Maureen Dowd is Seen as Petty and Shallow

Maureen Dowd in today's NYT. Where to begin? Well, Glenn Greenwald already took care of the lede ("And in this one short passage, on vivid, revolting display is every repellent attribute that defines the Standard Modern Political Journalist"), so I'll jump to the corrupt heart of the thing:

She won her Senate seat after being embarrassed by a man. She pulled out New Hampshire and saved her presidential campaign after being embarrassed by another man. She was seen as so controlling when she ran for the Senate that she had to be seen as losing control, as she did during the Monica scandal, before she seemed soft enough to attract many New York voters.

Um, Maureen? Maybe she won her senate seat "after being embarrassed by a man," but she certainly didn't win it because she had been embarrassed by a man. She won it because Rudy bailed from the race for health reasons, and she ended up running against a relatively young congressman who was just completely out of his depth. At least, that's what I was thinking when I cast my ballot for her...not, "Well, Bill cheated on her, so she deserves my vote." Maybe several million New Yorkers are as shallow as you think, but I doubt it.

I also love the "[s]he was seen as so controlling" comment. Says who? Could you, you know, cite to a public opinion survey before you make such a sweeping statement about how New Yorkers perceived Hillary eight years ago? Just because you saw her as "too controlling" doesn't make it so for millions of other people. Here's an example: Maureen Dowd is seen as petty, shallow, and a symbol of everything that is juvenile and rotten in our political press.

How this kind of puerile drivel passes for informed political commentary is beyond me.