Maureen Dowd said about 10 words on Maher tonight....

WTF was that all about? All she did pretty much was sit there, and instead we got to hear Joe S spew his crap.

There were a few shining moments with Fonda, Kennedy, and a few great lines by Maher, but the rest kinda sucked.

Sabra, I just posted the same thing on another thread. Dowd just sat there saying nothing. There was ample opportunity to voice her opinion particularly when Scarborough had his cheap shot at Clinton.

She wrote some vicious and untrue stories about him as he was leaving office and refused to take some statements back even when she was proven wrong.

Bill needs to end this nonsense of trying to "reach out" to conservatives.

It's just pathetic.

He should have taken Joe to task for his coverage of the Shiavo deal.

Nice guys always finish last. It's too bad Bill Maher forgot this.

On one of the first days after the tsunami, maybe the very next day, and when the death toll was still the tip of the iceberg, my husband and I were appalled to hear him trying to stir up indignation about our tax dollars having to go to releif efforts. By the next day the scope of the horror was becoming apparent, and his tune changed abruptly, but on that particular day he was ruthless.

Remember on his show, a few days after the tsunami he had a bunch of idiots on there "debating" on if the tsunami was the work of an "angry god".

Bill should have lit a fire under his ass tonight...

It's just disappointing that we have no fighters in TVLand. Maher used to be one, but he is trying to hard to "reach out to conservatives".

He agrees with conservatives on many issues.

The show's worthless now:puke:

I'd say about the last 3 episodes he has been in decline, and now it's just a downward spiral.

I still like the guy, but for someone who did a stand-up routine lambasting "values voters", as being people like mice that hit the feeder bar when they heard the word "values", he sure has let the MSM fool him into thinking he should reach out to them.

I don't think she has the agressive personality that shines in a venue like Maher. She's the kind of person who's better in a one on one.

A lot of thoughtful, sincere people don't have that aggressive quality that makes interesting television.

And unfortunately that is far more common among progressive types. Would that we had a lot more blowhards, seeing as thats what gets the attention these days.

at her laptop writing snide, ascerbic attacks on the low-class Clintons for stealing White House furniture on their way out the door.

I'll take Maureen Dowd keeping her mouth shut for the next ten years, even if she has something bad to say about Bush. She's all snark; she has no core.

It's gotta be all or nothing, doesn't it?

You might consider that her criticism of Dubya is even more meaningful since she was a bit of a Bush insider to begin with. Some might even say it's a testament to just how horrible Dubya is that Dowd dislikes him so much.

Dowd was a leading sleazer of the Clintons. I think she kind of led the entire press corps in that at the peak of her popularity. She New York Times'd the unfair and untrue attacks on the Clintons and Gores, and she was nasty about it. For years. And as the press' little ingenou she seemed to influence alot of the rest of the press to turn into snarky Dem-slimers.

Then what, she writes some anti-Bush columns and all is forgiven? No, sorry, she has years of penance to do. Those who let her off the hook so easily aren't 'progressive', they're just too easy.

But no matter.

There's an important old tradition in democracies like America used to be whereby the fourth branch of government spent a lot of time pointing out the flaws and shortcomings of those in power, regardless of party.

I'm not defending her repeating of untrue attacks on the Clintons, but do we know that she knew they were untrue? If she didn't know the claims were untrue (I think it took awhile for the truth to be reported) I won't hold it against her.

On the other hand, I don't think journalists or columnists should be treated like celebrities either. So rage-on, baby!

I'm not sure what Toucano's refering to, but I know other columnists and pundits, who claim to be liberals and democrats, repeat debunked claims against Clinton, Kerry, and other dems. Things that can be checked on easily. Spreading disinformation by being lazy is as bad as doing it on purpose. Becuase once a myth gets out there, it never dies. Like the myth that Clinton turned down a chance to get Bin Laden from Sudan. "Democrats" like Chris Matthews repeat it all the time. Love that liberal media...

I meant it's not "all or nothing". I should have been clearer.

I don't need someone to agree all the time. What I need is New York Times columnists not engaging in leading the rest of the journalistic world in the most unfounded contemptuousness of a really good President I've ever seen. What I need is journalistic honesty and integrity at the New York Times opinion pages, not someone with stunningly shallow principles, like Dowd, whose only objective in life is the preening satisfaction of being envied by her peers as the queen of snark. At the expense of decent politics and even the truth. The NY Times, and Dowd in particular, lead centrist and moderate journalists in joining with the right to trash the Clintons and Gore over nothings.

They made it not only acceptable, but cool among the journalistic set to assault the Clintons over lies, and made it easier for the right to move even farther right by contrast. In the end, 'Clinton fatigue' was all the rage - a phrase which so aptly sums up how they treated Clinton: as somehow responsible for what should have been 'Clinton-assault fatigue'. It's like getting angry at somebody because his face made your fists hurt after smashing him with them.

That's what Dowd and her acolytes did, for years on end. I'd no more think she's cool than if Grover Norquist or Frank Luntz or Ann Coulter started criticizing Bush. If you want to call it a grudge I won't argue. Some things should be grudged, and years of half-truth character assassination against Dems leading to eight years of extremist right-wing rule of America is one of those things.

She was too classless to take her statements back.

In one-on-one interviews she's fabulous. Not so in a combative, loud, live debate.

She seems kinda shy. Not very helpful when going against psychos.

Let's be fair to Joe. He's not psycho. He's a sociopath. }(

I was surprised she didn't say more though too. Especially with Boltin' Joe making his comments that just begged for a sharp wit to slap him down.

she is one of those who are just able to open up more in writing.

but she is really shy when it comes to talking with thers directly and in person.

On Meet the Press, in one of those roundtable formats and I thought she did quite well, but I also realize that there much more courteous on MTP than they are on RealTime

based on the way she writes. but she is really shy in person. mtp is a good example, it's more of a "serious" show and she felt more comfortable on there than she did when she was on Jon Stewart where she came across as really nervous and shy.

Crap for brains Scarborough came out on the attack with his first few sentences. THEY ARE TAUGHT this technique. I loved the way Bill just let Joe go on and on and let him think he was taking control of the whole show. It appeared to me that Maureen got so angry the hatred for Joe was shooting out of her eyeballs! He turned to her for an agreement on something and she glared at him and shook her head, like, "Don't you dare be talking to me, FOOL!"

The number one rule in the republican's talking head's manual is to go on the attack immediately and don't back off. Unfortunately, what they say about most democrats is true. They are much more nuanced. Maureen gets a great point across with a spot on analogy or some raised eyebrows. She is not aggressive, but she gets some good licks in.

How about Alan Simpson giving the one finger salute?

Jane Fonda, regardless of how you feel about her, held up quite well. Especially on her new addiction. Feminist Christianity. (Great idea, by the way.)

Robert Kennedy Jr. is simply amazing. I don't know why his voice shakes the way it does. Does anyone know if there is a reason for this? I absolutely love him and I think he should be president someday.

I laughed my head off just about the whole hour. Bill Maher was funnier than hell tonight. I don't care what he says about Iraq right now. If he starts seeing and believing things are going to hell in hand basket over there, I'm sure he will say so.

Great show. I stayed up a little too late watching, so please forgive the rambling. :)

a couple of months back, and as moderator he talked more than everybody else put together. Interspersing his rants with disclaimers of how it wasn't his part to do the talking, but.

He's an insufferable bore who loves the sound of his own voice, and who rarely says anything even halfway honest. He didn't have to be taught that behavior, he is that behavior. I'm kind of dreading watching the Maher rerun with him bloviating. That insipid turd Frum was bad enough last week.

Maher's the kind of guy who could say 'Joe, you're just so full of shit', and HBO is the venue for it, but I take it that didn't happen. Too bad, because Scarborough is exactly the guy who deserves that type of welcome.

And I'm curious as well about his raspy voice. I hope he's okay, we need his leadership on the environment. I actually cried out when he talked about how we should save Alaska and it's pristineness so we can point to it, show our grandchildren we put this beautiful place above greed. That we actually had principles.

shows and she does the exact same thing. It's so weird.

and she always does that head bow thing. she does not make a good talk show guest. however, alan simpson does. i don't agree with what he has to say, but he is a hoot! scarborough still has that politician thing going . . . you, know, where they think they are the only ones who have something worthwhile to say.

simpson mentioned his meltdown the last time he was on the show and indirectly apologized for it. he said his wife called him on it. it's a shame he's on the other side of the debate. he said anwr was opened to drilling years ago, at the option of congress, and that the amount of land involved was miniscule.

bill was pretty lame on the religion discussion tonight. i think he was deferring to simpson as his way of apologizing for the prior debacle.

i would also like to know why kennedy speaks the way he does. i have seen him before and noticed that. didn't he have cancer? if so, maybe it affected him in ways that weren't publicized.

jane did a great job.

all in all, it was not a bad show, even tho' i'm almost over bill. i am sorry i missed last week's show.

ellen fl

I've been watching less of Maher after he said "maybe" Bush is "spreading freedom" in the Middle East. A talk show host is mostly responsible if a guest says nothing. Maher wants to give more time to "conservatives," something I can already get on MSNBC and the mainstream media. But Maher, like Dennis Miller, has never been a liberal. People should remember that.

and changed channels..

They train people to go for the jugular, to come out yelling and just yell louder when challenged. It's just a big macho chest-beating contest that reminds me of male gorillas facing each other down.

This obviously appeals to many viewers on a visceral level. But it prevents any honest discussion of the facts, and anyone who tries to bring logic into the picture will just get shouted down.

I suspect Maher only invites her because he has a major crush on her.

By the way, who else rolled off the couch when the 'eminence gris' pulled out his middle finger?

LOL