Ramona's picture

    When Maureen Dowd Lost Hillary Clinton

    In the latest chapter in Maureen Dowd's never-ending story of the Clintons, "When Hillary Clinton Killed Feminism",  the long-time New York Times columnist builds her case in the only way Maureen seems to know how: by putting words into Hillary's mouth and thoughts into Hillary's head. 


    Even after all these years, Maureen is still trying to invent Hillary the Terrible, Hillary the Prevaricator, Hillary the Shallow.  And every time she's sure she's got it, every time Dowd writes the perfect scenario, in which her character lives up to her previous, masterful buildup, Hillary the Unpredictable takes off in another direction.

    And Dowd fumes! Even on the printed page you can see Dowd fuming. Hillary is HER invention!  HER antagonist!  Who the hell does she think she is?

    Because Maureen Dowd's version of Hillary Clinton doesn't exist in real life, the author resorts to  the phrasing of a fiction writer:

    "Hillary believed. . ."

    "The Clintons seemed to have. . ."

    "It turned out that female voters seem to be looking at. . ."

    "This attitude intensified the unappetizing solipsistic subtext of her campaign. . . "  (Thrown in because, come on!  That took some work!)


    "Hillary started from a place of entitlement. . ."

    "Hillary’s coronation was predicated on. . ."

    "The Clintons assumed. . ."

    "And now she's even angrier. . ."

    "Hillary has an 'I' message: I have been abused and misunderstood and it’s my turn."

    "It’s a victim mind-set that is exhausting. . ."

    "Hillary knew that she could count on the complicity of feminist leaders. . ." 

    "And that’s always the ugly Faustian bargain with the Clintons. . ."

    What a story!  The stuff of great fiction, and Maureen Dowd is without a doubt a great story-teller.  But if there was a part in there about Hillary killing feminism--as the title suggests--I must have missed it.

    But let's say it's in there and I did miss it:  Hillary Clinton has been accused of a lot of things, but killing feminism is a new one.  The last I looked, feminism is alive and well and doing just fine.  The plot twist comes when Dowd tries to portray Hillary as a perennial victim, only to give her the power to kill an entire movement.  It stretches credulity, even for fiction.

    The theme of Hillary as either victim or villain is growing old.  She is neither.  But Dowd has lived with this character for so long, building her into a larger-than-life creature of her own making (as every good writer of fiction must do), she can't let her go.  Not her Hillary.  Not this version.  It's driving the poor woman mad!  (No, not really. I made that up. See how easy it is?)

     At risk of seeming presumptuous, let me just say,  writer to writer, woman to woman: Maureen, honey, it's time.  It's time to let it go, to move on to something new.  You've done all you can with this one, and it's just not working.  Now you're repeating yourself.

    Even in fiction, the same old story is still the same old story.


    (Cross-posted at The Broad-Side and Crooks and Liars)



    Mo Dowd is simply a childish asshole appealing to the snarky 5th grader in people, which for a country infatuated with Trump isn't hard to do. Her faux writing from AL Gore's brain was sleazy and destructive and helped put Bush in the White House. You can give gossipy trailer trash millions and they're still trailer trash. But self-entitled pretentiousness is a brand she built from the get-go, "What, write about welfare reform?" May she end up a bag lady with a substance abuse ptlroblem surrounded by people as self-absorbed and unfeeling as her. A nasty piece of work.


    I do not know where to begin?

    Maybe 'Mo' was angry that she did not marry Bill?


    This comment is so very very vitriolic that I must award PP the Dayly Comment of the Day Award for this here Dagblog Site, given to all of him from all of me. 

    I cannot stop laughing. 

    Hell, only Peggy Noonan pisses me off more than 'Mo' hahahahaha




    Thanks, Dick - I was going for "There's a special place in hell for women who are dicks", but something held me back. (obviously not in reference to you)

    I haven't read Maureen Dowd in years. From what you posted, there is no reason to read her now. She gained notice for calling Obama O'Bambi, but I don't recall her name being mentioned in serious debates recently. This may be a scream for attention.

    Maureen Dowd has always had an idea of feminism that is a polar opposite of Hillary's. Obviously "it's complicated" in a personal relationship sense, but it's just as obvious that Maureen's opinions and stances are far more radical. I think she's jealous of Hillary because, in spite of the years of non-stop piling on by basically everyone, she's not only standing but succeeding. As opposed to herself, Dowd sees her nemesis not only applauded as a longtime feminist but leading the world in women's rights.

    Maureen has always wanted to frame it as women versus men - Hillary has proven that we're better than that. At least we should be.

    Edit as must add:

    And just because I feel the need to defend Secretary Clinton, I offer this.

    And since she will never personally need my defense, I offer this.

    But no matter what, my defense and heartfelt support she has.

    Fixed the Vogue link.

    Great article. I remember it being nice that she articulated abroad great positive ideals for the US, the Beijing speech and on and on, and still getting dinged back home - there was some flare-up about her using a psychic or believing in some new age something. Could hardly catch a break, but abroad people loved her. 

    And yeah, women advocating for themselves - what a big topic. Go, Hillary, go.

    It bears repeating - go, Hillary, go.

    Sandra Day O'Connor comes out today re: Scalia, reminding us she stepped down from the Court early to take care of her sick husband. How often do men do that? When we talk about health care, for men it's often more about cost and decisions, for women It's about their own sweat and involvement - from babies to kid's health to birthing to greater chance of personal health issues (outside accidents) to care for the old.

    Maureen Dowd is a fool. She not only trades in misogynist stereotypes, but almost deliberately embodies them.

    I wish I had seen this before I wrote my column.  I didn't realize it was THIS bad!

    For more than twenty years, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd has been attacking Hillary Clinton from a shallow well of insults, routinely portraying the former secretary of state and first lady as an unlikeable, power-hungry phony.

    Media Matters analyzed 195 columns by Dowd since November 1993 containing significant mentions of Clinton for whether they included any of 16 negative tropes in five categories (listed in the below methodology). 72 percent (141 columns) were negative towards Clinton -- only 8 percent (15 columns) were positive. The remaining 20 percent (39 columns) were neutral.

    For example, Dowd has repeatedly accused Clinton of being an enemy to or betraying feminism (35 columns, 18 percent of those studied), power-hungry (51 columns, 26 percent), unlikeable (9 columns, 5 percent), or phony (34 columns, 17 percent). She's also attacked the Clintons as a couple in 43 columns (22 percent), many of which included Dowd's ham-handed attempts at psychoanalysis.

    An analysis of MSM in general may find a similar skew to articles about Hillary, The media then wonders why Hillary is not trusted. The racist Trump gets rewarded with a dog and pony show like the one put on last night by MSNBC with Scarborough and Mika B. Hosting a "hard-hitting" town hall with the Donald. The media then wonders why the bigot has staying power.

    They've all been hard on Hillary for decades now.  I'm not sure they could turn it around if they wanted to.  Those stories against her have long legs.  Even the Democrats use them against her.

    Dowd has hammered the anvil shaping HRC as some kind of man thing for decades now. I don't get it on an important fundamental level. What is this other kind of female politician that is being imagined?
    There is this implied alternative model that the article treats as a given. I need more by way of an explanation.

    Latest Comments