NYT columnist Maureen Dowd forgot that the Clinton/Kaine ticket existed

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine speak at rally

Granted, I’m a Virginian and I’ve always loved Tim Kaine. I had the pleasure of voting for him as governor, senator and as Hillary Clinton’s running mate on the Democratic presidential ticket in 2016. As a Democrat, do I think Tim Kaine was Hillary Clinton’s boldest choice for her running mate? Of course not. Tim Kaine has never been anyone’s bold choice. But he was a quiet, decent man in a toxic political climate and I still find that refreshing and I will defend him to my last days! That being said, I do sometimes forget that he exists. So does Maureen Dowd, the New York Times columnist who – it has been said – can make or break certain political campaigns. Originally, the Times ran her column with this tweet:

There have only been three male-female major party tickets in history: Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro, John McCain and Sarah Palin, and Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine. Weird that Dowd could not even remember Clinton/Kaine, right? I read Dowd’s piece and while she mentions Hillary Clinton, she basically glosses over the fact that Hillary faced the kind of ingrained sexism that Ferraro faced times a million, AND that by the year 2016, Clinton and Kaine were beyond the dated gender stereotypes of a man and woman on a presidential ticket. Basically, Dowd is just sitting there, daggers at the ready, to attack Joe Biden’s running mate. She’s almost gleeful at the prospect of Trump’s MAGA Blondes taking Kamala Harris to task for simply existing.

I wasn’t even going to write about this but Hillary Clinton responded. Dowd has a long history of hating on the Clintons, it’s how she really made a name for herself in the ‘90s. Just desserts. Oh, and Kaine responded too!

Tim Kaine is such a goober. *crying*

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

Photos courtesy of WENN, Getty.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

67 Responses to “NYT columnist Maureen Dowd forgot that the Clinton/Kaine ticket existed”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Ripley says:

    I love Tim Kaine, but I do think his selection of VP was a poor one. In my opinion, they needEd to be bold with choices and should have gone with an all female ticket. As you said, Tim Kaine is a decent, smart, and plain good human being, but he added nothing to the ticket (other than decency).

    • FHMom says:

      He seems like a decent guy, but was the epitome of meek and mild. In reality, he may be neither of those things, but that was my impression.

    • Ms. Lib says:

      I agree, love Tim Kane but was hoping for a female vp pick.
      There was so much shit thrown out there about Hillary I’m not sure that it would have made any difference. :-(

    • Jay (the Canadian one) says:

      Are you just speaking from an academic/on principle perspective? My impression from my American friends is the choice of VP is just a passing curiosity and has never influenced their decision. So it doesn’t seem like it’s a practical difference.

      My understanding is the VP choice is only a counterpoint figurehead, a show of “we haven’t forgotten about you” to a secondary demographic that the Presidential candidate doesn’t obviously address. e.g. Biden is rumoured to be considering various WOC to counter his old-white-male status quo; Trump had Pence as the reserved, devout, dedicated family man; Hillary Clinton had the unassuming white guy that wasn’t going to rattle the cages of people who were uneasy with “radical” progress.

      The only point of the VP choice seems to be to show “if I can be friends with them, I can be your friend too” to people in the VP’s demographic.

      • Tourmaline says:

        I think VP choice is more than a passing curiosity or a figurehead when the top of the ticket is pushing 80 years old. Just statistically someone of that age is much more likely to die in the next 4 years than someone younger, making the VP the P.

      • Ripley says:

        As a non-Academic US citizen, I agree with Tourmaline especially with regards to the age of the Presidential candidate. I think McCain’s choice of Palin whilst not losing the Presidency it didn’t help (plus President Obama was/is magic).

        I’m incredibly eager to see who Biden chooses, especially as I believe Biden should be and will be a one term President and traditionally the VP pick becomes the Presidential nominee. I think Biden would have run four years ago but was dealing with the grief of his son.

      • Jay (the Canadian one) says:

        @Ripley, @Tourmaline: I understand the succession thing but is that really foremost on people’s mind re: VP choice at campaign time?

        Surely the “backup President” isn’t going to be the primary motivator for who to choose, is it? How many people would’ve said “I don’t like Trump and what he stands for, but if he dies, Pence becomes president and I can get behind that” or conversely “Trump’s my guy but I can’t vote for him because if he dies Pence will become president and I can’t stomach that.”

        The practical use of a VP, in campaigning at least, seems to be to allow the presidential candidate to appeal to a broader demographic by proxy. Biden’s VP choice primarily seems like it’s being watched intently because it will show what other demographic he feels worthy of courting, not because people expect him to die in the next 4 years. Anyway, if Hillary Clinton chose a female running mate, presumably she’d have to at least be distinct in some way… race, age… to get better demographic coverage.

      • Candikat says:

        @Jay: Normally I’d agree with you, but now that we’re all in the upside-down it seems like the Dem VP will be a factor. I have a few Trump-voting acquaintances who’ve started saying that “A vote for Biden is really just a vote for his VP.” On the surface they’re saying Biden’s so old he’s not likely make it through his term, but presumably they’re mobilizing for a smear campaign against his running mate.

      • North of Boston says:

        It depends on the VP pick and the overall ticket.

        McCain’s pick of Palin was a “nail in the coffin” decision for many. For me it made me completely question his judgement, and I wonder how many might have picked him as the ‘safe’ choice because he was solid, a vet, a known quantity, over Obama who was new on the scene, but then the completely unfit Palin pick one heartbeat away from the Oval Office.

    • JZ says:

      Tim Kaine was chosen in large part because the VA gov was a Dem and would replace Tim Kaine with a Dem. Kamala was running for re-election to the Senate and Stacey Abrams was running for Gov of GA. Hillary was thinking strategically because in 2016, the Dems were forced to hold onto 20+ seats that were up for re-election. In 2020, the Dems only need to defend 12 seats and win 4 more . The Republicans have 23 up for re-election in 2020. In 2016 the gov of NJ was Chris Christie who would have appointed a Republican to replace let’s say Cory Booker. Beto was running for the Senate. The Gov of Massachusetts is a Republican and the loss of Elizabeth Warren would have cost a Dem Senate Seat. There was a reason for doing what she did.

      • Anne Call says:

        Probably should have been Cory Booker or Julian Castro. But split milk and all that…

  2. C-Shell says:

    Maureen Dowd has blood on her hands. Her vitriol against the Clintons and especially Hillary contributed significantly to the hellscape we are in right now. But so does the NYT. Where “many people say” they wish they could cancel the NYT over and over again, I actually have had that pleasure (they had me on auto-renew without my knowledge). Finally this year I was able to hold their subscription folk‘s feet to the fire and make them swear they’d turned off auto-renew, but not gonna lie, it’s been a little bit fun to cancel them each year like Groundhog Day.

    • adastraperaspera says:

      All true! We are watching our democracy be pummelled by right-wing takeovers of major media businesses. The propaganda they continue to pump out is incredibly dangerous. Dowd knew exactly what she was doing, as did the headline writer.

  3. Marjorie says:

    Dowd is one of the primary reasons we have Cheeto in office, and she doesn’t care. She irrationally hates Hillary and she’s hanging in the Hamptons while our country teeters at the cliff. Hillary so totally owned her with her tweet, delicious.

    And again, Kaiser is the best photo editor on earth.

    • Darla says:

      Yep. For a long time I wondered if Bill turned her down or she felt rejected by him sexually. Because she also tore into Monica Lewinsky, and I mean viciously. So viciously that Lewinsky once confronted her in person when they were in the same restaurant or bar together. And Dowd didn’t stand up to her. She talks tough behind her typewriter (which she probably still writes with), but like most vicious bullies, she’s a coward.

      Age has not made her unhinged. She’s been unhinged since I’ve know her. Especially about the Clintons, but also especially about gender. She’s a very messed up woman, and she’s planted on the prime real estate of the NY times opinion section and though, a dinosaur, isn’t going away.

      • ChillyWilly says:

        She probably just hates women in general. Hilary’s response cracked me up!

      • Insomniac says:

        I think part of the reason she hates the Clintons is because she was completely smitten with George H. W. Bush and was PISSED when those lowly Arkansans came to DC and one-termed him.

        Can’t stand her, so watching her get roasted yesterday (especially by Hillary) made my evil little heart sing. I offered my copy editing services to the NYT yesterday morning. They haven’t taken me up on it yet.

      • Darla says:

        OH that’s interesting Insomniac.

  4. JanetDR says:

    Hahaha! I love me some spicy Hillary!

  5. Lightpurple says:

    The only woman whose existence Maureen Dowd acknowledges on a regular basis is Maureen Dowd and if any other woman intrudes on that, Maureen must attack.

    Hillary’s response was burning perfection.

    A few years ago, I attended a forum at the JFK Library of Maureen moderating Robert Redford. She is the world’s worst interviewer and asked him only yes/no questions with no follow up while she posed and acted pretentious. He pointed this out to her twice and she continued with boring yes/no questions. After 20 minutes of this, he had had enough and said he wanted to open it up to audience questions. She said it wasn’t time yet and she had another 20 minutes worth of questions. He replied: “you’re done” and asked people to submit questions that would require more than a one word answer and would result in some conversation. What followed was a delightful hour of humor, questions about his hair color, his friendships with Paul Newman and Jane Fonda, his environmental work, the future of movies, and cake, while Maureen sat there sulking.

    • Darla says:

      WOW. I wish I had been there to see that!

    • FHMom says:

      Lucky you. I would have loved to been there.

    • Lightpurple says:

      Through the first ten minutes, we were regretting going as it seemed it was just going to be two dour, sullen people glowering at one another on stage. When he told her how to interview him people started to perk up but she persisted in her ego-trip of boredom. When he finally had enough and turned it over to the audience, it was wonderful. He was charming, funny, still grieving for Newman with some great stories, full of praise, admiration and love for Jane Fonda, his answer about his hair was hilarious – no, he does not color it, it just got redder as he aged, which does happen, and his kids hate him for it because they have gray hair.

      And Maureen sat there glaring at him for stealing HIS forum away from her.

    • Stacy Dresden says:

      Hilarious anecdote Lightpurple.

  6. Paperclip says:

    Dowd and WaPo’s McArdle are two sides of the same idiotic coin. Ugh…

  7. Mireille says:

    Maureen Dowd is a ridiculous nitwit who’s senile drunk on her own ego and laborious writing, and I’m sure she’s got a whole arsenal of Karens and Kens (or Chads) as her fanbase ready to defend this moron any minute. There have been times where I cannot stand the NYT … and this is one of them.

    • Marjorie says:

      I’m so torn about the NY Times. I’ve read there since I was a kid, and I so totally respect some of the current writers. I think Charles M. Blow is the best mind of our time. And they published Cheeto’s financial crimes in 2018.

      But- Maggie Haberman, Mo, Bari Weiss (I know she “quit”), Bret Stephens, “both sideism,” that Ross guy who I can’t even begin to read, Roxane Gay doing an “advice column” – and even Gail Collins continuing to write Haha-funny pieces as if satire is what we need now…I guess I’ll just keep the crossword subscription.

      • FHMom says:

        I can’t give up the NYT, either. I just pick and chose what I want to read and respond with a comment when possible if I get annoyed. My dad and grandfather read it, so it’s a bit of a tradition in my family.

      • Prayer Warrior says:

        I understand what you’re saying. The Telegraph in England used to be a good newspaper too. My granddad read it, my mum still does….and her world viewpoint is skewed, skewered and screwed. It’s weird when a trusted newspaper cannot be trusted ….

      • Snazzy says:

        I got really angry with the NYT when the published an article about the leadership race for the WHO a few years ago. The men were described by their professional accomplishments, the woman was described as coming from a rich family and having lots of connections. Nothing about her decades long career in public health, including her work towards polio eradication in Pakistan. If I had been reading a real newspaper and not on my screen I would have thrown the thing across the room. They do some great stuff, and then they publish stupid shit like this woman, or that WHO article. I just don’t get it.

        And yes, LOVE Charles M Blow.

  8. Becks1 says:

    Hillary’s tweet was awesome!

    I do think Tim Kaine was a safe choice but also….he IS a decent, hardworking politician. He was a perfect foil to Trump and all his racist white supremacist MAGA, and he should have appealed to people who thought Hillary was too corrupt or whatever. I loved Tim Kaine as a running mate. No, he wasn’t super exciting, and I can understand why people thought Hillary should have taken more of a risk, but I do think he would have done a really good job, and he and Hillary would have worked well together. It makes me sad to think about what we could have had.

    • Ripley says:

      I agree they would have done an excellent job together. But I also think she should have been bolder in her choice. God, can you imagine the peace people in the alternate universe where they won are feeling?

  9. KellyRyan says:

    Loved Hillary’s reply. NYT is problematic. I’m wondering what monies they might be receiving from the current administration. I unfollowed one reporter after I replied to his post on how Gov Newsom of CA was handling the pandemic. My comment, “Let us know the last time you managed a state of 40 million people, 58 counties, and is the 6th largest global economy.”

  10. TheOriginalMia says:

    Dowd is a hack. Periodt! Instead of shading Hillary, she just proved she has no business being called a journalist. She’s completely biased and high on her ego and position. Also this incident illustrated in glaring clarity, the irresponsible journalism of the NYT in the colossal mess the US is in right now.

  11. Leah says:

    I guess the times doesn’t have people who check facts anymore?

    • LeonsMomma says:

      Agree!
      Most columnists — if not all— do have rules about how to edit their articles and are picky when you start questioning them because they feel a certain ownership. That said, all articles are supposed to be read by an editor and am shocked the editor didn’t see this. Unless the editor got lazy and just scanned the article for typos and posted it, or Maureen handed it in late and the article went straight to print (did it make the print edition?) with no one bothering to look at it.

  12. Izzy says:

    NYT’s problematic nature aside, HOW BAD is their editing staff if that made it to print? Because any half-decent editor should have caught the error and kicked it back to her for correction. It’s not just Dowd who looks foolish, the entire paper looks stupid. SMH

  13. KBeth says:

    Clinton’s response was hilarious!

  14. Bettyrose says:

    I’ve been over Dowd since she started using terms like “ball buster” to describe Hillary in 2016.

    • Prayer Warrior says:

      but…but…but…I thought Hillary Clinton was a “nasty woman”…and her reply was just so nice, and funny, and dead on……

      • Bettyrose says:

        Hillary’s reply almost made this BS worth it. Would love to see Dowd called out not just for being an a-hole but an unworthy columnist if she can’t be trusted with basic facts.

  15. Stacy Dresden says:

    Tim Kaine is the man!

  16. Elizabeth says:

    The NYT editorial page is a wreck — among many examples, look at that editor who published Tom Cotton’s recent screamingly racist op-ed *without having even read it* — but to be fair, Tim Kaine is and was forgettable.

    Soooo. Biden better do better. We’re going to find out soon.

  17. Sumodo1 says:

    Is no one editing Maureen Dowd?!! Sloppy, NYT. Sloppy, Dowd. She needs to retire NOW.

  18. Jay says:

    While it pains me to think that Hillary’s career in elected office has come to a close, I find myself looking forward to her later years as a smart mouthed broad who has zero fucks to give. Ironically, I think this is closer to her real personality, which I feel she always kept in reserve.

    I remember reading an interview she did with humans of New York about the sexism she faced when writing the bar exam and thinking “Who the hell is this, and where has she been this whole time?”. In retrospect, not a good sign!

  19. Ms. Lib says:

    Dowd is losing it.
    She is 68 years old – get her out of there!

  20. bluemoonhorse says:

    Dowd is a Trump apologist and a poor “journalist.” She’s also a woman-who-hates-women.

  21. nicegirl says:

    I love when you cover political journalists, strategists, press stuff. It’s absolutely fascinating. Thank you.

  22. Julie says:

    I’m not sure if someone has commented this already but MediaMatters has a really good breakdown of Maureen’s history of unabashedly hating Hillary for the last 20+ years of her covering the Clintons. The statistical breakdown of her (borderline) sexist criticisms are fascinating.

    You would think a columnist who hated Hillary so much would remember that she ran for effing president

  23. Catherine says:

    And yet, I got kicked off twitter for life for calling Maureen Dowd a c-nt.

    Where is the lie?

    • Darla says:

      LOL. Man I used to ruin men for using that word. Now that I’m older I will confess, I use it in the privacy of my home, since 2016. It’s awful, but I do.

    • Marjorie says:

      Good form, Catherine. I suggest use “twunt” next time. It’s a portmanteau that usually gets through.

  24. Suzieq359 says:

    She said 36 years since a man and a woman ran together and that’s not exactly inaccurate. Clinton and Kaine it was a woman and a man who ran together. Hilary chose Kaine not the other way around as we saw with men chosing women to run with them.

    • Who ARE These People? says:

      NYT changed the line to refer to a man choosing a woman but 1) original referred to running together 2) McCain Palin. They just screwed up and tried to fix it after the fact.

  25. SomeChick says:

    Ugh, Maureen Dowd is still around?! Loved Hillary’s hilarious burn!

    Is it just me or are today’s postings all terrible news about terrible people? (To be fair, it’s hard to find much positive news these days.)

  26. Lucy says:

    VP pick is traditionally someone who will trash talk the other campaign so the presidential candidate can say oh, *we* didn’t say that. VP just went a little off script!
    From that perspective, Kaine was terrible. But, that was also a pre-Trump convention. Like when you couldn’t get elected if you bragged on tape about sexual assault.

  27. You Must Be Joking says:

    Biden’s campaign said they were going to pick a black woman to be his running mate. But with less than one hundred days to go before the election they still haven’t nominated anyone. Is it standard practice to leave the announcement this late in the campaign? In the last election Pence and Kaine were announced as the running mates in July.

  28. Deering24 says:

    Dowd is more fascinating as a psych study than as a writer. She’s gotten a lot of mileage out of being all liberated and irreverent and sex-ay…but down deep, she’s still the “good little Catholic girl” who feels entitled to marrying/supporting the ultimate alpha rich white male. Failing that, she wants to be the only liberated, irreverent, and sex-ay woman in the room—and she lives to shoot down female competition. That’s why she’s always sucking up to creeps like Dubya and Trump—and will always slam Hillary or any woman like her. She’s never faced consequences for her mean girl influence, and she richly deserves to.

  29. Lala11_7 says:

    Since Dem POTUS candidates ALWAYS choose Senators…when Hillary ran in 2016…she was running in a political environment of a majority of Republican Governorships in this country…which GREATLY narrowed her options…because you don’t want to GAIN a VP …while LOSING a Senate vote…by having a Republican Governor replace that open Senate seat…

    Joe Biden is in the same position now…

  30. Caroline says:

    Maureen Dowd has sucked for so long I kind of forget she exists since I avoid reading anything she writes. Shame she still has a job.

  31. Dee Kay says:

    I’m so glad Celebitches hate Maureen Dowd as much as I do. I have hated her for years now. I am dumbfounded at how she keeps getting to write for the NYT, she is an antifeminist idiot. If she were even a little bit clever or interesting with her woman-hating I’d get why the NYT employs her. If she were a pro-woman moron I could maybe understand how the NYT mistakenly thought she’d bring a certain needed pov to the paper. But she’s so dumb, and so virulent in her bashing of women, that her having that job at that paper is simply unjustifiable.