Dowd attacks Bush and his gang on such a grammar-school level I’m embarrassed to read her columns. “Hey, Rummy! Nyah nyah!” She’s part of a plot by the Evil White Patriarchal Sanhedrin[sup]tm[/sup] at the New York Times to only give column space to really dumbass women, maybe so the male op-ed guys look smarter. Aside from Gail Collins (who’s been muffled and hogtied down to an editorial desk), the Times hasn’t hired an intelligent woman who can write a graceful sentence since Mimi Sheraton retired.
Coulter is dumber than a bag of hammers and she is most assuredly evil but she is HOT!!.
I do not know who Dowd? is but I am definetely into redheads does anyone have a link to a photo? (maybe something in a bikini).
My two cents:
I think that Coulter is such an insane shrieking harpy that I can’t find her attractive. Dowd can be a little smug, but she’s not the utter crazoid that Coulter is. I choose Dowd any day.
Dowd is hot. Oh, the “Liberties” I would take with her!
Ann Coulter, on the other hand, is, most assuredly, cold. Skinny as a rail, and not even half as attractive. Of course, being a fan of a certain “insertion device”, the skinniness of her might just be an advantage.
I like Coulter a lot more. Very funny. Very strong.
Dowd seems like she’s lost her edge. I agree with some of Josh Chafetz piece, if all she has is name-calling, the conservatives win…
*The Immutable Laws of Maureen Dowd
A guide to reading the New York Times columnist.
by Josh Chafetz
10/14/2002, Volume 008, Issue 05
MAUREEN DOWD’S New York Times columns used to be fun. Whether you agreed with her or not, they were witty and incisive. Sometimes they were even insightful. But recently, many readers are asking the same question as a letter writer to the Denver Post: “What has happened to Maureen Dowd lately? . . . she is no longer informative, clever or entertaining, just childish and vindictive.” The truth is, Maureen Dowd hasn’t changed; the times have. She’s always been a formulaic writer, but the formula has never been less appropriate (and therefore more conspicuous) than it has since September 11, 2001. The formula consists of five basic principles that underlie almost all of her writing.
THE FIRST IMMUTABLE LAW OF DOWD: The first and most important rule is what might be termed the People magazine principle: All political phenomena can be reduced to caricatures of the personalities involved. Any reference to policy concerns or even to old-fashioned politicking is, like, so passé. And, of course, with every caricature goes a nickname.
The First Law is the reason that Dowd used to be so much fun to read–it’s the reason she won the 1999 Pulitzer for her columns on the Lewinsky scandal. The Lewinsky scandal was all about personality; more than that, it was about personalities that lent themselves to caricature. So when Dowd wrote about President Clinton (“the Grand Canyon of need”) and Monica Lewinsky (the “relentless” woman “clinging to some juvenile belief that the President loved her”) and Linda Tripp (who “rides on a broomstick”) and Ken Starr (a “sex addict”), it just seemed apt.
*
The problem is every issue isn’t about personality. Coulter is still relevant. Dowd isn’t.
ahh…excellent stuff!! thx for the replies. some of my threads fall flat, but this one i am more than happy with.
i think i agree with coulter in the long run. she’s certainly more stringent, to put it nicely. if one can ignore many of her outrageous comments there are profound insights.
while dowd seems to be a more polished writer, i haven’t been reading her for long enough to form a strong opinion. But, everything i have read is cliche, rehash, or silliness. dowd can have a strong ‘feminist’ slant to her, blaming stuff on us darned men. Things like, ‘Men are so afraid of and feel challenged by succesful women’ is one of her favorite ideas. ‘Why can’t men marry more challenging women?’, Dowd is likely to ask.
Anyhoo, does anyone know how old each of these women are?
What gets me is that Dowd has won a Pulitzer. She shares the same writing style as Coulter, and Coulter will NEVER win one. Guaranteed. That really pisses me off.
The Pulitzer isn’t exactly a measure of intelligence: After all we are talking newspaper people here. The daily rag up the road from here – The Oregonian, gets them and you would be hard pressed to find a more mediocre paper in this country. Less entertaining, and possibly less factual than Weekly World News. Heck, even Dave Barry has a Pulitzer, ’88 and I think he gives more ink to the sewage treatment plant that is named after him.
What Coulter did that was smart was she realized she would starve if she had to rely on the kindness of newspaper editors, so she uses the columns as a loss leader and makes her money from books: Treason #198 at AMZN; Slander #129; High Crimes & etc #5,279. She spoke at Oregon State University, where she tried to explain how the system works, and how she has set up her business so that the people that hate her (Legion) can’t hurt her by denying her work.
