decisions about what they plan to do. Now and at the Convention. And that includes who we will ultimately vote for in November. Hillary does not and cannot control the voters. We are not the mindless sheep that Obama and Ms. Dowd, apparently, wish us to be.

It is unconscionable to think that Joan of Arc in a pantsuit, the most prepared candidate, with the best, most well thought out policies, persevered against ridiculous odds, and will not even be properly honored at the Convention – and her 18,000,000 voters will likewise be tossed aside like so much garbage – and McDowd thinks Hillary is being ‘selfish?’ Respecting them is just good political sense, Maureen.

What kind of an unmitigated boob does someone have to be not to realize that if you don’t honor Senator Clinton’s historic accomplishments, and her voters – the arrogant Obambi will lose the election in the Fall? He may lose anyway – but continuing to follow Maureen’s prescription of figuratively defecating all over Hillary is as sick as it is sad.

If it is selfish of Hillary to tirelessly stand on flatbed trucks and in town halls across our great nation and take the time to be accountable, and explain the policies she wishes to implement to move this country forward, then pardon my dust, but that’s the kind of ‘selfishness’ I welcome.

Maureen Dowd can only hang her head in shame, if indeed she has any, for wishing to trumpet the efforts of a man of little relative accomplishment (but two memoirs!) over a woman who has fought her entire life for the rights of children, first responders, veterans, women, health care and education.

Finally, no, I don’t believe Maureen Dowd is ‘necessary.’

The sooner she realizes her petty attacks and obsessive harpings only serve to further diminish her in the eyes of all decent and sensible people, the better.