Not to put too fine a point on it, but I have never regarded Maureen Down as an especially perceptive or deep thinker. Got back and read some of the drivel she wrote about the Clintons. Honestly, I don't know why people like her and Ross Douthat still have jobs at the NYT.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I have never regarded Maureen Down as an especially perceptive or deep thinker. Got back and read some of the drivel she wrote about the Clintons. Honestly, I don't know why people like her and Ross Douthat still have jobs at the NYT.
I agree. That's why I said it was "surprisingly" good. Not a deep thinker at all. I don't think she wants to be. What she is is someone who has been in DC watching these people for decades. She knows them and knows what they've said and done. That's why I pointed to her easily accessible column. Many pieces on her by deep types amount to the same takehome: leopards don't change their spots. I'm not moved by "fiery or "soaring" rhetoric, at least not normally: I study it professionally!
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I have never regarded Maureen Down as an especially perceptive or deep thinker. Got back and read some of the drivel she wrote about the Clintons. Honestly, I don't know why people like her and Ross Douthat still have jobs at the NYT.
I agree. That's why I said it was "surprisingly" good. Not a deep thinker at all. I don't think she wants to be. What she is is someone who has been in DC watching these people for decades. She knows them and knows what they've said and done. That's why I pointed to her easily accessible column. Many pieces on her by deep types amount to the same takehome: leopards don't change their spots. I'm not moved by "fiery or "soaring" rhetoric, at least not normally: I study it professionally!