YES, SHE CAN! Maureen Dowd keeps calling Obama namesand stays far away from McCain: // link // print // previous // next //
THURSDAY, AUGUST 14, 2008
AMAZINGLY BAD: Since the New York Times is our most famous paper, this piece today about Social Security is just amazingly bad. The technical blundering starts right away. This is ridiculous work:
That is just ridiculous work. And more bungling follows.
First: In pushing the idea that Social Security can derail political careers, this piece is a decade out of date. That was a lively narrative in Campaign 2000used to pimp the great vast courage being displayed by Candidate Bush in his vastly heroic plan to introduce private accounts to the system. The entire press corps pimped this tale, affirming Bushs character. But in that way, it became abundantly clear that third rail notions about SS had long since gone out of date. Social Security can derail political careers, Rohter warns as he starts today. He fails to say why, if this is so, both candidates have made proposals about the non-floundering system.
That basic framework is way out of date. But that second paragraph is just horrendous. How many readers will understand that Social Security taxes and payroll taxes are, in this context, the same thing? Trust us: Most readers wont realize that. The failure to make that basic fact clear vastly undermines Rohters point. (This could be an editors bungle.)
Later, Rohter bungles a very elementary statement about the present and future status of the systems trust fund. The New York Times is considered our leading newspaper. Its amazing to see how often its work is technically bungled, on the simplest levels.
YES, SHE CAN: Write novels, that isand trash all Major Dems. Increasingly, your public discourse is a dream. Indeed, as she started Wednesdays column, the most e-mailed writer at your biggest newspaper showed how her daft technique works:
The basic techniques were all in place: Obsession with certain central characters. The undisguised ability to read their mindsto almost hear her mind whirring. The ability to psychoanalyze them (describe their primal screams), based on this access to their inner thoughts. And the endless denigration of Barry, who has now become Beanpole Guy. Final technique: There are always strained references to high culture, like Hamlet, as Dowd hides the fact that a column like this is the work of a disordered mind.
Needless to say, the facts get played, this being a long-running novel. Eventually, the crackpot reached her climax:
Dowd seems to be taking those Liberties again. (In late 2005, the Times finally had enough sense to stop appending that generic name to her columns.) What are the actual facts at this point? As of now, Hillary Clinton is scheduled for a prime-time speaking slot; she will headline the Tuesday night session. But is it true that Wednesday will be all Bill? In fact, the headline speaker that night will be the vice presidential nominee; at this point, it isnt even clear that Bill Clinton will speak in prime time at all (in the hour covered by the networks). Meanwhile, you have to chuckle when you see the Cokies and Dowds switching their treasured, long-running narratives. For years, Dowds kind has mocked stupid Candidate Gore because he didnt use Bill Clinton enough. Now, she praises Gore for supposedly clipping his wings at the 2000 convention! (Trust us. She didnt mention this in real time.) This reversal is done for one reason, of courseso Dowd can snark at weak, feckless Barry for failing to stand up to the Clintons. But remember: This gangs standard tales can be flipped without notice. Among Dowds cohort, polling your vacation was a sign of bad characteruntil Obama failed to poll his. Just like that, in the hands of Roberts, this failure now made him a dope (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 8/12/08).
At any rate, Dowd can read the Clintons mindsand this fuels her inventive novels. But her sneering novels aim just one way. Lets consider her approach to McCain.
In yesterdays column, Barack Obama was Barry again; endlessly, Dowd has name-called Beanpole Guy through the past year of her columns. (Except, of course, for that period when a savage column by public editor Clark Hoyt seemed to put fear of God in her mind.) Obama has been Barry, Obambi and Scarlett OHara; hes been a starlet obsessing on a svelte waistline and a diffident debutante (the latter, two separate times). The kooky crackpot loves hurling namesat the Democratic nominee and his rivals. But what does she call the great saint, Saint McCain? We couldnt think of a single mocking name. And so we decided to look.
In fact, its hard to find Maureen Dowd calling McCain any names at all; to all intents and purposes, she simply doesnt discuss him. According to the Nexis archives, these are the last twelve columns in which Dowd has mentioned McCain at all. But youll note who these columns were really about. Amazing but true: Over a ten-week period (twenty columns in all), only one of Dowds twenty cries for help has principally dealt with McCain:
Please remember what those columns represent. Those are the last twelve columns in which Dowd has even mentioned McCain, the Republican White House candidate. Conclusion? As you can see from the headlines and subject matter, Dowd almost never discusses McCain. She has no mocking nicknames for himbecause she doesnt discuss him. She is a trasher of Big Major Demsexcept when she rehabilitates Gore to fuel an attack on weak Barry.
Its stunning to see Dowds intellectual illness splayed out across the American stage. A culture cannot proceed this way, defined by such disturbed intellects. And yet, the New York Times has allowed this for yearsthe New York Times, our best-known newspaper. This is the work of an addled elite; its the mark of a sick, broken culture.
A TECHNICALLY ACCURATE COLUMN: But then, novels are everywhere in your discourse, happily recited by all. In todays column, E. J. Dionne recites a new approved part of a long-running dime novel:
Everyone is saying that now. But if you read the memo in question, Dionnes presentation is basically bogus.
In fact, Hillary Clinton did take the bulk of the advice offered in that Penn memo. As we noted yesterday, the memo was written in March 2007. Josh Green was too dishonest to say so in his ballyhooed nothing-burger, but Penn explicitly said the following. This is rather basic:
Buzz-kill! We are never going to say anything about [Obamas] background, Penn said in the memoand, throughout the rest of the year, Clinton never did. (Thus following what Penns memo said.) But she took other parts of Penns advice too. Here is the part of the (rather long) memo which Green was willing to quote in his piece (to read Greens ballyhooed piece, just click here). Note again: Penn was looking for things the campaign could do without turning negative (our emphasis):
But duh. No, Clinton didnt spray the word American around in the way Penn recommended. But some flag symbols did appear, and as anyone alive on the planet would know, she did adopt that basic speech element about being born in the middle of America to the middle class in the middle of the last century. In short, she did several of the most basic things Penn recommended in this memo. She avoided discussing Obamas backgroundand she stressed her own middle-American roots. Penn thought this narrative conferred an advantage on Clinton, since it couldnt be matched by Obama. (If you actually read the f*cking memo, you will see that he thought Obama gained an advantage from certain narrative elements that couldnt be matched by Clinton. This is basic product advancement, written in an insiders shorthand.)
In our view, there has been a great deal of vastly silly squealing about this particular memo. (No, we wouldnt have written it ourselves. But then, we arent consultantsor product managers.) But as always, the silly squealing has been driven along by blatant misstatements about its contentsand about Clintons reaction. In this mornings column, Dionne is careful to avoid saying that Penn told Clinton to criticize Obamas lack of American roots; presumably, he understands that Penn told her not to do that, though many others have said different. This includes Green, who seems to have trouble telling the truth when the truth conflicts with insider narratives.
There is a great deal more in that particular memo that Dems would benefit from pondering. Green avoided these parts of the memo, and few others will mention them. But a new novel-chapter is being written in the days since Greens nothing-burger appeared. Dionne has now become the latest to nudge the chapter along.
Heres the new narrative: Vile Penn told Clinton to attack Obamas lack of American roots. But thankfully, Clinton didnt take his advice. In fact, he plainly told her that she shouldnt discuss Obamas backgroundthat instead, she should stress her own roots. And Clinton followed both suggestions. She didnt attack Obamas background. (Although Obamas campaign was soon spewing perfect bullsh*t aboutomigod!the Lincoln Bedroom, and was soon spewing tortured attacks about Bill Clintons business dealings. We can't see the memos about those discussionsand so we get to cry a good cry about the Penn memo, giving no thought to the things that were said inside the Obama campaign about those absurd Lincoln Bedroom claims.) And she did introduce the speech element about her own middle-American background. Its hard to know why anyone would say that she didnt follow that memo. Oh waitwe almost forgot! They say it because its part of a novel! Because the other kids will.
For the most part, Clinton did what Penn advised in that memo. But the children have their novel, and theyll keep typing it up.
By the way: Dionne played this game in 1999 and 2000 too. He never said a single word about the bogus tales about Gore. He carefully typed around all the liesbut never dared confront them. He didnt repeat the lies himself. But he didnt say that they were wrong.
So lets raise a glass to E. J. today! Today, he helps drive a new novel alongalthough you can pretty much see that he knows its bogus. He keeps his own statements technically accurate. In todays world, thats the best these types do.
Hes riding with Cokie: Amazing. In discussing the March 2007 memo, Green simply omits this statement by Penn: We are never going to say anything about his background. Having withheld that basic statement from readers, Green then tells them this: Penn also left no doubt about where he stood on the question of a positive versus negative strategy.
Truly, these youngsters amaze.
But so it goes when children play you. And of course, Al Gore said he invented the Internet! As long as that remained the insider press corps official narrative, Green argued for it very hard, as late as June 2004. People like Green are adjuncts to Cokiein effect, Cokie Youth. Most liberals still cant make this out.
Special report: Race and the race!
Part 3THE 19 PERCENT ACCUSATION: Postponed until tomorrow.