Someone get this bitch a saucer of milk and a Xanax.
I, for one, have not forgotten how she ruthlessly - and baselessly - pilloried Al Gore in 2000. I remember so vividly that I have a bail-fund set up in case I ever meet her on the street, because it will be redheads goin' at it, and I guarantee this one will win. (Always bet on the real one who has been nursing a grudge for the better part of a decade. Besides, I'm younger than her and in better shape than she is.)
Right now, she is swiping at Hillary. But that can turn on a dime - this nasty bitch is the ultimate player-hater. If Obama gets the nomination, she will simply redirect her spite and venom toward him.
She isn't a political pundit, she's a hateful harping harridan. Having never accomplished anything substantive in her own right, she makes her milk money by turning her poisoned pen toward anyone who does actually step up and take decisive action and try to make a difference.
It is easy for those of her ilk to tear down other peoples accomplishments. They mean nothing to people like her, because the only (feeble) "accomplishment" she can point to is a B.A. in English and a gig on the NY Times op-ed pages as their token shrew. Oh - and she has written a couple of really bad books that went immediately to the remaindered pile. I read her Lewinsky series back in the 90's. It was definitely not worth that Pulitzer that went to her head and cemented her over-blown sense of self and grandiose affect.
I have not heard a single person say "That was a good column by Dowd today" in, well, years. So here is the puzzler I keep returning to: Given the fact that the bloom is soooo gone from her rose, why doesn't the Times simply exile her to the style section where she would find her natural idiot-twit constituency? This is a mystery for the ages.