Going Meta
Everyone's already piling on Maureen Dowd's horrible column today, but to me what makes this sort of crap doubly aggravating is her refusal to even take responsibility for what she's doing. Dowd doesn't want to wake up and say, "I'm using my New York Times column to argue that John Edwards would be a bad president because he got some expensive haircuts." She won't come out and write: "John Edwards' expensive haircuts indicate to me that he would be a bad president." If she wrote that, after all, it would be obvious that she was being idiotic. Why, after all, would you think that the price of Edwards' haircuts is an important indicator of what kind of job he'd do as president.
So, instead, she writes a column which is nominally about how other people will find his haircuts objectionable. The voters -- not Dowd, Dowd is serious -- will find this very damaging. But, of course, it wouldn't be damaging at all if media haters didn't talk about it. It's either relevant or it's not. If you think it's relevant, you have a responsibility to explain how and why and expose yourself as a fool. If you don't think it's relevant, you have a responsibility to write your columns about something else.
Comments
I don't really see how Dowd's position is any different from the present-day MSM's approach to covering Edwards' (or any other candidate's) stance on, say, the Iraq war: not to debate the merits of his position, but to speculate how hypothetically "electable" holding such a position might make him.
And if you're going to go that route, you may just as well talk about his haircut.
My brain is malfunctioning today. Please substitute "Dowd's approach" for "Dowd's position," above.
You know what makes it triply aggravating? John Edwards's hair is going to make him an awesome president.
Are the haircuts *completely* irrelevant in judging his ability to be president? I don't think so. Given two Edwards: one who doesn't get expensive haircuts and another who does, I would vote for the one who doesn't.
Reasons: 1) Less taken with his own appearance implies a person who is more concerned with substance than image. 2) A person who doesn't use campaign donations for extravagant personal care implies a person who will be more conscientious about using tax payer money. 3) Expensive haircuts imply narcissism. Watch that youtube video. I thought everything was pretty normal until the last part, after the woman is finished spraying and adjusting his hair. It is just *strange* how obsessively he flicks with it--long after most people would stop. The office of the president naturally breeds narcissistic tendencies in a person. I am more inclined to vote for a candidate who is less full of himself. It makes for a better ability to make judgments.
Are these tendencies 100% in all cases? Of course not. But it's some data that can be combined with other data. So it's not irrelevant.
Congratulations, Matt. Finally, the liberal press is mounting a real challenge to these formerly untouchable media stars, the fatuous Antoinettes who gave us George W. Bush and Iraq, because they wanted to talk about Al Gore's 3 button suits.
These media mutants, as James Wolcott acurately calls them, are THE MOST IMPORTANT issue. Without challenging their garbage first, we can't push the real issues to the forefront.
The Non Sequitur comic strip has been using this as its theme all week. Young Danae tries to apply the "Sum-say" technique to real life... see here.
This one says it all. (comic strip)
I suspect that if anyone asked Dowd directly, she'd probably say that she doesn't think the haircuts would make him a bad president; after all, I'll bet her cuts & color cost at least $400, if not more. The problem is that she does not seem to care whether a candidate-- any candidate-- would be a good president or not. Bad presidents are better for her, anyway, since she can snark about more serious issues and that makes her seem more serious herself.
Having said that, it was very foolish of Edwards to not pay for that haircut out of pocket, or let Elizabeth pay for it, or something that would have kept it from public scrutiny... if that wasn't feasible, then he should have just gotten a minor trim at lower cost & let his own stylist fix any damage when he got home. I have no major problem with expensive haircuts, even though I can't afford anything close to $400 myself (and my own hair is probably as fine-textured & generally unmanageable as Edwards' seems to be, although I can more easily claim the female 'privilege' of vanity), but not paid for with one's donors' cash.
As I recall, during the 2004 campaign, Ms. Dowd appeared to be more concerned with Ms. Kerrys' appearance and wardrobe then with the substance of Mr. Kerrys' campaign.
The best part of course is if Edwards got a bad haircut, it too would be a huge story.
The best part of course is if Edwards got a bad haircut, it too would be a huge story.
Rob hits it.
And also, if you asked Maureen Dowd the difference between Edwards, Obama, and Clinton's positions on the Bush tax cuts for families making more than $200,000 in income annually, do you think she'd know?
Keep in mind, it was not just in a story in today's NY Times, but it was even highlighted in a box.
I give 2:1 odds she doesn't know. Hell, I give 5:1 odds she can't tell me the difference between Edwards, Obama, and Clinton's health care plans.
Dowd is a dilettante. I don't understand why she gets this kind of high-profile space, when all she does with it is make up quotes (who among us does not love nascar?) and pen sneering attacks on political figures, using high-school critiques (nobody likes your hair!!!).
She should be buried in the lifestyles section. She certainly doesn't rate the editorial page.
Like it or not, people want to vote for candidates who seem like likable people -- the whole "share a beer with" factor. A guy who gets $400 haircuts sounds like kind of a dick to me, if that's the only data point I've got (of course, with Edwards, we know a lot more about him). A guy who won't pay for his $400 haircuts out of his substantial personal wealth sounds like an even bigger dick.
Anyway, the haircuts are pretty trivial, but I still think it's interesting. Revealing? Maybe, but the general perception of Edwards was already the kind of asshole who probably gets $400 haircuts, so it doesn't reveal anything new.
Obviously the $400 haircuts aren't the biggest campaign story, but they're sort of interesting, and news outlets should report on stuff that's interesting.
And I freely admit that my comment may be totally irrelevant to the Dowd column, since I didn't read it.
So will her columns be OK if she titles them 'Meta'?
It's crucially important that the NY Times devote substantially more space to Edwards' haircut than it ever devoted to Bush's possible securities fraud in 1993.
It's a real problem - nothing is private anymore, except for possibly finances, white collar crime, and public misconduct.
MoDo pulls this shit all the time.
"Who among us doesn't like NASCAR" and Earth Tones and all the rest of that bulljive. That she is a jackass and part of the problem is nothing new.
I followed Bush's securities fraud and I was stunned to learn recvently that on the day in 2002 AFTER the Justice Department gave up on the case that he turned over a memo showing that he'd been warned about possible insider trading conflicts on the transaction. The MSM really went on and on about that one. I'm surprised that they gave it as much space as that Clinton Whitewater transaction.
I hope it becomes a story - more of a story - and we get to find out what everyone who goes on teevee spends getting their hair cut.
Someone the whole country sees every damn day should pay some money to not look like their dorm room pals still cut their hair and picks their clothes off the floor.
It seems odd to me that people don't consider grooming a legitimate campaign expense.
Such people probably also think that public buildings should be constructed like pole barns.
Really, Matt, why can't these commentators focus on the important stuff, like health care policy...oh, I know, because that stuff is BORING! And Americans don't care about policy. They care about $400 haircuts.
Have you even lived in this freaking country? How about a little outrage towards the dumb candidates who don't realize, "hey, maybe this is a bad idea! Maybe I shouldn't drive around in a tank/go windsurfing/pay more for a haircut than some earn in a week." If you don't see why this stuff matters, may I introduce you to a little publication known as "Us Weekly".
Americans are dumb. Republicans realized this a long time ago. Stop complaining and get over it.
Dowd is pretty much everything that's wrong with the media elite. She even worked in a couple shots at Edwards's daughter.
Yoyo has it; since Edwards' appearance is an integral part of his campaign work, a really good haircut genuinely is a campaign expense -- and an appropriate one.
The worst thing is, Dowd knows this, and she could have spent the column talking about how a person who is in the public view all the time might reasonably pay a lot of money for a really good haircut, but she chose instead to engage in petty character assassination.
Best to defer to Digby on this one. Dowd is saying that Edwards is a pussy, to put it politely. Not that he isn't exactly the kind of guy she waited in vain for all her life.
Maureen Dowd is an airhead. What else is new.
Really, the whole thing seems rather ridiculous. I mean, I'd imagine that most network and cable news divisions have full-time hair and makeup people (which I'm sure costs more than whatever Edwards paid) to make sure the on-air talent looks perfectly coiffed for each broadcast. The president himself has a private barber. The myth that national candidates who are going to be televised regularly should be going to Supercuts like regular folks is just absurd.
So Edwards is the "hair apparent".
If I contributed money to a candidate, I would certainly hope they would get a good haircut, in fact, the best possible, considering how cruel the camera can be.
Considering what the Bush people will pay to make the Decider look good, it's hard not to conclude that Dowd is a moron, essentially leaning on the watercooler and making nasty comments about the people who actually do the work.
Maureen Dowd is an embarrassing for women. She embodies every stereotype about women spending all their time gossiping and obsessing over clothes and hairdos.
In a week when SCOTUS issued a major ruling, one effecting women, she writes a column about a candidate's hairdo.
Sadly this is not an isolated case. Her columns are observations about candidate's clothes, hair, spouses.........the trivial.
Why can't the NYT hire a woman columnist who will write about serious issues? SCOTUS ruling, Iraq war, Virginia Tech, US Attorney firings.........I can go on and on.
Why can't the NYT hire a woman columnist who will write about serious issues?
I nominate Wendy Kaminer.
"Really, Matt, why can't these commentators focus on the important stuff, like health care policy...oh, I know, because that stuff is BORING!"
It's worse. You have to read books and stuff. And who wants to do that? Much easier and fun to just sit back and make fun of people's hair & clothes and speculate whether they are using botox.
It is quite fitting that Maureen Dowd won a Pulitzer for Monicagate. It was right up her alley. A Washington scandal for a gossip columnist. And lets face it Dowd is a gossip columnist.
jonnybutter & DonB,
The NYT did have such a columnist a million years ago, and a very fine one. Her name was Flora Lewis. Her tenure preceded the NYT's decision that they needed a woman columnist as such, by which they seem to understand a 'womanish' or stereotypically feminine writer who will cater to women readers' supposed interest in hair, makeup and relationships. The present era was inaugurated by the ineffable Anna Quindlen.
His 400 dollar haircuts make him look 12. Maureen Dowd writes like she's 7. Hopefully soon she'll reach the age of wisdom, and stop lit-trolling. The $400 question: Is Maureen Dowd Necessary?
The answer? A resounding no. Goddamn I miss Molly Ivins, someone who knew how to balance humor with substantive political writing. The NYT is a total hack-factory now just like the rest of the MSM. My shining knights blog and vlog and flog from the trenches. Save us, MY, you're my only hope! When the media fails you, invent your own.
"The NYT did have such a columnist a million years ago, and a very fine one. Her name was Flora Lewis. Her tenure preceded the NYT's decision that they needed a woman columnist as such, by which they seem to understand a 'womanish' or stereotypically feminine writer"
Aren't there any Flora Lewis types anymore? Women who will write intelligently about the major issues of the day?
"The present era was inaugurated by the ineffable Anna Quindlen."
Maureen Dowd makes Anna Quindlen look like Simone de Beauvoir.
Actually, Edwards's obsession with his appearance is downright peculiar. Presidential elections are to a large extent based upon the candidate's character (or perceptions thereof) and Edwards's bizarre narcissism is highly relevant. Dowd does a public service by discussing it.
I don't remember Matthew going apeshit over media identities who dared discuss Bush's Air National Guard service, and that was also a character issue.
Presidential elections are to a large extent based upon the candidate's character (or perceptions thereof) and Edwards's bizarre narcissism is highly relevant. Dowd does a public service by discussing it.
How much is the RNC paying you guys these days? I imagine after that humiliation last November they really had to up the stipend.
a, you need to go back to troll school and learn how to make a reasonable argument. Everyone who appears on TV, from newscasters to actors to Republican politicians to Democratic politicians, cares a lot about their appearance when they do it. They better care, because it's important. Did you show up to your last job interview unshaven and in jeans and a t-shirt? Now imagine a job interview with a hundred million people watching. It is neither bizarre nor narcissistic.
But he does have a point: there's nothing much that TROLLS (in the aesthetic sense of the word) like Hastert, Rove, and Cheney can do to make themselves more presentable, short of brown paper bags with festive eyeholes. John McCain is melting before our eyes, Giuliani should be building dams in Oregon, and Mitt Romney looks like the product of a steamy tryst between Rick Santorum and Sam Donaldson.
By comparison, Edwards's "I'm a 14-yr. old eagle scout" look and Obama's "clean and a nice-looking" aspect are a welcome change of pace from the revolting frogs the repubs throw up there, and the abominable stiffs (Gore and Kerry) and McCain-lites (Dean) the Demos have been throwing up there recently.
As for Hillary, she is one sexy ass broad.
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b323/patfish/political%20tidbits/billandhill.jpg
This just in: Dowd's a joke. An in other news, Bush isn't a good president.
Matt argues that if Maureen Dowd were forced to be honest about what she is doing, she would have to come out and say: "John Edwards' expensive haircuts indicate to me that he would be a bad president."
I disagree. If Maureed Dowd were forced to be honest and spell out her column's innuendo, she would have to say: "John Edwards is a sissy, and sissies shouldn't be President."
The primary objection to Maureen Dowd's column is not that it is superficial or inane. The primary objection is that it consists of nothing but vicious new (or improved) anti-Edwards memes intended for use by the mainstream press. Dowd is a trailblazer, an original content-provider when it comes to vicious, homophobic innuendo about Democratic candidates, and her most recent column constitutes an original contribution to that contemptible genre.
Maureen Dowd is doing her level best to inject terms like "metrosexual", "Material Girl" (a riff on her now-established "Breck Girl") and "effete" into mainstream discourse about John Edwards.
At the end of the day (and whatever her personal political beliefs might be), Maureen Dowd is selling the same product as Ann Coulter -- namely, "John Edwards is a fag" -- but Dowd is infinitely more effective at selling it.
Well said, MY. But I don't think this silly haircut thing has any traction with people who haven't already made up their minds about John Edwards.
It's just blogsturbation. Though not a blogger, Dowd has always been like that.
Well said, MY. But I don't think this silly haircut thing has any traction with people who haven't already made up their minds about John Edwards.
I couldn't disagree more. The vast majority of voters have not begun to focus on the race. Even though Edwards was the VP candidate in 2004 many folks probably didn't think about him a whole lot. As Eric said above these little tidbits are used to build a narrative that cannot disturbed. Failure to counter it now will make it harder to kill later.
Speaking of silly questions, how does a 53-year-old not have a single visible gray hair ?
"Did you show up to your last job interview unshaven and in jeans and a t-shirt? Now imagine a job interview with a hundred million people watching. It is neither bizarre nor narcissistic."
So you need a $400 haircut to look presentable? Jesus. I don't think it shows Edwards would be a bad president or something, but I do think it's downright weird/creepy to spend $400 on a haircut. Honestly, I had no idea it was possible for a man to spend that much on a haircut. I would have guessed the absolute maximum would be like $100. I guess I'm naive.
Anyway, I think it shows poor political judgment not to just pay with your own money -- his is, after all, a very rich dude -- thus avoiding this whole debate.
I was really checking out Dowd's hair one Sunday while she was yapping unconvincingly on some insipid political program on the teevee. Man, that bitch's hair is an UGLY nasty color. Fake, brassy, yucky and as dry looking as red dead grass. She ought to spend about $400 to do something about her own bad hair.
"I was really checking out Dowd's hair one Sunday while she was yapping unconvincingly on some insipid political program on the teevee. Man, that bitch's hair is an UGLY nasty color. Fake, brassy, yucky and as dry looking as red dead grass. She ought to spend about $400 to do something about her own bad hair."
Lets all use Dowdian logic and consider her horrible looking hair some kind of brilliant insight into her twisted soul. Therefore we should never read her column. Tell your friends!
Methinks the blogosphere doth protest too much. People get a life.
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar
Dijital Fotoğraf Makinesi
Deney Seti
havuz robotu
Gelinlik
Youtube
Hikaye
Rize
Toplist
Hikaye
Tavla
Bilişim
Rize
Seo
Hit
genco
Kavak Yelleri
hikaye
sağlık
Oyun
Oyun İndir
netlog
Güzel Sözler
İzlesene
Seo Yarşması
iyinet webmaster forumu 2008 seo yarışması
webmaster forumu
Forum
Otel
Nakliyat
Perde
Saç Ekimi
Lazer Epilasyon
Car Rental
evden eve nakliyat
evden eve nakliyat
evden eve nakliyat
Sohbet
sohbet
mirc
penis büyütücü
sohbet
muhabbet
matbaa
seks
sex
hikaye
hikayeler
sex
porno
Sohbet kanalları
Sohbet odaları
Chat
evden eve nakliye
chat
magazin
chat
Sohbet
tuzcuoğlu
Vizyondaki Filmler
Son Çıkan Filmler için
http://sinematurkey.blogcu.com/
Thank you
sohbet
sohbet
sohbet
sohbet
chat
sohbet
chat
chat
diziler
gebze
asansör
hikaye
felsefe
reklam
webtasarım
sexshop
sexshop
facebook
face book
face turk
arkadaş
sex shop
sex shop
seks shop
seks shop
sex market
sex market
shop shop
erotik shop
kadın
youtube
sinema
sohbet
sex shop
muhabbet
trkadin
hikayen
sex
porno
chat
sohbet
lokum
sohbet
marmara
gebze web tasarım
gebze webtasarım
sohbet
chat
thank you
thank you
sohbet
chat
sohbet
sohbet
sohbet
chat
hikaye
diziler
facebook
chat
kadın
forex
arkadaş
muhabbet
gebze
webtasarım
toplist
sinema
film
gebze
asansör
felsefe
reklam
webtasarım
face book
face turk
face turk
youtube
sinema
sohbet
muhabbet
chet
çet
arkadaş
palet
trkadin
hikayen
chat
sohbet
sohbet
marmara
gebze web tasarım
gebze webtasarım
sohbet
chat
moda
magazin
yemek tarifi
yemek tarifleri
kozmetik
diyet
Yakışıklı
Yakışıklılar
Anne Çocuk
Filmler
Filimler
Film
Dizi
sohbet
sohbet
chat
chat
diziler
asansör
hikaye
felsefe
reklam
facebook
face book
face turk
pagerank
masaj
masör
sohbet
kadın
youtube
sinema
sohbet
chat
gebze ticaret
kredi
borsa
sohbet
chat
sohbet
Arkadaş
thank you nice sharing
thank you nice sharing
youtube
yuotube
yotube
youtobe
video sitesi
video siteleri
izlesene
yutup
www.youtube
youtube izle
video izle
youtub
youtup
sexshop
sexshop
sexshop
sexshop
sex shop
sex shop
sex shop
sex shop
seksshop
seksshop
seksshop
seksshop
seks shop
seks shop
seks shop
seks shop
Post A Comment