“Defanging a Hillary Basher”

Maureen Dowd, the #1 Hillary basher.

I’ve been meaning to link to Anita Finlay’s post at The New Agenda in which she “defangs a Hillary basher” since it was first published. Finlay's answer to the question, “Is Maureen Dowd Necessary?” remains acutely relevant in the run up to the 2016 election. 

Finlay has reminded me that in 2008, Arianna Huffington and Maureen Dowd were among the most vitriolic media types on the attack against Hillary Clinton. Dowd is already revving up for the next round, but Finlay, and hopefully others, have MoDo's  number:

Maureen Dowd, arguably the most powerful columnist at The New York Times, has made a career of loathing Hillary Clinton, painting her in a negative light as often as possible, whether she has anything to do with the topic at hand or not.

Dowd’s latest columns bash both mother and daughter.  First Dowd trashes Chelsea Clinton for the $75,000 fee she earns making speeches, although she donates every dollar to the Clinton Foundation.  Dowd, on the other hand, receive $30,000 per speech (giving about 12 per year).  No chump change that.  No word on how much she donates, however.

Then Dowd intimates that the only real star in the family (or in politics) is former President Bill, whom she finds equally distasteful, if charismatic…so much so, in fact, that Dowd avers he will have to drag his dull dolt of a wife across the finish line if she runs for President once more.

Since Ms. Dowd was one of the chief Hillary-bashers in 2008 and shows no sign of let up, it might be useful to deconstruct Ms. Dowd’s er, logic, as a tool to neutralize the negative effect her years of denigrating comments have on the reader’s psyche when it comes to Secretary Clinton and her family.

Herewith is a chapter from my book, Dirty Words on Clean Skin…

Women will never break the highest, hardest glass ceiling when other highly regarded women use their platforms to rip each other to shreds for what can only be monetary gain or a personal vendetta:

“Unfortunately for Hillary, there’s no White Bitch Month.”[i]

– Maureen Dowd

The stinging slights offered by several women who had wielded the written word in an effort to cut Hillary Clinton off at the knees were in a class by themselves.

Read more:

Superhero Obama’s Dream of Saving America Goes Splat!

Barack and Michelle Obama read to second graders yesterday. Photo credits: upi/newscom.

Today is my birthday and I’m somewhat embarrassed to admit it, but I just received a gift from Maureen Dowd. No kidding.

In today’s op-ed Maureen’s acidic style is exactly what’s needed to puncture President Barack Obama’s long over-inflated ego – especially the part that sincerely believed that solely by virtue of his charming personality he could overcome all of the divisions in the national body politic and then go forth and save the rest of the world.

It had to be disconcerting for Obama to wake up yesterday morning to realize that Hillary Clinton so far might be his only cabinet appointee who has paid her taxes - and she was the one his team vetted most rigorously.

But let’s turn to Modo here. She writes:

On 9/11, President Bush learned of disaster while reading “The Pet Goat” to grade-school kids. On Tuesday, President Obama escaped from disaster by reading “The Moon Over Star” to grade-school kids.

“We were just tired of being in the White House,” the two-week-old president, with Michelle at his side, explained to students at a public charter school near the White House.

Even as he told the children his favorite superheroes were Batman and Spider-Man, his own dream of being the superhero who swoops in to swiftly save America was going SPLAT!

It just ain’t that easy.

Unlike W. and Dick Cheney, who heroically resisted acknowledging their historically boneheaded mistakes, President Obama summoned a conga line of Anderson, Katie, Brian, Chris and Charlie to the Oval Office to do penance, over and over.

“I think I messed up. I screwed up,” he confessed to Couric.

He told the anchors that the man who helped make him president, Tom Daschle, had made “a serious mistake” by not paying taxes on a car and driver. (It should have been a harbinger of doom when Daschle began sporting those determined-to-be-hip round red glasses.)

Mr. Obama admitted that “ultimately it’s important for this administration to send a message that there aren’t two sets of rules. You know, one for prominent people and one for ordinary folks who have to pay their taxes.”

It took Daschle’s resignation to shake the president out of his arrogant attitude that his charmed circle doesn’t have to abide by the lofty standards he lectured the rest of us about for two years.

Amen.

Read more:

Caroline Kennedy and Maureen Dowd, "the Undisputed Queen of Political Opinion"

In the Fix (Washington Post) today, Chris Cilizza mentions the endorsements cited by allies of Caroline Kennedy in her quest for Hillary Clinton’s senate seat: “they note, Kennedy continues to wrack up an impressive panoply of endorsements ranging from Vito Lopez, the Democratic boss of Brooklyn, to Upstate billionaire Tom Golisano to the undisputed queen of political opinion -- Maureen Dowd.”

It was that last one that brought me up short: Maureen Dowd, “the undisputed queen of political opinion?!!”

Maureen Dowd is an embarrassment to women in journalism. She continues to pay her dues in the good old boys’ network by trashing any serious female contender for national political office. I won’t even attempt to critique her poisonous style of writing.

Today’s column titled Sweet on Caroline was to be expected. Despite the Kennedy aura, Caroline Kennedy’s persona would be non-threatening to even Dowd. Dowd – the woman who eviscerated Sarah Palin for her meandering speaking style – excuses Kennedy’s “you know” speech tic as a symptom of shyness.

Shyness? The shy Ms. Kennedy wants to begin her political career as a U.S. senator from New York?!!

In defense of Caroline’s running on the Kennedy name, Maureen argues the other kids are doing it, so why shouldn’t Caroline? In the process she brushes off Hillary Clinton’s lengthy career of public service in which she’s won accolades for her expertise on the issues, her hard work, and her proven ability to reach across the aisle by accusing Hillary of getting where she is as a member of the Clinton dynasty through her marriage to Bill.

Back during the primary MediaMatters.Org and irate citizens forced MSNBC’s Chris Matthews to publicly apologize for making a similar sexist comment on the air.

But here’s a news flash for both Maureen and he who is known for the tingle up his leg: dynasties don’t work that way. To be a member of a dynasty requires being the direct descendant of the ruling family. And besides, Maureen, I believe you’re one of those harpies who suggested in the aftermath of the Democratic primary that Hillary got those 18 million votes in spite of Bill. But that comment was most likely due to your unhinged jealousy of Hillary for managing to keep her family together over the years and attain professional success.

Personally I feel neutral about Caroline’s entry into politics. If New Yorkers feel the Kennedy family name and her connection with Obama is what they need more than someone with the demonstrated ability to do the job, so be it. After all, in the most perilous period in contemporary history, the voters just elected as president the most unqualified candidate to run in 2008; the wisdom of that choice is yet to be tested.

The Media’s Good Old Boys + Arianna and Maureen: Let the Hillary-Bashing Continue

"Media Guru" Arianna Huffington

Watching a video of Arianna Huffington, along with George Will, David Brooks, and Robert Kuttner, on ABC’s This Week triggered an “aha” moment for me. Arianna was at the Round Table moderated by George Stephanopoulus, and she was obviously enjoying her status as the only woman present. You could almost feel the bonhomie emanating from the TV screen as Arianna seized yet another opportunity to trash Hillary Clinton.

At today’s Huffington Post, Arianna repeated her line of attack against Sen. Clinton, warning of the dire consequences Clinton’s appointment at state will hold for the Obama Administration. (Keep in mind, the Huffington Post has been a leading mouthpiece for Barack Obama since he first announced his candidacy for the presidency.)

Arianna writes:

“Hillary + Obama = High Drama. It's too early to tell what changes Hillary Clinton will bring to Barack Obama's foreign policy, but she's already had an enormous effect on his brand. Her addition to his team has turned "No Drama Obama" into "Mo' Drama Obama." Hillary's appointment isn't even official, but the Obama/Clinton narrative has already left the realm of politics. Its twists, turns, shadings, and complex emotions are the stuff of literature. But who would be the best writer to do this saga justice? Henry James (Portrait of a Lady Secretary of State)? Shakespeare (Clinton II)? Or is the Obama/Clinton relationship more like a Nora Ephron romantic comedy? When Hillary Met Barack. Sleepless in Chappaqua. You've Got Fundraising Email.”

As Georgetown University law professor Heidi Li Feldman noted at her blog today the accusation that Hillary Clinton will add drama to the Obama Administration is “another latently sexist turn of phrase: women create drama; men bring charisma.”

But back to that “aha” moment that I mentioned above. I’ve been repeatedly stunned and puzzled by the attacks of women like Arianna and Maureen Dowd on Hillary Clinton. I just didn’t get it. Watching ABC’s This Week video finally did it for me, and it’s pretty simple. By beating up on any woman who appears to be destined for a national leadership role, Arianna and Maureen win acceptance in the media’s good old boys club.

As a result Arianna is known as a “media guru” – despite the tabloid journalism practiced at Huffpo - and she gets to hobnob with the likes of Brooks, Will, and Kuttner.

The minimally talented – except in the area of hate-mongering - Maureen Dowd is one of two women columnists at the NY Times and one of a very few women columnists featured on the opinion pages of newspapers nationwide.

I’m going to give Arianna and Maureen the benefit of the doubt by suggesting their reprehensible behavior is unconscious stuff. God knows it must be terribly threatening to have to report on the achievements of a power house like Hillary Clinton. Unlike either Arianna or Maureen, Hillary has succeeded both personally and professionally. She has kept her family together over the years and maintained many close friends, while simultaneously earning worldwide respect in the political arena.

In sum, putting Clinton down appears to be a pathological defense mechanism for the obvious inadequacies of Arianna and Modo and as mentioned earlier, they get the benefit of hanging out with the good old boys.

Arianna has suggested that Hillary Clinton brings the stuff of literature with her, and I would agree that Hillary’s life story would be a most compelling read. On the other hand, the petty lives of Arianna and Maureen wouldn’t even make the comic books.

The Pathological Projections of Maureen Dowd, et al, Onto Hillary Clinton

Photo Credits: Segar/Reuters

In an earlier post, I mentioned a comment made by Benazir Bhutto in an interview published in New York Magazine last October. Commiserating with Hillary Clinton, Bhutto said: “I had a lot of support among ordinary women. But women in leadership positions could sometimes be competitive. Those who’d achieved a lot could be my sharpest critics.”

I’ve personally noticed that prolonged attacks on Hillary by influential women - especially one or two in the media - have gone beyond mere competiveness. It’s become obvious that Clinton is doubly resented by her female critics for having achieved a lot in her own right and for having kept her marriage and family together through it all.

David Fiderer’s well-written essay in today’s Huffington Post focuses on New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd’s projections of her stuff onto Hillary.

Fiderer nails Dowd in her opening gambit 12/23/07: “Just when I thought I was out, the Clintons pull me back into their conjugal psychodrama."

Fiderer replies: “They pull you back in? Sorry, dear, you're projecting again. Since Labor Day, about half of your columns have been devoted to trashing Hillary. And it's the old crap over and over. No kidding, it's really obsessional.”

To Dowd’s charge that “Without nepotism, Hillary would be running for the president of Vassar." 9/30/07, Fiderer says:

“Right. And what would Christopher Dodd be doing? Or Elizabeth Dole? Or Teddy Kennedy? Or Cokie Roberts? But for nepotism, who would have ever heard of Indira Ghandi? But for nepotism, Katherine Graham had no material to write a book that won the Pulitzer Prize, Margaret Chase Smith would have been an obscure housewife and Donald Trump would have been a real estate agent in Queens.

“Get over it and get a life, Maureen.”

For balance, Fiderer responds to a few attacks on Hillary by the likes of Andrew Sullivan and Carl Bernstein.

Andrew Sullivan: “[Senator Clinton] harkens back to the '90s. I think she's been a very sensible senator. I think, in fact, it's hard to disagree with her on the war. But when I see her again, all my--all the cootie vibes sort of resurrect themselves...I'm sorry. I must represent a lot of people... I actually find her positions appealing in many ways. I just can't stand her." Andrew Sullivan on The Chris Matthews Show, January 28, 2007”

Fiderer: “Hillary resurrects cootie vibes? Seven years ago, Sullivan gained notoriety as a menace to public health, when, as an HIV-positive man, he placed an ad soliciting unprotected anal intercourse with strangers. Yet when he harkens back to that time, he associates Senator Clinton with the slang word for body lice.

“He {Sullivan} finds her positions appealing in many ways but he just can't stand her. Hmm. Doesn't sound very rational. Maybe he can't stand to admit that his writings in support of the Bush administration have all been discredited. Maybe he can't deal with the fact that he shares positions with people he attacked with vitriolic fervor a few years earlier. And maybe he projects on to Senator Clinton his own personal hypocrisy.”

Read more:

Fearlessly Facing a Hostile Media

Any half-awake, semi-literate follower of the coverage so far of Campaign 2008 offered by either the mainstream media or the blogosphere is aware the media is still controlled by the good old boys network in America.

Nevertheless, I was surprised yesterday to read a casual comment by Kos himself in a post on his leading left of center blog, The Daily Kos, confirming the obvious: one of Hillary Clinton’s challenges in her run for the Democratic nomination is a “hostile media.” (If you need further verification of the media's abusive treatment of Clinton, check out a recent item on Media Matters.)

From screaming negative headlines exaggerating poll results in Iowa favoring Obama by one or two points and either tucking news of a Clinton lead away in an obscure corner or not reporting it at all to skewed coverage of a debate by the Democratic candidates, it’s hard to find clear, objective, and honest coverage of campaign 2008 anywhere in the online media, including the Huffington Post, the Washington Post, and the New York Times.

The reader comments following a typically biased article from supporters of front-runner Clinton’s rivals is scary. This is especially true at the Huffington Post where within the past several days, Obama supporters have used every obscenity in their apparently limited vocabularies to accuse the Clinton camp of everything from staging the hostage crisis in New Hampshire to get favorable publicity and perpetrating the YouTube video titled Obama Obollywood. (You can see the video from this site by clicking on Obama’s image from the YouTube icon in the sidebar to the right of this post.)

“Good old boys” has always been something of a misnomer for a power structure that blocks advancement of talented, capable women. Sad to say, the boys have always found allies among those women who can’t tolerate sharing the limelight or power with a successful sister who shows signs of breaking through yet another major glass ceiling. Particularly disappointing have been the personal attacks on Hillary Clinton by Maureen Dowd and Arianna Huffington.

Lately, I’ve been reading Huffington’s book, On Becoming Fearless, that suggests at least a modicum of awareness on her part of the obstacles to success American women continue to face: “Our presence in powerful positions, on corporate boards, and as heads of our own businesses continues to grow. Fortune magazine reports that as of 2005, roughly half of all management and professional jobs were filled by women. In the last ten years, the number of Fortune 500 companies with at least one quarter of their boards filled with women directors went from eleven to sixty-four. And women now own 48 percent of small business.

“That’s all going in the right direction, but women are still not even close to parity, especially in pay. The compensation-package half-empty view looks like this: According to catalyst, a non-profit research group, women still account for just under 15 percent of Fortune 500 board members. And for the past ten years, the rate has been increasing only 0.5 percent a year. This means we won’t hit the 50 percent mark until 2076 – a nice tri-centennial present for America, but still, should it take three hundred years?”

Obviously, Huffington talks the talk on behalf of women’s rights, but don’t get me wrong: I don’t expect her, Maureen Dowd, or any other representative of the American media, male or female, to support Hillary Clinton in news coverage or opinion pieces because she’s a woman. I do, however, demand fair and equal coverage of Clinton’s undeniably fearless front-running bid for the presidency.