She and Aaron Sorkin could have married--then divorced. Which means we would now be condemmed to endless columns and screenplays (respectively) in which they both would bash insufficiently "womanly" women. Ugh.

Is Maureen Dowd necessary?

Seems if the genders were reversed and she were a guy, she would not be able to continue spilling her dribble onto the pages of an international publication.

While we are at it, let's rid the media of Ellen Goodman and her stoopid man hating venom too.

Please write so the reader can more easily follow your nasty comments filled with untruths and venom. Your sentence structure could be improved along with your ability to reason fairly and justly.

I'm sorry my sentence structure, as impeccable as it was, still happened to be too complex for you to follow easily. I can only assume that it is for this reason that you failed to recognize the fairness and justice in my reasoning. :) I'll try in the future to write at a third-grade level for the sake of all the Hillary supporters on the board. *grin*

-------------

Here are a couple of suggestions: stop putting "us" into the position of victims/castrating b******; try to contain your condescension and patronism. You might not acknowledge it, but we are actually thoughtful, highly educated and informed.

Believe it or not, I tried. I'm friends with more than a few Hillary supporters, after all, so it's not like I've concluded that they're all shallow idiots.

But for all that they may be thoughtful, educated, and informed, the two things every Hillary supporter I've run into have in common with every other one is this: they're all beneficiaries of the status quo, and they're all big fans of drama.

That sums up, to me the appeal of Hillary: she'll bring lots of drama and no actual change, which is great for people that like to get very excited about nothing.

Just a commentary on whether women have achieved equality can be answered sadly by the senseless murders of two young and promising women college students in the past two days.

Maybe if Clinton and her supporters had spent less time complaining about how mean Chris Matthews is and more time coming up with a credible defense of her Iraq war vote, they'd be winning over more young female voters.

I can't explain to you why sexism IS NOT ABOUT being "mean". If you do not or cannot understand why the media WOULD NEVER use racism or racial baiting/slurs, but seems perfectly fine using sexism in its analysis of female political candidates, then we have a problem that goes deeper than disagreement about voting records.

And once again your categorical argument here is fuzzy logic and paints a pretty wide brush over "young female voters" and what they would or would not do.

If she honestly believed Iraq was the right battlefield, then her judgment stinks and her "experience" argument is a joke.

I don't happen to believe that "her judgment stinks", primarily because I've worked in Washington -- as a progressive Democrat -- and I know how the real world works "on the Hill." If you also have such experience I'd be delighted to have a discussion about it.

Regarding the "experience" argument: how she voted on the authorization is but one of many actions that comprise the realm of "experience". Experience is not, however, made from one vote or one decision, but a combination of many decisions and actions over a period of time. Thus, this isn't a factual (or particularly effective) categorical argument.

If she didn't honestly believe Iraq was the right battlefield, then she cynically decided a few thousand American lives was a small price to pay to keep her White House dreams alive.

Unless you "know" that her decision was "cynical", this is a generalization about Clinton and her decisions.

In her shoes, I'd probably want to make this election about mean old Chris Matthews, too.

You seem to be the one making this election "about mean old Chris Matthews," not Hillary Clinton supporters -- other than to point out and request that the media treat every candidate with dignity and respect (e.g., not using racism OR sexism in their coverage).

And if you re-read my earlier post on this thread, I did not accuse you of being "venomous" or "ill-informed." What I said was this -- and I stand by it: "I sincerely wish you and others who so despise Hillary Clinton -- based on media hype, innuendo, rumor, disinformation and outright lies -- would do a little more research before judging so hastily and with such venom.

Finally, I have to say that your posts to me seem pretty hostile and cynical. I could be wrong, but that's not what I'm reading.

I read many of her columns until I concluded that she is an idiot. And a mean-spirited idiot, at that.

libertyson you are too much! I hope that is a joke. And she killed Vince Foster too? What else have the vile Clintons been responsible for?

"No one I know is complaining about women who have considered both candidates, who decided based on the issues AND on her gender that Hillary is their candidate."

They won't SAY they're complaining about the women you describe. Instead, they will say that they are tired of women voting for Hillary just because she is a woman, and no matter what we say to the contrary, it will still be "just because she's a woman" whereas Obama supporters are all reasonable people who support him for a myriad of reasons, and oh by the way he's black.

she gossips, constantly, and undermines Democrats with actual lies, yet people still call her progressive.

because it has been the same for years--Clinton = evil but Hillary is more so because she made her husband cheat on Maureen.

for her constant and stupid jabs at the Clintons.

"Does Dowd have a big-time crush on Bill Clinton that she's overcompensating for? I wonder."

Yes! And she will never forgive him (or Hillary) for Monica.

Okay. We have a situation in the Democratic primaries where around 90% of African Americans are casting votes for Barack Obama and, what, 55%, 60% of women are casting votes for Hillary Clinton, and it's only womengetting called for practicing identity politics?

This is absurd.

i can't stand maureen dowd. i NEVER read her columns in the NYtimes. i've been routinely skipping them for the past 3 years because they make my stomach turn. they are so insubstantial. always one long rant of her personal opinions and quippy and punny little lines. she sucks BIGtime! hilary could fill that space much better, no doubt. i wish they'd put in paglia or monica crowley or some other chick with some smarts.

LJ, you're the one who introduced words like "venomous" and "ill-informed" into this conversation, not me.

So you make it pretty darned hard to turn the other cheek yourself.

I don't make sweeping generalizations about Clinton. I don't hate Clinton. She and Obama are very close on most issues. But one of these candidates was right about Iraq, and one was wrong. I'm going with the guy who was right.

The only generalization I made about Clinton supporters is that I don't think they do a very good job defending her war vote. Your response was a perfect illustration of that. It was short on substance and long on words like "venom" and "despise."

You went straight to questioning my motives and concluded that I must hate Clinton to be bringing up this issue. That's beating the everyone-is-so-mean-to-Hillary drum.