“Oh, my heavens! I cannot abide Lady Obama’s scandalously unclad arms! My word, I am simply quavering! Mr. Brooks, DO be a dear and fetch me my fainting couch–I do believe I feel an attack of the vapors coming on!”
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the kind of scintillating content the New York Times wanted to make you pay for.
how come the times dont give an op ed column to erica barnett?
Actually, I read that column this morning and Dowd concludes that Michelle should keep on keepin’ on with her unclad arms and damn the torpedoes. Did you miss the “She ignored that [cover-up] talk, thank heavens” and the “Her arms… are a reminder that Americans can do anything if they put their minds to it”?
I don’t want to get all judgy but… way to misread?
@1 There’s an intelligence prerequisite.
Yet another bitter Slog writer slamming other media outlets. How original.
Read the whole thing, Erica.
Cheers.
So, it turns out ECB does have a sense of humor!
Are you completely missing an irony cortex, Erica?
That’s actually a pretty funny rejoinder to this latest “scandal” of the exposed arms. I’ll bet Obama’s letting the legs on the White House piano go uncovered as well. They’re slatterns, I tell you!
Um–did you read the whole piece? In the first part she’s mostly quoting OTHER people’s responses.
Near the end: “During the campaign, there was talk in the Obama ranks that Michelle should stop wearing sleeveless dresses… She ignored that talk, thank heavens. I love the designer-to-J. Crew glamour… Her arms, and her complete confidence in her skin, are a reminder that Americans can do anything if they put their minds to it… Michelle has soared every day, expanding the job to show us what can be accomplished by a generous spirit, a confident nature and a well-disciplined body.”
Also, the true value of the NYT is not in their opinion columnists; opinion columnists are a dime a dozen in the online world, good, bad and indifferent. What you don’t get in the online world is REAL REPORTING, the kind where folks with notebooks go out and ask questions of people who don’t much want to answer them. People read Dowd, and others like her, but that’s not what smart people are afraid of losing when papers go away.
Slog, and the Internet, are races. As in contests. Between people with big guns and fast fingers.
In the words of Emily Litella, “Nevermind.”
Not that ECB will actually retract this stupid post.
ECB reading comprehension FAIL.
Don’t let your lack of intelligence stop you from slamming one of the most popular and clever liberal newspaper columnists in the country.
Maureen seems more and more superficial with each successive week, especially alongside Frank Rich. This Sunday it was particularly evident. I often enjoy her column and agree with her sentiments, but the times (or the Times) require a tone that she can’t quite muster.
Anytime ECB uses “ladies and gentlemen” you know she’s about to embarrass herself.
Dos Negroes is gettin’ wild in da White House and jumpin’ nekked on da furniture and wavin’ da nekked ahms in da airs. Too manys white mans is gittin navous about feelins’ in day pants about da First Lady.
I’m not wearing pants, Vince.
Editors: Strikethrough “Shorter Maureen Dowd” replace with “Dumber Erica C. Barnett”
This was just an awful post. I mean…jesus. Read the fucking column. All. The. Way.
I like broccoli! With cheese sauce.
I think ECB’s point stands. Writing a column about the First Lady’s arms…
yeah.
I’m not reading Maureen Dowd with any level of seriousness again.
STJA: are you stupid? She didn’t write a column about the first lady’s arms. She wrote a column about the absurdity of right-wing loons demanding that the first lady cover up her arms in the name of decency. That’s who the “Mr. Brooks” in the quote refers to — David Brooks, who apparently thinks women’s arms are obscene.
Good lord, people.
@ Fnarf
Why even give it any more play? Seriously? I read that column last night. It’s tripe. I don’t care if she (Dowd) thinks she’s engaging and counter conservative opinion – it’s their opinion. Any publicity is good publicity, right? WHY SHOULD WE CARE WHAT DAVID BROOKS THINKS ABOUT MICHELLE OBAMA’S ARMS? It’s fucking sexist and useless. And Dowd is just riding the wave, by addressing the same non-issue.
The main problem with HTML is the lack of an irony tag.
That and the fact that wasting time discussing things with so-called conservatives is in fact a waste of time.
Related:
When I type Michelle Obama into my Google Searchbar to see what her political views and activities are, I get…
Michelle Obama…
dress
pregnant
inaugural gown
fashion
inauguration dress
height
gown
ball gown
bio
election night dress
Congrats. She’s been rendered nothing but a woman.
This is Dowd’s tagline for that column (sorry, someone enlighten me about quotes in here):
“Let’s face it: The only bracing symbol of American strength right now is the image of Michelle Obama’s sculpted biceps.”
Fnarf, you read the column again. It’s about MICHELLE OBAMA’S ARMS.
@21: 3/4 of the liberal commentariat is about finding outrageous statements in some dank corner of the right-wing commentariat and getting loudly hinky about how outrageous it is. Same on the right. That’s what half the coverage on the Slog is. It’s just noise. But it’s fun.
I’m not even sure ECB read the actual piece…she seems to have just read the Broadsheet write-up on Salon: http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2009…
She even stole the line (OK, she slightly reworded it, but still) about the Times making us pay for content.
The Times did try to make us pay for Dowd. It didn’t work and they abandoned Times Select nearly two years ago. Dowd says Michelle is strong AND smart. She reimnds me of Rosie The Riveter.
http://dowdreport.blogspot.com/2009/03/r…