On his blog today, Paul Krugman referred to a recommendation he received when he started writing op-eds at the NY Times:
Early in my tenure at the NYT, I was advised that it’s a bad idea to devote a column to attacking another columnist — not just at the Times, but anywhere. Why? Because it makes you look small — as if you have nothing better to do than snipe at other commentators, rather than trying to deal with real problems.
Ruth Marcus' distorted screed on social security was completely debunked at the Economists View. I was wondering what kind of advice a Times columnist would receive if their idea was to use a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal as an underhanded way to smear a candidate. I'd hope they would be told that if you want to say something, say it yourself, and don't rely on sleazy dodges to make your point.
It's not like Maureen Dowd was quoting some authority, just a random Boston tax lawyer who wrote to the Journal about Senator Hillary Clinton:
"She hasn't accomplished anything on her own since getting admitted to Yale Law. She isn’t Dianne Feinstein, who spent years as mayor of San Francisco before becoming a senator, or Nancy Pelosi, who became Madam Speaker on the strength of her political abilities. All Hillary is, is Mrs. Clinton. She became a partner at the Rose Law Firm because of that, senator of New York because of that, and (heaven help us) she could become president because of that," - Joan Di Cola,
Diane Feinstein is personally worth between 43 and 99 million dollars. She was much more "accomplished" than Clinton in picking a rich father. She also did better at picking a rich husband - her man's close to becoming, if he is not already, a billionaire.
The occasionally reasonable Andrew Sullivan, loses all semblance of rationality when it comes to Senator Clinton. Today, he wrote approvingly of Dowd's column:
Finally, I hope, voters will get to see past the flim-flam being thrown in their faces by the Clinton machine.
Earlier this year, he admitted that he agreed with her on lots of important issues yet in the same discussion described her "cootie vibes" and said
"I just can't stand her. I'm sorry about that."
The fact is that Clinton was certainly helped by her husband's popularity in her run for the Senate in 2000. She also did a fantastic job of learning about the issues facing the state and coming up with solutions. However, it was not some nostalgic fondness for Bill that got her reelected with close to 70% of the vote in 2006. She earned it.
There are lots of positions that Senator Clinton took that I don't like. But denigrating her for a lack of "accomplishment" or for her "cootie vibes" proves just how pathetic pundits like Dowd and Sullivan really are.
Comments