January 10, 2004

FROM PULITZER TO PUNKED

Congratulations on your latest award, Maureen:

No one does less with the largest opinion platform in American than Dowd. Her vacuity is legendary, but 2003 was a banner year even by her standards. In addition to weaving her incessant Bush-hating pop culture analogies every single week, this year she also managed to (among other things) deride Clarence Thomas as an affirmative action baby and call into question her own veracity by altering a quote by President Bush.

MoDo is dull and worthless, but she canít compete with Australia's Hugh Mackay, whoís got a theory about advertising and politics and the war and ... look, just donít read this while operating heavy machinery, OK?

Posted by Tim Blair at January 10, 2004 02:46 AM
Comments

While he is a complete nutcase, she does not have the largest platform in "American". The NYT lags both the WSJ and USA Today in terms of circulation

Posted by: matt at January 10, 2004 at 02:52 AM

No arguments with MoDo as Worst Columnist but it's good to see Mark Morford and his drug addled stream-of-consciousness columns get their proper due with an Honorable Mention.

Posted by: Randal Robinson at January 10, 2004 at 03:27 AM


There you go again, Tim, thinking the Australians are always better. Any objective observer would have to agree that our worthless MoDo is far more worthless than your worthless Hugh.

A patriotic American.

Posted by: Bruce at January 10, 2004 at 04:48 AM

And she started 2004 off right with a column that is one of the nuttiest of her career. The only thing it had going for it was lesbians.

Posted by: Chrees at January 10, 2004 at 05:20 AM

So, if majorities don't believe what they see in the media, why is he writing this BS? Evidently he believes his sophisticate idiocy will succeed in fooling them where advertisers and politicians can't? Is this guy as dumb as a bag of lugnuts, or what?

Heavy machinery, Tim? I shouldn't read this while trying to operate the remote control.

Posted by: JorgXMcKie at January 10, 2004 at 05:53 AM

Does anyone have any idea what her recent column was about? I'm lost. I like that it ended with lesbians though; but other that. I wonder how much she gets paid to spout gibberish cause I can spoute gibberish with the best of them!And I need a job! And I'll throw in lots of lesbians!! Many of them twins and sisters!

Posted by: Two in the Hat at January 10, 2004 at 06:32 AM

Haven't I read that Dowd is bumping uglies with that guy who created "The West Wing"? And wasn't he popped for heroin possession? Hmmm.... things become clearer.

Posted by: Bruce (the other one) at January 10, 2004 at 08:59 AM

...call into question her own veracity by altering a quote by President Bush.

Which, like the fate our friend Robert Fisk, has prompted the invention of a new word:

dowdify v: to edit a quote so as to convey a different meaning from what was intended, primarily to damage the subject being quoted.

BTW Bruce (the other one) that's an ugly visual I could have lived without. Gah!

Posted by: Spiny Norman at January 10, 2004 at 09:52 AM

I read the above paragraph and I see "Dowd...is legendary."

Thanks for the compliment!!!

Posted by: Maureen Dowd at January 10, 2004 at 02:21 PM

I read the above paragraph and I see "Dowd...is legendary."

Thanks for the compliment!!!

Posted by: Maureen Dowd at January 10, 2004 at 02:21 PM

It's no compliment, Honey child!

Hanibal Lector and Freddy Krueger are 'legendary'

Posted by: May Lee at January 10, 2004 at 03:22 PM

May Lee: I doubt that's the real Maureen.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at January 11, 2004 at 12:49 PM

Yes it is, Honey Child!!!

Posted by: Maureen Dowd at January 11, 2004 at 02:04 PM

Maureen, I'm not available.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at January 11, 2004 at 04:07 PM

Sad to see that you've all fallen for what is a pretty lame joke by now.

Come on, it may have its problems but it's the New York Times. They wouldn't give a column to such a ditz. "Maureen Dowd" is a joke played on the readership by the Times editorial department.
Their real writers compete to see who can come up with the silliest material and they put money into a pool. At the end of the year the money goes to the one who comes up with the dumbest "Maureen Dowd" column.

I hear last year they split the pot evenly because they decided all the columns were equally dumb.

Posted by: Alex Bensky at January 11, 2004 at 04:16 PM

Sad to see that you've all fallen for what is a pretty lame joke by now.

Come on, it may have its problems but it's the New York Times. They wouldn't give a column to such a ditz. "Maureen Dowd" is a joke played on the readership by the Times editorial department.
Their real writers compete to see who can come up with the silliest material and they put money into a pool. At the end of the year the money goes to the one who comes up with the dumbest "Maureen Dowd" column.

I hear last year they split the pot evenly because they decided all the columns were equally dumb.

Posted by: Alex Bensky at January 11, 2004 at 04:16 PM