The Remarkable Revisionism Of Maureen Dowd
Posted: March 15, 2012 Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, abortion rights, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton: Her Campaign for All of Us, Maureen Dowd, Revisionism, War on Women, Women's Rights 24 CommentsI stopped reading Maureen Dowd’s columns after the 2008 election season. Dowd’s attacks on Hillary Clinton, her drift into pseudo-literary
allusions and her love affair with all things Barack Obama was too much to bear.
Life is short, I reasoned. So little time, so much to read. Why waste precious moments on mind-numbing crapola?
But yesterday morning, I found a deadly twofer in the Op-Ed section of the NYT. Thomas Freidman [a man I rarely agree with], waxed eloquent on the future of capitalism, now that the shine on globalization has dulled. Not to be outdone, Dowd led with the Tea Party’s warrior cry: ‘Don’t Tread On Us.’ Her tagline?
For the Republican uncivil war on women, we’ll need a take-no-prisoners Democratic general.
We’ll need? As in Maureen Dowd and moi? As in gender solidarity within the Democratic Party now has meaning?
Oh yes, I’m well aware of the Republican assault on all things female, particularly our sexual parts, our inability to make right-minded decisions when it comes to reproduction or contraception. Women are obviously so clueless it’s a wonder we can tie our shoes. Just to be sure we understand what pregnancy is, what it truly means, women in a number of states will be required to have an ultrasound before terminating a pregnancy, otherwise known as a legal abortion. The forward-thinking Great State of Arizona has suggested legislation where an employer can fire you for using birth control. Amazing!
I’m waiting for someone to suggest arranged marriages. Or foot binding.
That being said, Dowd piqued my curiosity, seduced me to break my no-read vow. I was fascinated with her head-spinning reversal:
Hillary Clinton has fought for women’s rights around the world. But who would have dreamed that she would have to fight for them at home?
And then goes on to say:
. . . Republicans could drive women into Democratic arms. . . .And whose arms would be more welcoming to the sisters than Hillary’s?
This is too rich. Hillary Clinton has spent her entire professional life fighting for the rights of women and girls, here and abroad. But in 2008, none of that mattered. Shortly before the New Hampshire primary, Hillary Clinton spoke to supporters. Her eyes welled up. Maureen Dowd’s reaction? In her Op-ed entitled, ‘Can Hillary Cry Her Way Back To the Whitehouse?’ she wrote:
But there was a whiff of Nixonian self-pity about her choking up. What was moving her so deeply was her recognition that the country was failing to grasp how much it needs her. In a weirdly narcissistic way, she was crying for us. But it was grimly typical of her that what finally made her break down was the prospect of losing.
And to further skewer:
She became emotional because she feared that she had reached her political midnight, when she would suddenly revert to the school girl with geeky glasses and frizzy hair, smart but not the favorite. All those years in the shadow of one Natural, only to face the prospect of being eclipsed by another Natural?
Yup, that’s what I call a strong dose of sisterly love! A sharp knife right between the ribs. Get the angle right, there’s barely any blood. And the campaign against Hillary was death by a thousand tiny cuts.
But Dowd was not a one-trick pony. She kept it up. In the piece ‘Wilting Over Waffles’:
Now that Hillary has won Pennsylvania, it will take a village to help Obama escape from the suffocating embrace of his rival. Certainly Howard Dean will be of no use steering her to the exit. It’s like Micronesia telling Russia to denuke.
“You know, some people counted me out and said to drop out,” said a glowing Hillary at her Philadelphia victory party, with Bill and Chelsea by her side. “Well, the American people don’t quit. And they deserve a president who doesn’t quit, either.”
The Democrats are growing ever more desperate about the Attack of the 50 Foot Woman.
Another warm and fuzzy descriptive: Attack of the 50 Foot Woman. What’s not to love?
Dowd whipped it right to the finish line. In a piece entitled: ‘Yes, She Can’:
Hillary’s orchestrating a play within the play in Denver. Just as Hamlet used the device to show that his stepfather murdered his father, Hillary will try to show the Democrats they chose the wrong savior.
And:
Obama also allowed Hillary supporters to insert an absurd statement into the platform suggesting that media sexism spurred her loss and that “demeaning portrayals of women … dampen the dreams of our daughters.” This, even though postmortems, including the new raft of campaign memos leaked by Clintonistas to The Atlantic — another move that undercuts Obama — finger Hillary’s horrendous management skills.
Besides the crashing egos and screeching factions working at cross purposes, Joshua Green writes in the magazine, Hillary’s “hesitancy and habit of avoiding hard choices exacted a price that eventually sank her chances at the presidency.”
It would have been better to put this language in the platform: “A woman who wildly mismanages and bankrupts a quarter-of-a-billion-dollar campaign operation, and then blames sexism in society, will dampen the dreams of our daughters.”
Dampen the dreams of our daughters???
I’d like to dampen Maureen Dowd’s head, a few dunks in the toilet. But to be fair, Maureen Dowd is not the only one revising past barbs and now hyping the Hillary Clinton train for 2016. I’m hearing the pundit echo machine repeat the refrain that Hillary has reached a pinnacle of respect, equal to . . . Al Gore and John Kerry.
Really?
Hillary Clinton reached that pinnacle long before these born-again cheerleaders took note. Despite the minimizing of her accomplishments–the 80+ countries she visited as First Lady, her participation in Vital Voices during the peace agreement sought in Ireland and her remarkable speech in Beijing—there were many of us who recognized Hillary Clinton as one of the most talented and dedicated political figures of her generation.
The question is . . . why now? Why the sudden gush of Hillary love after years of pot shots?
Well, riddle me this: who desperately needs the women’s vote in 2012? Sure, the Republicans have gone out of their way to play the Grand Inquisitor of the 21st century, but until recently President Obama specifically and Democrats in general were watching the female vote slip into tight-lipped resentment. But then, who can draw genuine excitement in the female electorate [leaving the dwindling Palinistas out of the equation for the moment]?
None other than Hill, who has been voted as the most admired woman for the last 16 years. With good reason.
Hillary Clinton has stated her role as Secretary of State is likely to be her last public position. I’ve resigned myself to that fact though I’d be thrilled if she were to run again. But the possibility of a future Clinton candidacy has not cast mass amnesia, erased what we witnessed and heard–the flurry of demeaning articles, suggestions that Hillary was ‘pimping’ Chelsea on the campaign trail, that someone should drag Hillary into a broom closet where only the aggressor comes out, that her nagging voice was like everyone’s ex-wife, etc., etc., etc.
Or this:
If Maureen Dowd and her colleagues have had a genuine change of heart about Hillary Clinton’s extraordinary career, her achievements and leadership qualities, I’m glad for that. But you’ll have to forgive me. I’m more than a little suspicious of rah-rah revisionism when the ‘Change We Can Believe In’ mantra has grown old and stale.
You’re not fooling anyone, Ms. Dowd. We have not forgotten.
peej
Carissa
ecocatwoman
mablue2
Mama Lopez
peggysue22
quixote
skydancingguestblogger
Mona (aka Wonk the Vote)
Sky Dancing 
Truly amazing post peggiesue. The Democrats would toss Hillary into the trash heap in a minute if they didn’t desparately need her. If she’s smart, and she is, she’ll avoid them like the plague that they have become, because certainly if the Democrats discovered that they no longer needed her, they would toss her again.
Dowd is disgusting – period. does she honestly believe that people have a memory that extends no longer than a minute?
HT asked:
“does she honestly believe that people have a memory that extends no longer than a minute?”
Apparently, that’s exactly what she thinks, HT. I almost flipped out of my seat when I read the Op-Ed because I’d read Dowd’s screechy diatribes before and grew disgusted with her penchant to tear the Clintons apart. She seemed to take special glee in ripping Hillary during the campaign.
Now all of a sudden it’s sisterly love 24/7. I don’t know who these people think they’re kidding. As for Hillary Clinton? I have no doubt that in public office or not, she’ll do remarkable things. Maybe that’s what Dowd can’t stand.
I’m going to be catty here, something I rarely do. At one point, Dowd had a mega love on for Bill Clinton. I have no idea what happened, but suddenly she turned on him. Then when Hillary was gaining recognition, Dowd unleashed her hate – perhaps because Hillary stood by him, and he stood firmly by Hillary. Interesting dynamics – only thing that flummoxes me is that very few others recognized this. Scorned woman syndrome – no idea – that’s between Dowd and her conscience, however the love she showered over Obama makes one wonder.
She probably does think that. As I said down below, MoDo is not a serious person. She is a very silly, shallow person. She’s probably also a very unhappy and insecure person. At least that’s how she comes across to me.
Ooooo, That’s juicy! And I could believe that all this nasty snark from Dowd was/is, indeed, personal. She seems to relish it too much. She made a point with Hillary to talk about her ‘masculinity,’ an attempt to be one of the boys. It just turned me off completely. That’s why the no-read vow.
Dowd must be trying to woo back her old audience or something. I couldn’t believe the op ed when I read it. Maybe she’s taking mind altering substances or something.
She is trying to pretend that she is for WOMEN, but we know she isn’t, just as Pelosi and Oprah! When it mattered they were no where to be seen and working against the Best Candidate that just happened to be a WOMAN!
No Modo for me, had enough to last a life time.
Right on, peggy sue! I thought exactly the same thing about MoDo’s column (after I too broke my no-read vow). Thank you.
So did I riverbird…so did I.
Nope, haven’t forgotten.
Seeing that MS. cover just made me growl!
I was thinking along the same lines as you were, but another showdown. Today msnbc “Now with Alex” – Luke had a panel, and you just have to watch it………….http://nowwithalex.msnbc.msn.com/
Click on Will Clinton Revive White House bid 2016………watch the commenators, especially one Mike Baricle (who can forget the pig when he said Hillary was everyone’s first wife standing outside the probate court)……..watch his face in this segment. Then listen to Abby Huntsman
(d/o John Huntsman) tell you how Hillary will need to have a couple two three years to refresh herself, because she looks sooooo tired………..soooo tired…….. Listen to the man who blasted some fresh air into Abby’s face, about double standards.
I’m with Hillary, let’s go after the ERA
ERA — right now — that’s what we need.
Doesn’t Dowd realize that women have long memories? Besides which the crap she’s written lives forever on the internet.
Under the 0bambam presidency — women have gone back 30 years. And why is this — because 0bama is a certified MCP.
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2012/03/from-you-cant-make-this-shit-up-files.html
“The Office on Women’s Heath, a division of the Department of Health and Human Services, has announced that it is teaming up with franchised women’s fitness corporation Curves to promote National Women’s Health Week, despite the fact that Curves’ founder and CEO, Gary Heavin, is virulently anti-choice.
”
THIS is how god damned stupid the white house is — and the idiots that they have running various not important offices/divisions. More than likely an anti choice MCP is heading that division and if not who ever is in that position is a raving asshole.
Doesn’t everyone know that the head of Curves is a male chauvinist pig??
Freaking idiots.
Why won’t I vote for 0bama EVER????
He is just too damned stupid — because he is a self centered Narcissist.
Yes, that is pretty stupid. They might as well team up with Domino’s Pizza, except that wouldn’t fit in with the anti-obesity obsession.
Here are Bill Clinton’s feelings on Dowd: “In 1997, after New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote an acerbic column about Clinton and golfer Tiger Woods—maintaining that the the two green-eyed hucksters deserved each other—Clinton told Branch, “She must live in mortal fear that there’s somebody in the world living a healthy and productive life.”
By the way I had to add Hillary Clinton’s feelings on Sally Quinn: “In 1996, when Washington author Sally Quinn was telling people that Hillary had not written her book, It Takes a Village, Branch suggested to the First Lady that she invite Quinn and her husband Ben Bradlee to the White House. “You know,” Hillary shot back, “she has been hostile since the moment we got here. Why would we invite somebody like that into our home. How could she expect us to.” Branch writes, Hillary “said Quinn and her friends simply invented gossip for their dinner circuit. They had launched one juicy affair between Hillary and a female veterinarian attending Socks, the Clinton family cat, with tales about how somebody discovered them in flagrante on a bedroom floor in the White House.”
I remember that oh so well. One society doyen who felt that the first lady had not shown the correct response to her self important self trying to tear down that first lady. It was the beginning of the incredibly foul character assassination attempts that continued for so many years. Today, few people know who Sally Quinn is – the wife of Ben Bradlee with few accomplishments outside of being a witchy society dame notwithstanding – the world knows who Hillary Clinton is. Perhaps that is the best revenge.
I honestly don’t read Maureen Dowd, and I stopped reading her long before 2008. Her attacks on Al Gore were enough for me. But I went and read this column. Frankly, I can’t work up any outrage about it. MoDo isn’t a serious person. She is even more ridiculous than David Brooks.
This column said to me that either Dowd couldn’t think of anything to write about and so she seized on this–or maybe she was assigned to write about the Women in the World Summit. This piece is just too weak and half-hearted for me to get worked up about. Where is the old cruel, mean-spirited MoDo?
Oh, I think she’s still there, BB–the old cruel, mean-spirited columnist. She was just trying to hide behind the grand ‘Sistah’ mask for this Op-Ed. Rouse the troops for November. Only her pointy teeth are showing :0).
What troops is she trying to rouse? I agree with Jan. Dowd hates everyone, and I don’t know anyone who takes her seriously anymore. Honestly, the NYT op-ed page is a complete joke.
Could she be trying to equivocate Clinton with Obama? The Republican attacks on women are now part of the Obama re-election strategy.
Maureen Dowd is just got the feel of how the wind is blowing and is joining the crowd. She hates everybody.
I will wait for the MoDo article where she asks why her FeMANist she campaigned for signed the President Obama Stupak Executive Order. When she is honest and writes about that, then maybe I will take a look, but that will never happen, she is still a cheerleader.
Thanks for the post PeggieSue!