Dowd and Hillary

Via TPM, the NYTimes Ombusperson (a.k.a. Public Editor) criticizes Maureen Dowd's coverage of Hillary (Pantsuits and the Presidency). I guess I don't expect much from Dowd to even bother outrage anymore. Dowd is an embarrasment to the profession, and that's saying a lot since 'pundits' are usually the lowest form of writer. 'Pundits' as we now have them are either bought-and-paid-for partisans or glib hacks. I really have no idea how Dowd got to her position (and I'm not surprised that she's won a Pulitzer - because those things are given out like meth at a hillbilly wedding).

But what makes this particular line of criticism important is the recognition that Dowd is basically gay-baiting. She applies a stark sexual politics onto Democrats - painting Democratic men as gay (unless they're like Bill Clinton and then they're pimps), and the women as lesbians. Considering Dowd is unmarried, and has attacked the notion of marriage in her book (Are Men Necessary?), her fixation on gender and sexuality goes beyond creepy into the pathology zone.

The whatever blog, Hullabaloo, put it very well:

"Again, the question isn't whether she should have treated Clinton any differently. It's that her entire worldview is toxic, both culturally and politically. She uses explicitly sexist and homophobic imagery that favors traditional authoritarian leadership to explain politics. She gets away with it because she has a rapier wit and is a physically beautiful person, thus insulating herself from the kind of criticism others would receive for writing this crud. But in truth she's a walking anachronism, more like a character in Mad Men than a modern sophisticate."

Pic self-made. Backpost finished 2009-12-03.