Camelot Strikes Back
Maureen Dowd of the New York Times fires the opening salvo in Camelot's Second Crusade: That is, go back and destroy the victors the same way you were gonna right before they destroyed you. Kinda like this wholly unself-evident death threat from Camelot via the New York Post:
But if you doubt either the the blood lust or amplitude of the effort, check out Dowd's full-bore kamikaze into trash-that-new-bitch mode:
Dowd then follows up with more of that gauzy, perfunctory Kennedy narrative (see above) that I think she genuinely believes qualified Caroline for the job:
Note to Dowd: The president wants to get mixed up in New York politics about as much as he wants to get mixed up in Chicago's share of the stimulus package. Or testifying at Blogo's impeachment proceedings.
Then comes--of course--the requisite anti-Gillibrand talking points (Or is this Kevin Sheekey again?):
Hmm. Gillibrand "suggests" we ought not "rescue the country?" Kinda like the unforgettable "lack of courage" bit from Kevin a few months ago. Or that Gillibrand's pro-illegal-gun. Or how the governor's committed "political malpractice?"
Let it go, Kevin. You guys blew it. Just like the complete mash you made of congestion pricing. And if I were Uncle Teddy, I might be coming after you too for engineering this fiasco.
Dowd next sockpuppets Team Camelot's meta-theme on Team Paterson and Team Clinton:
Isn't it all clear now? Caroline can have Uncle Teddy firing scuds from the Compound, but the Clintons get zero say in who's going to succeed Hillary. The Times editorial board couldn't have done a better job in making it seem like this makes sense.
"Avenging Andrew Cuomo?" That other generational Compound Kennedy enemy? I thought they're on him for trashing one of the cousins? So, the Kennedy's and Dowd are good with Andrew now? Dowd, is it any wonder you Team Camelot people couldn't engineer the Senate deal? You can't even keep your enemies straight.
Then Dowd's back again with the Tracy Flick branding thing:
Sorry, Dowd. Do some homework already. "Tracy Flick" sticks to Gillibrand about as much as "I was actually at that press conference I'm referencing" or "I've met and/or actually spoken with Gillibrand" sticks to you.
Then back with some more kill-the-village smack--now it's Schumer:
It's a real shame that Dowd soon might not have a newspaper to play dominant-female-in-charge. Maybe it's because people think The Times' sophistry is about as valuable as the people responding to Dowd's adolescent commentary. They don't seem to like Maureen either.
Why are The Times' impending demise, Dowd's catty character assassination and another botched Kennedy-destiny date a fitting coda here? This whole thing's almost operatic. Or maybe like some post-modern rendition of Sunset Boulevard, everybody waiting around for a Cecil B. DeMille to make them important again, right before receding into the sunset of their old world.
Post new comment