Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Destroying the Democratic Nomi... | Required Reading »

Monday, March 3, 2008

From WaPo to MoDo

posted by on March 3 at 13:13 PM

Meanwhile, as I was getting all upset (whoops, hysterical!) about Charlotte Allen’s idiotic “chicks are dumb” op/ed in the Washington Post, Maureen Dowd has a column this week that literally compares Hillary to Andrea Yates (the mom who murdered her kids) and “Mommie Dearest,” calls her campaign “hysterical,” and says Clinton “snipped” at a reporter on NightlineŚ”tangled in her own victimhood.” Poor lil’ MoDo—who will she attack when she doesn’t have Hils to kick around anymore? Michele Obama better watch her back.

RSS icon Comments


Sigh - what is with all these women-hating women lately?

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 3, 2008 1:15 PM

You know, you seem to spend a lot of time e-stalking particular columnists whose unique worldview you find irksome. Why do you spend so much of your energy on angry rebuttals to essentially the same output cranked out yet again by the same particular pundit? Surely I would never waste my valuable time on such a thing.

Posted by tsm | March 3, 2008 1:25 PM

There are already rumblings in the press about what a "bitch" Michelle Obama is on the campaign trail. Yep, watch her back indeed.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | March 3, 2008 1:26 PM

Each day I am getting more and more firm in my belief that Clinton can't win now OR against McCain because hatred and abuse of women is rife and publically accepted. I didn't expect it to be this bad. Right now, you can pretty much say anything at all about women in this country on the front page and not even get a hand slap.

The feminist movement has a much longer way to go.

disclosure: I don't like Clinton for her politics, but I think she may be going to go down because of her gender

Posted by mirror | March 3, 2008 1:29 PM

ECB, your post makes it sound like you are conceding imminent defeat for Clinton! Have you lost your faith?

Posted by jameyb | March 3, 2008 1:31 PM

Dowd does seem to have a, umm, boner for Hillary... It takes away from the conversation, for sure.

Posted by It's Mark Mitchell | March 3, 2008 1:47 PM

She does not literally compare HRC to Andrea Yates. She literally says the mom in the ad looks like Andrea Yates. Literally.

Posted by Levislade | March 3, 2008 1:48 PM

ECB. Your last sentence is startling and anyone who reads this or does a Google search for those words, could infer different meanings from that.

Posted by apres_moi | March 3, 2008 1:50 PM

#7 is correct.

Posted by elswinger | March 3, 2008 1:54 PM

Thank you #7 for reading the article carefully.

Posted by Clarkj | March 3, 2008 1:59 PM

what 7 said. did you even read modo's article, or just scan it for anti-feminist buzz words?

a lot of women who consider themselves feminists are offended by the way hillary has leveraged her gender whenever it is politically expedient to do so, especially when making excuses for what has been a really shabby campaign. it might earn hillary sympathy, but it certainly doesn't help the feminist movement very much. but to be fair, joan crawford analogies don't help dowd get her point across any better either.

Posted by brandon | March 3, 2008 2:08 PM

@2 - maybe people forward articles about women journalists to ECB and so she writes about them more frequently as a result?

Just my guess.

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 3, 2008 2:13 PM

Or maybe, because writing about the news is her job, she reads more articles about these things than the rest of us. I read a lot of blogs for my job and I end up having a lot more to say about the topics I read about (food and the environment) than my friends who don't...

Posted by Abby | March 3, 2008 2:28 PM

Quick! Look over there! Gender Cards!!!

Yup. A campaign busting out the gender card to distract from the fact they are loosing. Why talk about Hillary and her poorly run campaign when we can all debate gender issues instead*.

There is a time and a place to play the gender or race card, but playing it during a campaign is a desperate distraction and not an attempt to start a healthy debate.

* And I almost bit their troll before I wrote this comment. Hillary is basically asking for a handicap bonus because she is female in the same way females sometimes argue the shouldn't get the same tests when trying to be, say, a firefighter or cop. If you think that is a legit card to play during an election, go ahead and vote for her. I personally think the issue needs discussion but quite frankly bringing into play during your campaign is a desperate distraction and not an attempt to start a national discussion about gender equality.

Posted by crk on bellevue ave | March 3, 2008 2:55 PM
I don't like Clinton for her politics, but I think she may be going to go down because of her gender

So because she's a woman she may not be doing well? You admit to a personal gender bias? Pfft, women, always being held down by the fact that they're women.

If McCain were a woman you'd surely argue he (she) would be losing because of his (her) gender, even if you didn't like his (her) politics. Come on...

Posted by Anon | March 3, 2008 2:59 PM

@13 - good point.

We always notice the things that upset us more than the things that don't upset us - and blogs magnify that, since they tend to be filled with the interesting/upsetting linked news, rather than the mundane/boring news.

Can you imagine blogging about retail markups for electricity, for example? Boooooring.

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 3, 2008 3:03 PM

MoDo hates everyone. She's always hated Hillary. Because she wants to fuck Bill, probably.

Posted by max solomon | March 3, 2008 3:21 PM

I'd buy tickets to an ECB/Maureen Dowd jello-wrestling contest.

Yeah. That'd be hawt.

Posted by NapoleonXIV | March 3, 2008 3:44 PM

Only if it's non-horse-derived organic vegetarian jello ...

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 3, 2008 5:13 PM

Midol, you bitch...

Take some already.

Posted by ecce homo | March 3, 2008 7:25 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).