Thank you and thank you and thank you. It’s nice to see people tear apart Maureen Dowd’s idiotic hatchet job yesterday about Hillary Clinton’s debate performance.

Two errors in particular stuck out in her column.

One, Clinton doesn’t want to “have it both ways on illegal immigrants getting driver’s licenses,” Maureen. As Tom Cole puts it:

The simple fact of the matter is there is no good answer to the mess of illegal immigration, Spitzer is trying to do something, anything, to gain some order, and Hillary may not like it (I certainly don’t), but recognizes the value in what he is attempting to do. That isn’t double-talk or flip-flopping. It is called dealing with reality.

Two, by far the most egregious sentence about Clinton in Dowd’s column was this: “If she could become a senator by playing the victim after Monica, surely she can become president by playing the victim now.”

Is Dowd really that stupid? Does she care at all about being accurate?

Whiskey Fire responds to her inane assertion:

Hillary won her Senate seat because she busted her fucking ass. I know the cocktail party circuit isn’t so interested in the problems of rural upstate, but she was. She sat down with factory workers and farmers, she visited small towns and places where the population was hemorrhaging. I know, MoDo, I lived there. I live there still, and let me tell you, we don’t really care, up here, if someone is a “real feminist”–we care if they will represent our interests.

I went to several campaign events in 2000, and you know what? She never mentioned Monica once. Bill wasn’t with her. She wasn’t a victim, she was a person with policies.

I don’t understand Maureen Dowd. She’s obsessed with gender herself, but then she accuses Clinton of playing the gender card. She makes fun of some men for being too macho (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush), but she makes fun of other men for not being macho enough (Gore). She criticizes Hillary Clinton for making too much of her womanhood, but then she criticizes her for being too ambitious (isn’t it antifeminist to think that women shouldn’t be “ambitious”?). She insults men by asking, “Are men necessary?”, and then she wonders why she can’t find one. Yeah… it must be their fault that they can’t put up with her.

Does Maureen Dowd like anyone? Does she even know what she wants?

She’s nothing but an inkstain on the New York Times op-ed page.