|
January 9, 2008Maureen Dowd re-finds her voice, too! - UPDATEMy Li’l Bro Thom sent this Maureen Dowd piece my way with the observation: She does her best writing when it’s about the Clintons. I’ll say! Today’s column is a stunningly good.
That’s good writing - penetrating, insightful and well-voiced. Dowd won a Pulitzer in the 1990’s by writing about the Clintons with wit and stinging, remorseless exposure. Then with the election of Dubya, and 9/11, she seemed to lose her voice. For the last 6-7 years, all Dowd could do was namecall, sneer, shriek and stumble through her columns, which read like the weak prattle of a bitter woman in a smoky bar, who - stood up by her date - falls back on bitching about her hated ex-husband, and all men in general. She hit her nadir with her book, Are Men Really Necessary, after which she had nowhere to go but up, and up she has come.
Compare this column to the ones I’ve linked to above. There is such a difference in writing, in tone, voice, cerebral engagement and energy.
She’s not the only one. The abject and seething hate for the Bushes did not serve Maureen Dowd well - it made her shrill and incoherent. I don’t think she ever fully understood Bush; she never wrote about him in a focused and linear manner. But the Clintons - she has their numbers, and here she is as focused and linear as a laser beam. Welcome back from the wilderness, Ms. Dowd. UPDATE: Buster wonders, “thirty-five years of ‘change’ and ‘experience’ and she’s only just now finding her voice? That doesn’t really make her sound formidable.” Actually, now that I think of it, it makes her sound a lot like the woman I heard at a performance of The Vagina Monologues, who remarked to another audience member that she was 35 years old and had never seen her cervix. I only pray the Hillary campaign does not morph into a gooey voyage of “discovery, affirmation and self-actualization.” We’re never going to get out of the 60’s. http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/01/09/maureen-dowd-re-finds-her-voice-too/trackback/ 5 Responses to “Maureen Dowd re-finds her voice, too! - UPDATE” |
January 9th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
[...] MINDS THINK ALIKE DEPARTMENT: The Anchoress likes the MoDo column, too, but I got my post out [...]
January 9th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
It seems to me that Dowd nails the Clintons because they are flesh of her flesh. She identifies with their values, worldview, cynicism, arrogance, self-absorption,immorality,sense of entitlement, etc. to such a degree that she writes from a perspective of familiarity,comfort and insight. With Bush, she might as well try to write about some alien from outerspace. The reason the Dowds of the world hate Bush so is that he is so utterly inscrutable to them: he can’t be that sincere, old-fashioned, moralistic, sentimental, religious, UNCOOL, and DAMMIT so LOVED by the MASSES, can he? He reduces them to spittle-flinging rage because he is a man of substance and stature–something the MoDo’s of the world will never be. Her memory, her impact on the world, will die with her–not so Bush. THAT’s what engenders the irrational rage….
January 9th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
It seems to me that Dowd writes so well about the Clintons because they are flesh of her flesh. She shares their values, worldview, self-absorption and sense of superiority, their cynicism, their lack of conscience, etc. So she is able to write about them with great insight, empathy, and clarity. Not so with Bush. She might as well try to write about an alien from Mars. No one could possibly be that kind, sweet, sincere, naive (in a way), sentimental, religious, moral,stalwart, idealistic,self-deprecating, right? How could someone so UNCOOL be so LOVED by the masses?! It just turns her into a spittle-flecked harpie, enraged at the notion that while her memory, her impact on the world, will die with her, not so for W….
January 9th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
I agree with you “I don’t think she ever fully understood Bush”; and with convert: “Bush … is so utterly inscrutable to [Dowds of the world]“.
You mentioned MoDo’s “cerebral engagement”. She knows Hillary and Bill. She understands what makes them tick. She doesn’t know or understand Bush’s principles and values, and (since she also doesn’t know or understand Rumsfeld - heh) she doesn’t know what she doesn’t know.
Yet she must be (cynically?) funny, for the smarter than thou set, in her columns. What a difficult task: to be smarter than thou about a President who is, and whose policies are, wiser than you!
January 10th, 2008 at 6:36 am
[...] The Anchoress on Mo Dowd. [...]