Dick Whitman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2009
- Messages
- 45,703
I'm not a big fan of Maureen Dowd, but when she's on, she's on. And, in this passage from this weekend, she was on:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/11/opinion/sunday/dowd-madam-president.html?_r=0
There is no moral high ground that (Barack Obama) does not seek to occupy. As with drones and gay marriage, he seems peeved that we were insufficiently patient with his own private study of (NSA surveillance). Why won’t the country agree to entrust itself to his fine mind?
I think that's a pretty accurate assessment of President Obama's high-falutin' vibe, at times.
My problem is with the following sentence:
Yet while Barry is in the thick of it, the air is thick with Hillary.
Should a national columnist, a Pulitzer Prize winner, resort to calling the sitting president of the United States "Barry"? I guess she's being irreverent. I guess she's knocking him down a peg. But what if a conservative, say Rich Lowry, kept calling Hillary "Hills"? Would Dowd take kindly to that?
It just seems childish and undignified to me, and seems to undermine any salient point she makes. In a way, that kind of snark reminds me of how Matt Taibbi in "Rolling Stone" frequently sacrifices his credibility by calling politicians "cocksuckers" and "mother****ers."
Thoughts? Unnecessary snark? Or delightful irreverance?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/11/opinion/sunday/dowd-madam-president.html?_r=0
There is no moral high ground that (Barack Obama) does not seek to occupy. As with drones and gay marriage, he seems peeved that we were insufficiently patient with his own private study of (NSA surveillance). Why won’t the country agree to entrust itself to his fine mind?
I think that's a pretty accurate assessment of President Obama's high-falutin' vibe, at times.
My problem is with the following sentence:
Yet while Barry is in the thick of it, the air is thick with Hillary.
Should a national columnist, a Pulitzer Prize winner, resort to calling the sitting president of the United States "Barry"? I guess she's being irreverent. I guess she's knocking him down a peg. But what if a conservative, say Rich Lowry, kept calling Hillary "Hills"? Would Dowd take kindly to that?
It just seems childish and undignified to me, and seems to undermine any salient point she makes. In a way, that kind of snark reminds me of how Matt Taibbi in "Rolling Stone" frequently sacrifices his credibility by calling politicians "cocksuckers" and "mother****ers."
Thoughts? Unnecessary snark? Or delightful irreverance?