Maureen Dowd should be fired.

Maureen Dowd is not a **real **reporter, much less a reporter sympathetic to womens issues and should be fired. :mad:

Maureen came to her present position as the NY Times OP ed Womens columnist in 1995 as a replacement for Anna Quindlen. In the years since, Maureen has given her opinions on such pithy items as what to wear and when to wear it, Al Gore’s new hirsute visage and Viagara jokes.


And the NY Times is the worse for it. Why they appointed her to this job is beyond me. The woman has never had a serious column. She’s the new Louella Parsons, as if the NY Times needed that. :rolleyes:

And, as luck would have it she has won awards. Maureen, bless her heart, is a 1999 Pulitzer Prize winner, in the commentary category, for her “unsparing columns on the hypocrisies involved in the Lewinsky affair and the effort to impeach President Clinton.” Whatever that means. Kind of shows you how much the Pulitzer is worth these days. :stuck_out_tongue:

This “rant” is obviously just a paper thin excuse to use the smileys.:wink:

Be careful, you are also speaking of a former Glamour magazine Woman Of The Year. :slight_smile: (unused smiley).

I don’t see anything in her job description about her being a Women’s columnist, just an op-ed columnist. The description of her producing “witty, incisive and acerbic portraits of the powerful” is pretty accurate, and she spares no one, certainly not President Bush (in case you were thinking that she unfairly targets Democrats).

Her column is worth reading most days.

Maureen Dowd wrote a column in which she portrayed Ken Starr as being sexually obsessed with Monica Lewinsky. Really brilliant insightful stuff - added a lot.

I recall her trashing Matt Drudge for dealing with so much gossip - Drudge reprinted an old article she had written (as a reporter) in which she speculated about whether Nancy Reagan had had an affair with Frank Sinatra.

It’s a shame that publications like the NY Times have a “women’s slot” and the like (I believe Bob Herbert fills the “African-American slot”).

To give MD her due, she uses words well. However, her columns typically lack all content. She just doesn’t put in the effort needed to find out the facts. My wife, who agrees with MD’s politics, wouldn’t dream of reading her.

Why has the Times not figured out that her column is an insult to women? It’s imlicit message is, “It’s OK for women to be ignorant. Men take care of serious matters.”

And the Pulitzer prize! :o Goes to show that it’s merely something awarded by the vote of some committee.

Wow…sorry I missed that award. What was that for?

Compared to Anna Quindlen, whom she replaced, she is nothing but minor league.

So, being a former Washington, White House and metro correspondent for the Times, and a former reporter for the Washington Star and Time magazine doesn’t count as being a “real reporter”?

And I guess I’m misunderstanding. The qualification for the Pulitzer Prize was changed to “liked by PhiloVance” when exactly?