Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sandintoes who wrote (1901)	10/16/2005 10:45:02 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Dowd's column, by contrast, was a tacky, inaccurate hatchet job. Worse still, it was unentertaining. In an excruciatingly patronizing way, she described Dr. Rice, Ms. Hughes and Ms. Miers as "office wives," who are "not qualified to get . . . supremely powerful jobs." Dowd's column is remarkable not only for its snideness but for its mean-spirited anti-feminist tone. In fact, all of the women she slams rose to their positions through merit and accomplishments - not through mindless affirmative action, the apparent method of selection of some columnists at the New York Times. "Or other women take over power when their husbands become President. AKA Hillary." Mrs. Wilson was reputed to control access to her husband in the Whitehouse. Mrs. Harding was reputed to be attention starved, and would demand he lay with her to the point of dereliction of his duties. Of course who could stand Lady Bird?