WHAT DIGBY SAID! Quite correctly, Digby foresaw what a poor immigrant (Maureen Dowd) said: // link // print // previous // next //
MONDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2009
WHAT DIGBY SAID: Especially after Sundays New York Times, well go with what Digby said last week about the Salahi blather:
The Obama White House is finding out just how sharp their claws can be, Digby wrote. That was before Maureen Dowds broken-souled Sunday column. To our ear, Dowds column suggests that a larger problem may be brewing than the one Digby foresaw.
Before we look at Dowds sorry piecethe Times should be ashamed for printing such drivellets consider what a slightly more rational world would be like.
In a slightly more rational world, major journalists would concern themselves with topics which actually matter. When they wrote about such topics, they would try to make actual sense.
Dowd, of course, is a major journalist within our benighted culture. In 1999, she won a Pulitzer Prize for her thoughts during the previous about Bill and Miss Lewinsky. (Her official citation praised her fresh and insightful columns on the impact of President Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky.) Through the spread of her utterly fatuous style, she may have influenced American journalism more than any other individual in the past two decades.
Yesterday, Dowd outdid even herself. Many liberals slept through the social wars of the Clinton-Gore years. Warning! Yesterdays deeply irrational column recalls that disgraceful time.
Someone must be sacrificed on the altar of Sally Quinn, Digby observed. Yesterday, Dowd made it clearthat somebody is White House social secretary Desiree Rogers, who has somehow managed to anger the deeply irrational Dowd. Lying face down on Dear Jacks finest shag, the green-eyed columnist penned her second consecutive attack on the deeply appalling Rogers. (To recall Dowds first attack, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 12/2/09). In her trademark, repulsive manner, Dowd even lumped Rogers in with the currently unloved Tiger Woods:
In a slightly rational world, the nastiness of that comparison would occur to almost any editor. So too the stupidity of the claim that Rogers has been brought low. But in her previous column, the gruesome Dowd strangely explained that Rogers had been cruising for a bruising since April, when she apparently got herself on the wrong side of Insider Washingtons social order. Hissing and spitting as she typically does when offended by more accomplished women, Dowd offered this utterly foolish take on recent events:
Hiss! Hiss-spit! Hiss-spit! Mee-ow!! Dowds style has always been drawn from the womens pages of the 1950sfrom the days when women hadnt yet been allowed to discuss substantial fare. Here we see her green-eyed style again, as weve seen it so many times in the past. Angered by Rogers designer clothes, Dowd responds in the broken-souled way which has increasingly come to define our journalism during the years of this columnists influence on our D-minus elite. But the dumbness of yesterdays column is captured in Dowds silly insistence that Rogers failure to testify before Congress last week must have been Rogers decision. This is extremely unlikely, of course. But Dowd just kept hammering on:
Hiss! Hiss-spit! Mee-ow! Dowd at least suggests in this passage that it was really the White HouseObama himselfwho decided that Rogers wouldnt appear before Congress. But so what! As she continues, Dowd keeps implying that it was Rogers decisionRogers, the grand social diva. In a slightly more rational world, someone who wrote perfect drivel like this wouldnt be long for her job:
Rogers posed for a magazine last springand Dowd herself wasnt asked! To Dowd, this of course means that Rogers has been sashaying around and posing in magazines as though she were the first lady.
It has long been clear that the New York Times lacks the intelligence or the shame to divest itself of this hiss-spitting style. But liberals and Democrats should be concerned by the drift of Dowds recent columns. In the 1990s, the primal Heathers of Insider Washington turned against the low-class rubes of the Clinton-Gore world. (Darlings! Both men were white southerners!) They chased them around for eight or nine years, finally sending George Bush to the White House.
The mean girls style of that earlier period has resurfaced in Dowds recent columns on Rogers. In a more rational world, the Times would be deeply ashamed of what it has published. In our world, real trouble may loom.
What a poor immigrant said: Right to this day, nothing has captured the Essence of Dowd quite like Joe Kleins anecdote. In 1999, Gay Jervey profiled Dowd for the now-defunct Brills Content (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 6/15/00). This is what Klein said:
Darlings! Imagine! Welfare reform!!
Long ago, Bob Dylan x-rayed Maureen Dowds soul. Since that time, Dowds broken-souled poor immigrant style has come to define our journalism: