Monday, September 1, 2008

Maureen Dowd: Go-go boots, Cinderella, and cheerleaders

In a column entitled Vice in go-go boots? New York Times' columnist Maureen Dowd manages to drag out every possible sexist stereotype of Sarah Palin, including:
  • Compares Palin's campaign nomination to a "hokey chick flick"
  • Compares it to a Cinderella story
  • Compares it to Sandra Bullock's Miss Congeniality movie
  • Calls Palin a cute unknown
  • Says she's underqualified but doesn't make similar judgment of Obama
  • Says the Republicans have a tradition of nominating "fun, bantamweight cheerleaders from the West"
  • Talks about her "sexy shoes"


Anonymous said...

Well, when you consider that Dowd has written a book entitled: "Are Men Necessary?", what else would you expect?

Hector Berlioz said...

Maureen Dowd is the single most annoying columnist at the New York Times. After Frank Rich. And Paul Krugman. And Nicholas Kristof. And....

Anonymous said...

Dowd...A 60's original deadbeat, derelict and dropout...who took Timothy Leary's advice seriously: turn-in, turn-on, drop-out.

Jadis said...

Maureen Dowd is a hypocritical hack.

sportsone234 said...

Just found your blog. It's a great idea. As for old Maureen and old Sally Quinn . . . one Sarah Palin is worth more than 100 of either of them.

I blog over at WordPress where I started out as a Hillary supporter and now strongly back the McCain/Palin ticket.

Anonymous said...

This is the post that really convinced me that this is a partisan blog. Criticizing Sarah Palin's inexperience without criticizing Barack Obama's is sexist? Come on. If the two are really similar, I suppose Conservatives who criticized Barack Obama's inexperience without criticizing Sarah Palin's inexperience are racist, then?

Barack Obama has been in state level politics for 12 years, which is twice as long as George W. Bush was in state level politics when he ran for President. And yes, Maureen Dowd pointed out Bush's inexperience. And Sarah Palin's inexperience is more a more relevant political issue since John McCain earlier this year pointed out Barack Obama's inexperience when claiming that his own first criteria for a VP selection would be readiness to take over the President's role. John McCain is the one who laid experience as a guiding criteria, and then undermined his own foundation. The focus is on hypocricy more than anything else.

The whole "executive experience is more legitimate than senate experience" is a flimsy argument that isn't going to carry any water with anyone not already beholded to Palin and McCain. It just doesn't seem credible to say that someone who was a U.S. senator from a state of 10 million knows less about government than a governor from a state of less than 1 million. Anyone who really demands executive experience wouldn't be supporting John McCain, who himself has zero executive experience.

The most you can do is maybe argue that there isn't as big of an experience gap as people think, but it doesn't mean that anyone who is unconvinced that there is no experience gap is doing so on gender alone.