As part of the eternal hack columnist search for false equivalency, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Maureen Dowd suggests that the Democrats really blew it by not nominating someone with absolutely no gender-related baggage like…Joe Biden:
Partly, it was the Democrats’ preference for lecturing and entitlement over winning and wooing. They passed over people who had better messages and more authentic personae who might have beaten Trump, like Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden, and gave the nomination to Hillary Clinton, a flawed feminist icon who was stunted in her ability to criticize her rival for his retrogressive treatment of women since she had enabled her husband in his retrogressive treatment of women.
Anita Hill was not available for comment.
As Pierce notes, the idea that Dems “gave” the nomination to Clinton is also classic MoDo sexism, to the extent that it means anything. Clinton wasn’t “given” anything, but for better or worse won the nomination by getting the most votes from Democratic primary voters, who in any case did not have Biden to choose from. If the argument is that Biden was forced out of the race…what’s the causal mechanism? There’s no threat you can make against someone who otherwise has no job in politics after 2016, and if Biden had no independent ability to raise money from large or small donors despite being Vice President of the United States that means…he was a bad candidate.
I dunno, with Dowd on her umpteenth year of stumbling over to the phone and hitting some random numbers after her fourth martini-ing it in it strikes me that the Times may want to reconsider giving its columnists more job security than Article III judges.