Kos-acks Attack Dowd

Back when I checked out the Free Republic reaction to Maureen Dowd’s attacks on Cheney, I found a lot of rabid DowdBashing. Now that she has turned her sites on Hillary, it would be interesting to see how the reliably liberal Kos-acks at Daily Kos react to Nevada Dems take (see yesterday's post for those highlights).

Dowd has a very bad reputation among the heartiest of liberal partisans with long memories. An awful lot of people are still bitter over perceived sabotage of the Gore campaign.

Buzzer says (and 21 others agree):

I'm not a Hillary supporter but Maureen Dowd is worthless. She (as well as Frank Rich) were MAJOR perpetrators of dishonest, sickeningly superficial coverage of Al Gore in 2000.
There are plenty of smart people making strong cases against Hillary Clinton. Mo Dowd isn't one of them.

Happy Days semi-defended Dowd:

Maureen Dowd is witty and funny but has always been very hostile to both Clintons.

But Travis Bickle adds:

She's been very to hostile to a lot of people including Al Gore and John Kerry. U can thank her for the whole "Al Gore invented the internet" sniping in 2000, she gave a lot of that media BS legs in a major American publication. I ignore her and her condescension.

Chumley concurs:

Maureen Dowd is an awful writer. Remember, she will savage ANYONE with her Mean Girls style. Especially Democratic candidates. She's long on snotty b.s., short on substance.
She was one of the worst in going after Al Gore back in 2000. Just shameless.

Peagreen is about the only one that understands the point Dowd was trying to make:

no fan of dowd BUT

She can be righteous while playing brass-knuckle politics. She will cozy up to former enemies she can use, like Matt Drudge and David Brock, and back W.’s bellicosity if it helps banish her old image as anti-military.
There is nowhere she won’t go, so long as it gets her where she wants to be.

I would not care who wrote this. I agree with it. And the emphasis is mine.

Do Tell agrees:

This paragraph really sums up Hillary, no matter how much I dislike Dowd. She hits the nail on the head and explains much about her current campaign, her votes, statements, and her doubletalk.
She will do anything, say anything, as long as it gets her the nomination.

Shane Hensinger takes a more balanced but personal view of Dowd's attacks:

Maureen Dowd has never met a public figure that she doesn't enjoy raking over the coals and humiliating in her little twice-a-week "gotcha" column. She's loyal to no ideology or party, only to her own self-serving interests.

Dowd is the ultimate Beltway insider, the kind who thinks she knows more than the little people, and she flaunts her connections like they're prize jewels. She's a chronic Botox addict who doesn't like anyone, especially other women, doing better than she's done. She loves to find fault with the wives of elected politicians because they constantly remind her that she's never been able to have a successful relationship.

She's a loveless, childless, bitter menopausal woman with nothing more to look forward to than more echo-chamber parties in Georgetown and the Upper West Side where everyone assures her of how relevant and important she is.

To Happy Days, the quality of Dowd’s columns depends on whose Al is getting Gored, so to speak:

Frankly, I enjoy her Bush and Cheney columns because she does have a very funny and caustic wit. But when it comes to writing about Hillary (or Bill for that matter) she's as viscious (sic) or more so than she is with Shrub and Darth--but in the case of the Clintons she takes the most superficial and un-representative things and engages in satirical cheap shots.

And that pretty much sums it up. Your view of Dowd depends on where you stand. And since she doesn’t play favorites, she takes plenty of shots from all directions.