Please send as far and wide as possible.
Editor, The Konformist
WIKIDOWDIA! Dowd is a cleaned-up version of Coulter. Wikipedia
offers some context:
MONDAY, MARCH 5, 2007
WHEN YOU READ DOWD, YOU'RE RIDING WITH COULTER: The nation's big
papers and pundits have been exceptionally dainty about Ann
Coulter's latest. On Friday, at a major conservative political
gathering in DC, she called John Edwards a "f*ggot." This has
produced little reporting or commentary in the mainstream press. For
example, Coulter's comment has not been mentioned in any of the
Washington Post's news reporting. (It was mentioned, very briefly,
in passing, in Dana Milbank's Saturday "sketch.") If Nexis is to be
believed, it hasn't been mentioned in the Boston Globe or the
Chicago Tribune at all. This morning, USA Today skips it.
But then, there's little new about Coulter's conductor about the
press corps' silence. In July 2006, for example, Coulter called Al
Gore a "total fag" on Hardball. Chris Matthewsan endless Gore-
trasher himselfdidn't utter a peep of protest. No, Matthews doesn't
approve of Coulter. But he was too weaktoo afraidto speak up.
Nor did the "press corps" offer a peep of complaint about Coulter's
ludicrous best-seller, Slander. When it appeared in 2002, the book
simply brimmed with factual "errors"literally, from its first page
to its last. But the New York Times knew the easy way out!
Its "reviewer," Janet Maslin, took a talking-point straight from
Coulter. In her "review," Maslin cited the number of foot-notes in
Slander, and used the footnotes as a marker of the vast research its
author had so clearly conducted. As we noted, if you simply checked
out some of those footnotes, you would have quickly seen that
Coulter's book was a fraud (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 7/22/02). But
praising Coulter for her research makes life much simpler for
Manhattan's swells. It exempts them from all those hateful e-mails.
As such, it gets them to the Hamptons a bit earlier on Fridays. Or
possibly, on Thursday nights.
Yep! Our news orgs have long enabled Coulter. If your nation goes up
in the smoke in the process, these loathsome Antoinettes just don't
But then, why should pundits criticize Coulter when she describes
Dem males as big "f*ggots?" It's very similar to the gender-
based "analysis" their dauphine, the Comptesse Maureen Dowd, has
long offered. In Dowd's work, John Edwards is routinely "the Breck
Girl"(five times so farand counting), and Gore is "so feminized
that he's practically lactating." Indeed, two days before we voted
in November 2000, Dowd devoted her entire column, for the sixth
time, to an imaginary conversation between Gore and his bald
spot. "I feel pretty," her headline said (pretending to quote Gore's
inner thoughts).That was the image this idiot wanted you carrying
off to the voting booth with you! Such is the state of Maureen
Dowd's broken soul. And such is the state of her cohort.
And now, in the spirit of fair play and brotherhood, she is
extending this type of "analysis" to Barack Obama. In the past few
weeks, she has described Obama as "legally blonde" (in her
headline); as "Scarlett O'Hara" (in her next column); as
a "Dreamboy," as "Obambi," and now, in her latest absurd piece, as
a "schoolboy" (text below). Do you get the feeling that Dowd may
have a few race-and-gender issues floating around in her inane,
tortured mind? But this sort of thing is nothing new for the
comptesse. Indeed, such imagery almost defines the work of this
loathsome, inane Antoinette.
Coulter has been visibly disturbed ever since hitting cable in the
mid-90s. But Dowd is a borderline nutcase tooa slightly cleaned up
version of Coulter. (Ah, we Irish! Yes, each had an Irish Catholic
dad.) Coulter comes right out and calls Dem men "f*ggots"but
Maureen Dowd has always come close. Just as Chris Matthews is a
slightly cleaned-up William Donohue, Dowd is a more presentable
Coulter. For mainstream voters, Maureen is easier to take. For that
reason, she has done us more harm.
Coulter teaches contempt for gays, and tries to extend that contempt
to Dem pols. But that's what Dowd has done all these years! And we
liberals and Dems have been too weak to understand and address the
We scream about Coulterand give Dowd a pass. But when you read
Dowd, you're riding with Coulter! When will we get our heads out of
our keisters and take ourselves where the harm is the greatest? It
makes us feel good to savage vile Coulter. But what about simpering
HER LATEST INANITY: Has there ever been a more tortured soul than
that of the hapless, inane Dowd? Dowd is the badly-maimed semi-
survivor of our mid-century Irish-Catholic cultural wars. In her
most recent column, on Saturday past, she pretty much begged us to
The destructive themes of Dowd's broken soul were on display in her
first seven paragraphs.
First, the thinly-veiled contempt she directs toward all Big Dem
male pols. Here's the first paragraph of her columna column in
which she begs Obama to get in a big fight with Clinton:
DOWD (3/3/07): As I sit across from Barack Obama in his Senate
office, I feel like Ingrid Bergman in ''The Bells of St. Mary's,''
when she plays a nun who teaches a schoolboy who's being bullied how
It's no surprise to see that the nuns are still haunting Maureen
Dowd's dreams. But note the instant description of Obama. Let's say
it again: In the past few weeks, Dowd has described Obama
as "legally blonde;" as "Scarlett O'Hara;" as "Obambi," as
a "Dreamboy," and now as a "schoolboy." But as we've noted, Dowd
persistently mocks Dem males as a race of big girlie-men. They feel
prettyand they're the Breck Girl. Now, Obama is constantly some
sort of "boy"or an iconic white woman.
Big Dem men are constantly girls. And big Dem women? Keep reading:
DOWD (continuing directlypgh 2): I'm just not certain, having
watched the fresh-faced senator shy away from fighting with the
feral Hillary over her Hollywood turf, that he understands that a
campaign is inherently a conflict.
Big Dem women are "feral!" Indeed, when we get to paragraph 4
through 6, Dowd spells it out just as clear as a belle at a ball.
Added warning! When Dowd refers to Obama as "Barry," it's one more
DOWD (paragraph 4-6): After David Geffen made critical comments
about Hillary, she seized the chance to play Godzilla stomping on
As a woman, she clearly feels she must be aggressive in showing she
can ''deck'' opponents, as she put itwhether it's Saddam with her
war resolution vote or Senator Obama when he encroaches on areas
that she and Bill had presumed were wrapped up, like Hollywood and
now the black vote.
If Hillary is in touch with her masculine side, Barry is in touch
with his feminine side.
Leave aside the persistent infantilism involved in images
like "Godzilla" and "Bambi." Here, Dowd states her endlessand
vacuoustheme. Big Dem males (like "Barry") are girls. And big Dem
women are men.
Dowd has pimped these inane, tortured theme for more than a decade.
For the record, though, one Dem male was not a girl in Saturday's
column. That would be Clinton aide Howard Wolfson. In paragraph 7,
Dowd called him as a "thug."
So let's see. Obama ("Obambi") is just a boy. Clinton ("Godzilla")
is a manand she's feral. And what led Dowd to cast this strange
drama? Simple! When David Geffen called Clinton every name in the
book, Clinton called on Obama to denounce his statements! Was this a
good tactical move by Clinton? We have no ideabut it's a very tame
bit of political conduct. But it isn't tame in the mind of Dowd, or
in the scripts of her well-scripted cohort! (More below.) In Dowd's
mind, this unexceptional behavior made Clinton a thugand, of
course, it made her a man. And when Obama didn't punch back hard
enough, that made him a weak boya "Barry."
Dowd goes on and on, throughout this column, trying to start a
(pointless) fight among Dems. But let's remember the basic theme:
Every Democrat must be a loser! When Clinton makes a fairly trivial
move, she has fought Obama too hard! When Obama doesn't name-call
Clinton, he hasn't fought hard enough!
It would be hard to get dumber than this. And it's hard to imagine
why grown men and women at the Times (Andrew Rosenthal) still put
this embarrassing schlock into print. But unfortunately, Maureen
Dowd is an authority figure, writing at the top of
our "journalistic" elite. She has offered this tormented dreck for
years. During that time, Dems and liberals have suffered endlessly
from her dumb, tortured conduct. We are in Iraq today because of the
work of these losers.
And oh by the way, it's never her fault! Go ahead! Treat yourselves
to a dark, morbid chuckle as Dowd, in paragraph 3 of this column,
states an all-important part of her inane cohort's script:
DOWD (paragraph 3): The Democrats lost the last two excruciatingly
close elections because Al Gore and John Kerry did not fight
fiercely and cleverly enough.
Of course! It can't be said often enough! Right in paragraph 3, Dowd
re-schools us. It was all Gore's (and Kerry's) fault!
So let's see: Dowd invented the punishing Love Story bull-roar. She
lied about the Naomi Wolf businesssavaging Gore every step of the
way. She devoted six separate columns to the punishing image of
crazy Gore holding conversations with his bald spot. And, of course,
she invented that laughable Kerry "quotation"the "quote" that Kerry
never actually spoke. But always, Dowd returns to that key part of
the scriptwhat happened to them was all their own fault! Those Dems
are just such big girlie-men! They didn't "fight fiercely enough!"
Dowd is one of the dumbest figures in a pitiful age of
celebrity "journalism." If you've ever heard her trademark simpering
on TV, you've heard the soul of our modern "press" elite. But
increasingly, her simpering style defines the state of American
political "journalism." Question: Just how long do Democrats plan to
put up with this absolute nonsense?
WIKIDOWDIA: Inanity, thy name is Maureen Dowd! Could American
discourse possibly get dumber? Al and John and "Barry" won't fight.
But when Hillary offers a small peep of protest, that's it! She's
denounced as a thug!
Yes, it's hard to get dumber than Dowd. In a saner era, the Times
would cart her off to a high-class "home" and pay the bills for some
much-needed treatment. But then, the empty souls of people like Dowd
have always worked their will among us, thwarting progress and
worming their way into the highest regions of power. We thought of
that story again last weekwhen we read Wikipedia's entry on Marie
If you read the full entry, perhaps you'll be struck by the way
French politics of the era was driven by invented talesinvented
tales spread by "pamphleteers." (Insert "talk show hosts"
and "columnists like Dowd," and you have a portrait of our own era.)
But then, we also read the following passagethis time, about
Antoinette herself. Omigod! Who wouldn't think of Dowd, simpering
queen of belle lettrists?
WIKIPEDIA: Fulfilling Marie Antoinette's determination to avoid
boredom, conversation in her circle shied away from the mundane or
intellectual. According to Madame Campan, one of the queen's ladies-
in-waiting, "The newest songs from the Comédie, the most timely joke
or pun or quip, the bon mot of the day, the latest and choicest
titbit of scandal or gossipthese comprised the sole topics of
conversation in the intimate group about the queen; discussion on a
serious plane was banished from her court."
The queen's circle of friends was very exclusive...
Who wouldn't think of our own inane Dowd when reading that portrait
of Antoinette? After all, Dowd's circle of friends is exclusive too;
it includes an array of the jugglers and clowns who have done so
much to degrade our discourse (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 2/23/07). And
Dowd's court is determined to help their queen avoid the boredom
which presses out from her soul. Once again, we recommend Gay
Jervey's portrait of Dowd's social conscience, as presented long ago
in Brill's Content:
JERVEY (6/99): "Maureen is very talented," observes Joe Klein of The
New Yorker. "But she is ground zero of what the press has come to be
about in the nineties...I remember having a discussion with her in
which I said, 'Maureen, why don't you go out and report about
something significant, go out and see poor people, do something
real?' And she said, 'You mean I should write about welfare
Let them eat Ring-Dings, Dowd told Klein. Heaven forbid that this
fatuous loser should actually "report about something significant."
Heaven forbid that our top Antoinette should care about real
Yep! In the 90s, Dowd was "ground zero" of a fatuous press corpsand
things are only worse today. But then, the Dowds have always moved
among us. In turn, the Madame Campans have bustled about, shielding
such queens from their own inner boredom. And they themselves have
done their best to visit their own inane, broken souls on a wider
and suffering world.
TOMORROW: The evil of the press corps' banality, Selma and slave-
VINTAGE DOWD: One more part of Dowd's latest column defines the
great dauphine's style:
DOWD (3/3/07): When the Tiger Woods of politics goes to a civil
rights commemoration in Selma, Ala., this weekendjust as the story
breaks that his white ancestors had slaveshe will compete for
attention with Hillary and the man billed as the first black
president. How does he feel about the Clintons double-teaming him?
Talking about the woman he described at the Beverly Hills fund-
raiser as smarter, better-looking and meaner then he is, he
grins: ''My wife's pretty tough.''
Hiss! Spit! Hiss-spit! Mee-ow! Dowd, broken loser of silly cultural
wars, has always written like a throwback survivor of mid-
century "women's pages." And soHiss! Hiss-spit! Meow!she couldn't
wait to alert her readers to this latest bit of "biographical"
inanity. More on this topic tomorrow.
According to Madame Campan, "the latest and choicest titbit of
scandal or gossipthese comprised the sole topics of conversation in
the intimate group about the queen." And darlings! According to a
genealogical researcher, one of Obama's great-great-great-great
grandfathers may have owned two slaves at one time! For a brief
moment, Dowd's boredom had lifted. So she rushed to transmit the new
THE ROLE THAT IS PLAYED BY ANN COULTER: Gore and Edwards are big
girlie-men! Dowd delivers this message to the New York Times crowd
and Coulter sends the message to losers.
Example: On Sunday morning's Washington Journal, C-SPAN devoted its
first forty-five minutes to a discussion of Coulter's remark. And a
string of Coulter-defenders called in to explain away her conduct.
This gave us a chance to understand the role Coulter plays in our
world. (Eventually, the clip will be posted here.)
The "explanations" offered by Coulter's fans simply beggar
description. About 35 minutes in, a broken soul from Vermont topped
things off; he explained that his dictionary has two definitions
of "f*aggot," and until someone asks Coulter which one she meant,
it's unfair to criticize her comment. (And yes, he actually quoted
the definition in which a "faggot" is a bundle of sticks.) Host
Steve Scully isn't allowed to comment, but he questioned the caller
as to which definition he thought Coulter had meant. But the caller
kept explaining away Coulter's comment. There was no sign, of any
kind, that his call was some sort of a put-on
These calls help us grasp a key pointone that's almost never
discussed. Many voters are breath-takingly stupid, and their
tribalism will take them to the ends of the earth. These are the
people the GOP has learned to address and marshal through Coulter
(and through others like her). Speaking in her famous direct way,
she tells these people that Dem males are just big girlie-men
("f*ggots"). Speaking in more mellifluous tones, Dowd sends this
message to others.
Repeat: Dowd and Coulter have the same message. They just send it to
two different groups.
But if you listen to this full segment, you will note that most of
the callers are somewhat less stupid than this utterly hapless
Vermonter. Most of Coulter's defenders say something like this:
Since Coulter was speaking "in a comedic context," her statement was
really A-OK. But then, this has been a controlling RNC narrative at
least since the spring of 1999. At that time, the factually bogus
attacks on Gore were explicitly defended as examples of humor. Ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha, they explained. We're just enjoying some good solid
This is why we find it so maddening (but so typical) when Keith
Olbermann endlessly refers to "the comedian Rush Limbaugh" on
Countdown. Plainly, Olbermann thinks he's delivering a zinger, but
this is the explanation the other side favors! Whenever Limbaugh
gets into a factual jam, he says, But I'm just an entertainer! Since
Olbermann wastes his afternoons talking sports, he apparently hasn't
She said it in "a comedic context!" The RNC has pimped this
narrative since the first days of the War Against Gore. If you
listen to Sunday's C-SPAN tape, you can hear Coulter's army spouting
it NOW. Or you can just dial up Mr. O and hear us recite their tales