(15091 – Reblogged fromHillarymen. Click the the darn link!!)
We are treated to yet another exercise in anti-Hillary vitriol from Maureen Dowd. As usual, Dowd’s writing seethes with Hillary hatred. What’s worse is that in this column, Dowd uses the tragic death of Beau Biden as a platform to smear Hillary. Dowd’s words are chosen meticulously – they fit perfectly into the narratives that have been developed to smear Hillary over decades. Delivering such excessive negativity in one piece is not opinion writing. It is not journalism.
Source: The Rovian Research Behind Maureen Dowd’s Anti-Hillary Screeds — #HillaryMen
Grab and Keel 
Maureen Dowd was equally vitriolic about Gore. She seems to have a compulsion to pound on Democrats until they lose….then she spends the term of the Republican she helped to elect moaning in buyers remorse.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Vitriolic” is a good term.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vitriol
It’s not the pounding though, it’s the phraseology. Every time you use terms rooted in misogyny and release them through an organ like the NYT the terms are granted legitimacy.
You are right about Gore too. Whether she calls him “girly man” (I believe she grabbed this from Schwarzenegger.) or Clinton “manly girl”, they are sexual denigrations demeaning women.
Being in a woman in construction, my experience was that there were more than a few times I had to have teaching moments about why using “wuss” or puss” were denigrating to women. Construction workers were however, typically, a lot more open to discussions about this than co-office workers who often were more politically correct in their speech, but less so in their viewpoint.
Hillary Clinton is an adult, a politician who happens to be a woman. The day she hung out her lawyer’s shingle she signaled that she would spend her life fighting. We expect our politicians to do battle for us.
When Dowd rants its painful to see her sickness. Every self-flaggallating sexist comment she makes comes out of personal mud. It’s painful and enraging that the NYT has encouraged it for so many years. They don’t care because it’s really what they think. This sort of commentary is not rational dissent.
LikeLike