Home / More on Hoyt and MoDo

More on Hoyt and MoDo

Comments
/
/
/
362 Views

What Digby said. Especially this:

These negative “feminine” stereotypes not only perpetuate noxious myths about female and gay leadership abilities in the culture at large, they consistently favor the right wing authoritarian philosophy. Dowd always says she’s speaking truth to power, but her obsession with “playing with gender” actually serves power very, very well. She and her editors may be so dazzled by puerile cutsiness like “Obama is like an anorexic starlet,” to even know that she’s being partisan, but that doesn’t mean she isn’t. It plays perfectly into the way Republicans have run elections since Reagan. If she and her editors don’t know she’s doing this then they are too stupid to be working for the paper of record.

…and what Amanda said.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • Incontinentia Buttocks

    Since Bill Kristol and David Brooks are full-time columnists and Ann Althouse is a former guest columnist, is anyone too stupid to be working for the “paper of record”?

  • aimai

    OK, the thread is short but I already want to award it to Incontinentia buttocks. I disagreed with Amanda over there, and agreed with Digby. I thought Hoyt let Dowd have the last word and didn’t, in fact, really embarrass her. Lets hope atrios is right and that even that mild rebuke is enough to humiliate her a lot.
    aimai

  • Lets hope atrios is right and that even that mild rebuke is enough to humiliate her a lot.
    But MoDo is beyond shame, as she demonstrates every week. Since her goal is to provoke controversy and bring more attention to her own blather, criticism becomes a form of positive reinforcement. The only real threat would be the loss of her editor’s support (= job security), and clearly that ain’t gonna happen.

  • aimai

    Geaghan,
    I agree completely. I was just thinking that as I read your post–if she weren’t shameless and beyond embarassment she couldn’t write half her columns–hell 99 percent of her columns. And that is why I don’t forgive Hoyt for not giving her the coup de grace, which would have been to point out how grindingly, tooth achingly, pathetically *old* her columns are. Baby, if you’ve been doing the same shtick for 24 years and no one likes it and no one has noticed–you are doing it wrong.
    aimai

  • aimai: Baby, if you’ve been doing the same shtick for 24 years and no one likes it and no one has noticed–you are doing it wrong.
    Exactly.
    But I still have to confess that, on very rare occasions, I actually get through one of her columns and get a secret chuckle from it — when she attacks Bush or Cheney or the rest of the cabal, that is. Even then, I have to look over my shoulder to make sure that no one notices what I’m reading.
    Nonetheless, her early retirement would be no loss whatsoever for journalism — quite the contrary, in fact. She’s a pernicious force in U.S. politics, but she knows how to create buzz and, depressingly, seems to have a large readership (as judged by the number of hits and emailed columns).

It is main inner container footer text