I find Dowd irritating every which way, but let's not forget that she is a woman writing in one of the nation's most influential papers — no small accomplishment — and in this case she was writing about a candidate for political office. We shouldn't start asking papers to censor writers with whom we disagree, just because the topic is a female candidate.

at this point that Dowd is stale & tired? The cougars or puma's, or whatever the hell they are, keep referring to Olbermann & Matthews as being misogynistic during the primaries, but Dowd was way more vicious towards Hillary.

And far less sexist to boot.

I hate her sometimes when she's right, and often find her wide of the mark.

But I would hate even more to see her caustic satires muffled by the jealous police of political correctness.

And she's usually first out the gate to bash them, so her "I'm just being a contrarian" defense is bullshit. When Howard Dean threw his hat in the ring in 2004, Dowd wasted no time going after his wife because the latter dared to want to keep her job even if she became First Lady--and wasn't sufficiently fashionable to be a FL (by MD's standards.) And IIRC, the very first column she ever wrote about Michele Obama derided MO's "emasculating" joking about her husband's smelly breath in the morning. Dowd has (self-confessed) major problems with being a successful, Pulitzer-Prize-winning woman, and she consistently goes after other women because she's insecure about her femininity. High time she was called out on her crap.

To give Dowd what very little credit she is due, she was equally vicious to all the Democratic candidates, and equally sexist, never missing an opportunity for a snide innuendo about the masculinity of Edwards or Obama. She was instrumental in turning Edwards's haircut into a huge political issue, while people died in Iraq largely unnoticed. And she constantly implied that Obama was lacking in "potency" (her word) for not fighting dirtier against Hillary Clinton. From the very first primaries, she has covered this election as though it were a junior high school popularity contest, and seems absolutely unaware of what is at stake for the country.

Not only is Dowd obsessed with trivia, superficial appearances, and personal gossip, she's a sick person working out her self-hatred by projecting it onto political figures. And if this, and Gail Collins, are the best female writers that the NY Times can manage to find, then I don't think they're looking very hard.

Dowd's work if you believe she treated HRC any differently than she John Kerry or Al Gore in the past. She has been an equal opportunity offender: emasculating and irreverent and shrill for years. In fact, this year she finally seems to be toning it all down. And her riffs on Bush and American foibles are usually good for a laugh.

And as such, I find Dowd deeply puzzling and disappointing on many levels. If she represents the best, then she confirms the misogynist perception that even the brightest women are all about appearances and personal impressions, and worse, retain the resentfully judgmental character of seventh-graders well into their supposed adulthoods.

over the top, sometimes? Yep. More dangerous because she pulls your leg, male or female, almost to the point of dislocation? That too. Did she unhinge Hillary's doorway to the Presidency? No. Does she participate in the ritual navel gazing that is now the NY Times entirely self absorbed version of editorial reflection/genuflection? Is it sexist to say a presidential candidate sometimes played games learned from her girlhood? Don't know, don't care. Keep on writing. McCain and Obama deserve the best you can send their way. Incoming Words!

I know some people think Dowd is witty and smart. These people need to get out more. The way she comes across to me is snarky and cheap, and every time I read her column I am amazed she is employed by the biggest paper in the nation.

It's not that Dowd is dumb. She is smart the way Rush Limbaugh is smart; that is, she knows her medium, her audience, and the gossipy side of politics. Her take is that politics is a soap opera, and she relishes exposing the petty jealousy and weakness of politicians.

But you know what? There are millions of people like that. Finding writers who can deliver a snarky take on politics is about as hard as finding people who want to analyze pro football. That is, it is harder to find someone who won't.

If you want to gauge Dowd's importance, ask if Dowd got fired tomorrow if her voice would be missed. Call it the Tim Russert test if you must. The answer is no. If I want to read columns trashing George Bush or Hillary Clinton I can go to any number of websites or papers. She adds nothing to the debate. What she does is makes it uglier.

Dowd is the weak sister contrast to another political columnist I greatly admired, Molly Ivins. Ivins also trashed GW Bush, but as a moderate-to-slightly-conservative Texan she brought it off so much more effectively. Ivins was funny without being cruel, sharp without being unfair, elegant yet willing to get her hands dirty, and I trusted her judgment because she was not the avowed leftist Dowd clearly is. Ivins passes the Russert test. I miss her very much. Dowd I won't read on principle. I'm tired of public literary humililation, which is Dowd's specialty.

Sometime, read Svutlana Ms Maureen and when finish shake head and think who is Condi and what is Bushie and why this woman try for turn American politic into puppet show by Sophocles? It seem for me that Ms Maureen try for make everybody into caricature, no just Ms Hillary Clinton.

Other time, like yesterday when write Ms Maureen about Carla Bruni and compare to Michelle Obama, think Svutlana this woman make good point. For sure if Michelle Obama have folk song with lyric that say she want for roll up man and smoke him, she have little bit PR issue in Unite State, special in California where smoke is extreme bad.

Obvious, Svutlana is no judge of quality or bias, but Ms Maureen is consistent on list of most read on New York Time website, so she obvious do something write.