Follow by Email

Saturday, July 12, 2014

Maureen Dowd, "Isn’t It Rich?": "I’m Obsessed With Diarrhea"?

We've long known that Maureen Dowd can be a bit critical of Hillary Clinton, and in her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Isn’t It Rich?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/13/opinion/sunday/maureen-dowd-isnt-it-rich.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), the Queen of Snark gently upbraids the 2016 Democratic candidate for president. Dowd writes:

"Hillary’s book — which feels like something she got at Ikea and had someone put together — is drooping because it was more about the estimated $13 million advance and the campaign ramp-up than the sort of intriguing self-examination and political excavations found in the memoirs of Timothy Geithner and Bob Gates. If she had had something to say, the book might have been shorter.

Hillary doesn’t see the disconnect between expressing grave concern about mounting student loan debt while scarfing six-figure sums from at least eight colleges, and counting. She says now that she’s passing the university money to the foundation but, never Ms. Transparency, has refused to provide documentation of that."

And if her criticism of Hillary is dainty, Dowd's observations concerning Chelsea are more delicate:

"Chelsea is making speeches that go into foundation coffers. She is commanding, as The Times’s Amy Chozick reported, up to $75,000 per appearance.

Chozick wrote: 'Ms. Clinton’s speeches focus on causes like eradicating waterborne diseases. (‘I’m obsessed with diarrhea’ is a favorite line.)'

There’s something unseemly about it, making one wonder: Why on earth is she worth that much money?

. . . .

There was disgust over Politico’s revelation that before she switched to a month-to-month contract, Chelsea was getting wildly overpaid at $600,000 annually — or over $25,000 per minute on air — for a nepotistic job as a soft-focus correspondent for NBC News."

Query: Is Chelsea being paid more by NBC than Maureen is making at the Times? Oh dear!

But let's ignore the upfront paid for Hillary's book and the fees and salary being paid to Chelsea. Of greater importance to me is how Hillary sided with Obama some three weeks ago, after America's president decided to condone the Fatah-Hamas Palestinian unity government. The former secretary of state declared:

"I think it's a holding position. And the reason it's a holding position is that the makeup of this joint [Fatah-Hamas] enterprise are largely technocrats. They're academics and they're business people. They don't represent sort of, what you might call hard-core Hamas leadership."

They don't represent "sort of" Hamas leadership? Whom do they represent? Another insightful foreign policy call by Hillary! I just can't wait to see her back in the White House!

4 comments:

  1. She won't be in the White House.
    Frankly, it's terrifying - after Bush -Obama.
    BTW, I wonder if people have noticed what our beloved President was doing in the last month or so.
    He was throwing cynically all these offers - raising the minimal wage, establishing eternal paradise in the world, being a broker in Israel/Gaza, etc. knowing very that everyone just wants him to disappear and immediately declaring "Look, I am wonderful, I am doing my job, I am saving the world, but they, they, they are bad."
    The guy obviously is evil. I am all for living wage, but I know that only bringing/creating jobs can result in raising of living standards, including the raise in wages, but of course our beloved President does nothing, nothing, nothing (except for the predicable speeches) and is fighting for amnesty which will further suppress the wages.
    I even won't comment on the eternal paradise and brokerage in the Middle East by one of the biggest antisemites in the world.
    He does reminds me of the Soviet Union, not because he is a "socialist" (he is nothing, just a user), but because of the style. He is, of course, "people's" president and is for Mir and Druzhba. The former Soviet Union was all wrapped in the posters "Miru Mir" and "Druzhba Narodov.' The US is of course a different country and we have only the President all wrapped up in "Miru Mir" and "Druzhba Narodow."
    Now, how did we end up here?

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Dainty criticism?" "Delicate criticism?"

    Hardly.

    Saying someone isn't worth what they're being paid, that they've done nothing doesn't qualify.

    Worse is the selectivity in not condemning the public institutions that pay more for the opinions of the war-mongering architects of the last Bush administration who have done so much to diminish America and wreak havoc on the world.

    ReplyDelete
  3. From the level of your writing, Mr. Anonymous, amnesty of any sort for foreigners will have no effect on your current or potential wages.

    You are correct about bringing/creating jobs. The best approach is to begin by public works projects, which are constantly thwarted by political republicanism. If all the efforts that have gone into trying to repeal a bill (ACA) that benefits people had gone into creating and supporting such plans, and putting limits on credit exploitation, as well as tax-free shelters, there would be no economic crisis. In fact, however, there is only an economic crisis for the lower 95% of the economic totem pole.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "From the level of your writing, Mr. Anonymous, amnesty of any sort for foreigners will have no effect on your current or potential wages"
    I guess you are referring to me (anonymous 1:45)
    It is the first time someone is dissatisfied with the level of my writing. A Ph.D. with several masters, I usually write convincingly (at least in the eyes of people of similar education). Sorry to disappoint you but I am not a Mr. (yes, there are educated women) and English is my 7th language (in order of acquisition) and sorry, Jeffrey and commenters, I care more about my spontaneous expression in my 7th language than polishing and presenting "proper" English sentences. And yes, anonymous, feel free to present the sample of your writing on such subjects in your 7th language for me to judge. I'll try to be fair.
    Now, substance. Yes, dear anonymous, you're wrong and I am right. Amnesty to 11 million of ILLEGAL immigrants means granting legal rights to individuals who don't deserve and throwing them into competition with disadvantaged American born individuals who did nothing wrong. For you information, unemployment among male African Americans is reaching 50%.
    You are, of course, wrong about the second issue too. Yes, public work projects, can partly help, however, you (no surprise here) have missed something much, much, much bigger - outsourcing of American jobs. The last time I checked, your president (and sadly mine) conveniently ignored the issue, spending his days at my tax money on fundraising among those who ... you guess it ... do all outsourcing.
    BTW, I enjoy being useful. I am glad that you now know that English isn't the only language in the world
    dr anna

    ReplyDelete