ENOUGH. Can someone explain to me what this empty-headed, sexist drivel is doing in the op-ed page of the New York Times twice a week?
The Chicago Tribune profile of �Barack�s Rock� on Sunday noted that her career had caused her husband discomfort: �Critics have pointed out that her income has risen along with her husband�s political ascent. She sits on the board of a food company that supplies Wal-Mart, which Sen. Obama has denounced for its labor practices.�
The Obamas are both skeptical of hype. Michelle dryly told a reporter at her husband�s Senate swearing-in that perhaps someday, he would do something to earn all the attention he was getting.
But it may not be smart politics to mock him in a way that turns him from the glam J.F.K. into the mundane Gerald Ford, toasting his own English muffins. If all Senator Obama is peddling is the Camelot mystique, why debunk the mystique?
And, yet again, we see yet another example of Dowd‘s specialty, the smear-by-projection–it’s not that she thinks that having an intelligent wife who’s an equal partner is a politically damaging “emasculation,” see, it’s the public, which we can tell based on some unspecific random anecdotes. And as the coup de gras, at the end she throws out a casual mention of the phony Rezko pseudo-scandal. After more than a decade of this, I suppose to criticize Dowd for this embarrassing nonsense would be like criticizing a dog for not being toilet-trained; it’s what she is. The real question is why on earth they’re still publishing her crap. Would it really be too much to ask for the Times to replace Dowd someone who actually knows something about or even has some interest in politics?
—Scott Lemieux