I stopped reading her train wreck writing ages ago. It takes a post detailing particularly egregious misogyny to draw me back in...

Occasionally, but it was a long time ago, MoDo would write an amusing column amongst the weird ones. Those days are long gone.

I agree with you that there must be some sort of medication issue, whether prescribed or self-.

If she is jealously displaying the remnants of some sort of crush on Clinton, you have to wonder if he rebuffed her.

In the meantime, MoDo has jumped the shark. And Sulzberger and Keller are apparently oblivious.

"She makes a few cogent points, but like scallops wrapped in bacon, their flavor is lost to the overpowering insanity that surrounds it."

I love that line.

I love this post, mainly because you are such a damn good writer.

Eddy said:

"She makes a few cogent points, but like scallops wrapped in bacon, their flavor is lost to the overpowering insanity that surrounds it."

"I love that line."

***

I thought the exact same thing. You wield a mean simile, madam! (And scallops should never be wrapped in bacon. In Nova Scotia, where the best scallops come from, it's a crime. Punishable by being forced to eat a Maine McDonalds' "lobster roll".)

I'm not precisely sure when I began to enjoy Ms Dowd's columns less, but I think what happened was that I sensed a shift from slightly arch satire and amusedly lampooning things and people, to something closer to bitterness. It's a fine line, hard to walk, admittedly, but I think she seems to cross it more frequently these days.

Maureen Dowd is an attention-monger who is full of self-loathing. She's an older more sophisticated Plastic (from Mean Girls). She wants to be the most beautiful, most popular and the smartest girl in school. She heaps disdain on other women hoping others will join in. Its a high school play for recognition and popularity being played out on the pages of the NY Times. I agree that she has the glazed look of the self-medicated (or maybe its the Botox). At the risk of sounding like Dr. Phil, she is both trying to fill and ignore a deep hole within her by being clever and trite. She need therapy -- immediately.

The main thing wrong with Maureen Dowd is she has nothing to say. She has the position and she has to crank out the words but she lost all pretense to relevance or insight years ago.

Alix, on the other hand, appears well equipped to take her place. And, while the line about the scallops and bacon is vivid and brilliant, so, in the right hands, can be a dish prepared using bacon-wrapped scallops.

I understand the purist's heart, Cam, but people have been known to turn up their noses at a HoJo Clam Roll, too, and it happens to be one of the culinary gifts of the past century.

I often find myself wondering if even Dowd has a clue what she's trying to say.

I agree that Dowd's columns sell, Stellaa. This one is at the top of NYT's "most emailed" list.

Fortunately or not, I think it is a combination of outrage/confused fascination that drives her readership. Not sure how to stop the Times from publishing a car wreck.

Cam, I so agree with you, although Lonnie makes a point that scallops and bacon can meet under the right circumstances. Like a free-thinking journalist should meet a Russian politician: with minimal contact and an excess of caution.

Ugh, a reference to the McD's so-called lobster roll. Dowd's writing really is bringing out all the horrible things in the universe.

nah, it's not weed - too much good stuff available, and plus, it's hard to work up a good head of angry jealous psychotic steam when you're hitting the pipe. Mostly you want to laugh and make friends with people in elevators.

I think Dowd can't stand to have another attractive female center state - ever. Period. She has queen bee syndrome. She is the type to issue coy demurrals when men exclaim over her beauty and intelligence - "Oh, I'm not so special. There are lots of women with beauty and brains, if you just give them a chance" ...then does her best to deconstruct and annhilate every single example she can find.

She reminds me of Scarlett O'Hara, except that Scarlett was more honest with herself about what she really thought of other women.

In a perfect world, you would challenge Ms. Dowd with your own column in the Times for your refreshingly thoughtful voice is far more engaging than hers as evidenced by the declining quality of those dreck ridden editorial rants like the one you've referenced so poignantly in your post. All too often, Dowd resorts to undermining the intelligence of her readership. I still remain a fan of her earlier work, but am growing tired of the same old shtick.

The problem is that here glib take on things gets picked up -- she is a political wrecker. She doesn't dumb down the conversation, she "shallows" it.

Three years ago at a book fair I was presenting at the same time she was. A couple I knew split up --the wife went to my presentation and the guy thought he lucked out to go to hers, which was packed. In the middle of mine, he showed up in the back of the room. Seems MoDo was reading from notes in that whiney voice and not even looking up. Everyone was pretty appalled by her lack of effort.

She's a piece of work, and I have to agree that now that the Web is offering up so many wonderful writers, she's damn lucky to have started out a bit ahead of the blogosphere.

Well I heard she has the hots for Al Franken. Camping outside his apartment with "Ich Leib Al" signs. Holding up a ghetto blaster playing Peter Gabriel songs. Calling at all hours of the day and night making meowing sounds. It's embarrassing.

He took out a restraining order on her but she would get around it by disguising herself as Sigfried, though putting her cat on a leash was a dead giveaway. Sigfried and Roy use much bigger cats.

The answer is nothing's wrong with Maureen Dowd, as far as I'm concerned. Sorry to bust this thread of contempt, but I've been a fan of hers for many years, looking forward every week to her ascerbic, sarcastic, whimsical, blunt, usually thoughtful and penetrating copy. When I saw this post, I went to her last two columns, including the one criticized here, and frankly, I don't see the "dreck" some of you are so "snarkily" (one of Joan Walsh's favorite adjectives) citing. Perhaps the claws should be retracted.

I joined OS recently, and some of the writing here is very fine, including this post. However, I also feel a strong feminist undertow on this site, a preoccupation with women's rights and feminine sensibility, and a healthy dose of disdain for the male POV. I'm a powerful swimmer, but I'm beginning to feel the pull out to sea.

The word "misogyny" is tossed around like peanuts at a bar, and when commenters start pyschoanalyzing a trailblazing female pundit as a woman-hater, I get a little tense. Is this real criticism, professional jealousy or just another OCD message board?

I'm not a professional writer, although I aspire to fine writing and have often received positive feedback on my posts here and elsewhere. I think there are legions of anonymous writers who on any given day can wordsmith rings around Dowd, or for that matter Walsh or David Brooks or a host of other established pundits. This post is an example of that, notwithstanding its skewed conclusions about Dowd. The truth, however, is in the writer's stamina, the sustained. focused output over time that elevates the very few to the status that Ms. Dowd enjoys.

Christopher Hitchens, one of my personal favorites, just wrote a lengthy column in VF about his teeth whitening, new haircut and office fitness machine. Not subject matter of current import, except to him that is, but still eminently readable because of the signature Hitchens style, an acquired taste I acquired some time ago. Would anyone give a New York minute to that column if it was written by me, even if my writing equalled or surpassed his? Of course not. He is Christopher Hitchens.

I'm not arguing Dowd's quality or motives here. I don't know her, but I know her work as a consumer, and in my book, she hasn't lost anything to merit such facile put-downs. Maybe it's that those who ridicule her so smoothly and disrespectfully simply don't get her, or perhaps want to be her, or at least be in her catbird seat. After all, the route up the mountain to NY Times Op-Ed, the most prestigious opinion page on the planet, is treacherous and many perish along the way...so much easier to snipe from base camp. If I'm a misguided, retro voice in this feminist wilderness, I'm fairly certain someone here will set me straight. Maybe I'm another closet misogynist.

@stonecutterThe word "misogyny" is tossed around like peanuts at a bar, and when commenters start pyschoanalyzing a trailblazing female pundit as a woman-hater, I get a little tense. Is this real criticism, professional jealousy or just another OCD message board?

Sometimes misogyny cannot be perceived properly through the thinly veiled misogyny of the observer. Too many people fail to recognize the trait in themselves or others thereby needing a mirror to be held to their face. ( )

Maureen Down is mean-spirited at best -- the type of woman I would avoid at all costs if I were in the same room with her. I would not like to be stung by her or any other queen bee type.

Trailblazing...hmmm...like a fire-breathing dragon burning down the forest whilst trouncing through it? Because very little that is at all lovely or appealing escapes her fiery, tortured outbursts.

I put the blame on frustration of mirade strengths and varieties. Try on social, sexual or professional -- any one of them could be the fit for firing up Maureen.

Thanks for the hat-tip, but I'm not touching this one with a ten-foot pole. For what it's worth, I agree with you that she's gone a bit off the deep end and I quit reading her column long ago. Nice work on the post.

Well, stonecutter, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I feel that it is not disrespectful for me to express mine, especially since my claws are clipped compared to the way Dowd handles others with hers.

And I would never toss around the word misogyny like peanuts. Some people are allergic to peanuts.

Dowd has been far more miss than hit as the NYT columnists in general have been. Krugman is the only reliable read.

MD's column about the DNC a while ago in which she described the tone as "submerged rage" was so apparently off-based that I wasn't sure where she really was when she wrote it.

@ lalaucas
Well, I don't think Dowd is aiming for "lovely and appealing", so I can understand your distaste. It's the New York Times, after all, diminshed in the minds of many by its war coverage, but still a great read. It is not the New Yorker. As for misogyny "not being perceived properly", I think of it like porn...I know it when I see it. I'll be satisfied in this thread with being MD's apparently lone defender...I can sleep tonight.

Thank you for asking this question. Dare I say it: I think Ms. Down is ...ah..."bitter." Bitter that all she has to show for her sorry life is an office at the New York Times. Kids, hubby, family, purpose? Those she traded for the chance to opine for the NYTs. Like most who toil there, they confuse their status with the gravitas of the paper of record. It is the paper's record and history that's important -- not them personally.
Every day I see better writing and analysis from folks who post here and elsewhere on a daily basis. Maureen, perhaps it's time to step out of your high heels and find your way back home to your roots.

ms. dowd's train wreck happened years ago when she was fired and hired by a friend at the nyt. she's stayed there and made a cottage industry out of uninformed, arcane cynicism and psuedo sexuality.

Finally, someone is addressing the spewing of hatred and bitterness by this woman. She, like Arianna Huffington, has never met a woman she likes, not a successful one. She was apparently brought up in a strict Catholic family and I think that has caused her not to see the worth in women. Very religious people often are brainwashed by church teachings and policies to believe women should not be in positions of authority, especially the Catholic religion. Women are supposed to have babies continuously (no birth control) and stay home and take care of those babies. The fathers can do whatever they want. She resents men also but she seems to make allowances for them. I enjoyed her wit and humor in the past but she is so bitter now, I pass right by her columns.

Well, Alexandria, you seem to have struck a major nerve with this post....OS members coming out of the woodwork to castigate and vilify MD as a bitter, neurotic, religiously myopic no-talent. An extremely successful female who's reached the pinnacle of her profession, but can't acknowledge any other successful woman.
Does anyone in this thread know MD personally?

Either I'm dead wrong about her, which is entirely possible, or this site has the makings of a powerful propaganda unit, or I'm the proverbial square peg. Too early to tell, but I'm getting warm.

I've been writing about Dowd at Salon all during the primaries. Her off the wall attacks on HRC are what got my attention. I think what happened to her is she got a position as a columnist at the TIMES and it brought out the snob in her. She's the female David Brooks. Her subject is status, whose in and whose "out" based on her projections of what constitutes "class." Her writing "technique" if it can be called that is mostly obfuscation. You can never really figure out what's she's saying, and that provides her with the cover she needs to address the "right" folks. I feel sorry for the professional writers who are forced to be collegial with her given her position. She's actually an embarassment to those who do have "class". Look for her eventually to try to write a novel, if she hasn't already, that will be a real stinker. Life isn't fair, never was, never will be. Nice job Alexandria.

@Stonecutter -- What is it that you like about her? She is pretty, and I would appreciate her writing style, if I could stomach the content. No one is saying she is a bad "writer" as in how she puts words on a piece of paper.

We are concerned with a pattern of twisting and spinning "facts" into something barely recognizable as "lies" -- meaning there is often no understanding where she is coming from in her thinking. Do you agree with her analysis of people and events? If so, good for her, everyone needs a fan?!

Stonecutter: I'm not going to summarize my analysis of Dowd any more than I've already done on Salon, where I showed how she specializes in cheap shots. Guy to guy, when I read her I feel like I've been trapped fixing the toilet when two women enter to discuss the woman who stole the man they both had been married too. It's malicious gossip and innuendo masquerading as legitimate opinion. If it wasn't in the TIMES she'd be dismissed as a hack. I read your blog and you seem to make sense otherwise. Maybe you just miss New York kvetching. (Don't ask me how to spell it.)

Regardless of what you think of Maureen Dowd's writing, the reason we're focused on Sarah's go-go boots is because of what she's been selling -- the poor, little small town girl being picked on by big mean, bullies like Keith Olbermann. The misogyny, dear Sarah, is in you, not your stars.

I used to love reading Maureen Dowd's work. Even when she was eviscerating politicians I was sympathetic to, like Bill Clinton. But her writing about Hillary has become so obsessive it doesn't feel like a NY Times column, it feels like a ransom note.

Obsessive. More than bitter, condescending, spiteful, unfair, the quality I find unreadable is the obsessiveness. Because it "breaks the fourth wall" of the newspaper column. I'm no longer reading about her subject, Hillary. I'm reading about Maureen Dowd. She's revealing too much. It's like she's stripping herelf naked in public. It's embarrasing to watch.

The personal essay is a delicate balancing act. You can reveal almost anything no matter how personal, if your readers feel you are in firm artistic control of your material.

Maureen Dowd's Hillary columns have shifted background and foreground. Her vitriol toward Hillary is overwhelming her artistry. It's sad and it's a loss.

Maureen -- go to a 12 step program and give up writing about Hillary, one day at a time! Please.

How about this, stonecutter?

She makes things up! That quote about Kerry and Nascar? He never said it. MoDo invented it.

Her dismissive comments about a field of serious presidential candidates... The Seven Dwarves.

Her emasculation of Edwards, Kerry, etc. Her attacks against Howard Dean's wife. All totally uncalled for. (I'm surprised that you would approve of her treatment of men, frankly.)

I could go on and on, but I've already done it too many times, not just recently, but through at least two election cycles. And only after giving her a very fair trial.

Do I think someone else should have her prime piece of editorial real estate? Absolutely. Do I covet it myself. No way. But I'd love to see some one else there, a woman with some real critical thinking skills, whose writing is more than the high-schoolish "dreck" that we get from Dowd. The "Dreck" Girl. Maybe we should start calling her that?

I thought I was the only one whose days were regularly ruined by reading Dowd (against my better judgment)! My favorite was when, after writing misogynist column after column about Hillary (comparing her to a monster/zombie who wouldn't stop chasing Obama), she decried the sexist/racist attacks on Michelle Obama. She seemed pretty depressed after she lost Hillary (when Hillary lost), but now, with a new woman to hate (Palin), it's as if she's got a fresh dose of anti-depressants and/or speed. I keep thinking that the Times will come to its senses, but they seem desperate to seem one tenth as interesting as blog posts like yours.

I think Jan and ktm respond to stonecutter better than I ever could, but I will add just this in my own defense:

If it seems my "put-downs" are facile, perhaps the reason is that what I wrote was not meant as a put-down. I don't know MD personally. She may be a wonderful individual who volunteers at the Red Cross and worries about the environmental impact of large-scale pig farming. For all we know, she intends her column to be as off-base and off-putting as it is as a very complicated satire. Taken at face value, however, MD's column does seem, as LT described it, like a train wreck--not because of the opinions she espouses, but the way she communicates them: in an ever more disjointed and delusional fashion.

If she were picking on anyone else the same way she does Hillary, et al, I would be just as concerned for her mental health.

You're so right about the writing style being the ultimate problem, not the content. Well before the election season, I was disturbed by her increasingly fragmented, hyperbolic "gossip girl" style. Even when she was skewering Bush-Cheney, I felt the opinions were undercut by the style -- disconnected "in-jokes" posing as satire. Jonathan Swift, avert your eyes. By the way - she continues to not let Hillary go, as she now depends on the land of make-believe (see today's column "Clinton Vs. Palin") to do her stuff.