In today’s column, Maureen Dowd explains why she’s from salt of the earth and Obama’s a member of the cozened elite. And you know she’s got it bad when she has the bit so firmly in her teeth that she even finds herself saying good things about Hillary.
On a separate note, perhaps it’s time for the Times board to reconsider having a man who writes as a campaign operative occupying one of their slots on the oped page. The best evidence of the Times estrangement or I guess we’re supposed to say, out-of-touchedness, is not any lack of conservatives on their oped page but choosing one who writes caricatures of conservative writing. Conservative commentary is not limited to clownish analogies and character assassination. At least not entirely.
Late Update: A typical elitist reader adds the following …
You write that your critique of Kristol sounds “a separate note” than your take on Dowd, but I rather find them to be in perfect harmony. The two are equally guilty of employing “clownish analogies and character assassination” to enliven their columns. And that’s the real issue with both columnists; that instead of offering readers novel evidence or arguments, they just dress their trite and tired claims in flamboyant language, and pass them off as something new. There are no ideas in their prose, just a relentless focus
on personalities in place of policies.The columns I most enjoy aren’t necessarily the ones with which I agree, they’re the ones that force me to think. When was the last time you could say that of either Kristol or Dowd?
