Dowd, the Dominatrix, and Obambi

Maureen Dowd has cast Hillary Clinton in the role of a dominatrix in her column, "Shake, Rattle and Roll."

Of course, Dowd casts Barack Obama as the subject of Hillary's attention. She supposedly whipped him into submission at the last debate; and Obama was a willing participant.

Dowd really writes some bizarre stuff.

According to Dowd, Hillary disciplines Obama. She flicks the whip at Obama.

Dowd stands in awe of Hillary's November 15 debate performance. She gushes that Hillary used "her voice, gaze and body language to such punishing effect that Obama looked as if he had been brought to heel. It was a mesmerizing display."

There was nothing mesmerizing about Hillary's debate performance on Thursday. The lib media keep saying she was so spectacular, but she wasn't.

She was the beneficiary of softball questions, no decent follow-ups, an overwhelmingly and vocal pro-Hillary audience, and a lib media mob that want America to believe she can walk on water.

Yeah, Hillary had it so tough.

This part of Dowd's column is so weird:

Other guys, like Rudy, wouldn’t even be looking for a chance to greet Hillary, as Obama always does. Other guys, like Rudy, wouldn’t care if she iced them.

But she can tell that Obama does care, that he doesn’t want her to not like him or be mad at him, that he responds to the sort of belittling treatment that she sometimes dished out to her husband and his male aides at the White House, yelling at them and calling them wimps if they disappointed her.

Obama may be responsive to Hillary’s moods because he lives with another strong woman who knows how to keep him in line. Michelle said she let her husband run for president only when he agreed to give up smoking, and she’s a master at the art of the loving conjugal put-down.

It drives me nuts when Dowd's writes this sort of psychobabble drivel.

Her obsession with Obama is truly embarrassing. The marital analysis is especially strange.

When Hillary walked onstage Thursday, Obama stood to her left waiting to shake hands and say hi, as he and Edwards had done with Chris Dodd. She turned her body away, refused to meet his eyes and froze him out. Again. And he looked taken aback. Again.

For the rest of the night she owned him.

This is really goofy.

It sounds like a bad screenplay.

"For the rest of the night she owned him." That reads like a dime-store romance novel.

Dowd thinks she has Hillary figured out:

She is a control freak — that’s why her campaign tried to coach wonky Iowa voters to ask wonky questions — and her male rivals are letting her take control.

I believe Hillary tries to be a control freak, but she fails. She fails miserably.

Dowd seems to be so caught up in her Hillary as dominatrix fantasy that she fails to grasp how weak Hillary really is.

She's weak in terms of her qualifications to be president.

Her husband's resume isn't hers.

HILLARY WAS NOT A GOVERNOR. SHE WASN'T THE PRESIDENT.

She's not likable. She's not a charismatic person.

Furthermore, she's not controlling her "male rivals," her political opponents.

Dowd can't make a convincing argument that Hillary is a control freak when she can't even control her husband.

How would Dowd explain that? Hillary absolutely must be in control but she willingly has spent her adult life as Bill's doormat.

So does she find wimpy men such as Obama to dominate in order to compensate for the way Bill walks all over her?

How's that for psychobabble?

I don't know why Dowd as well as some other female columnists and pundits keep focusing on the gender dynamics of the race.

And Dowd's sadomasochistic imagery involving Hillary and Obama is particularly inappropriate. It's creepy.

Why can't Dowd and the others leave sex out of this? Can we talk about the issues? The issues matter.

I WOULD NEVER VOTE FOR HILLARY BECAUSE SHE'S A WOMAN.

I'M NOT ROOTING FOR HER BECAUSE SHE'S A WOMAN.

I WOULD NEVER SUPPORT HER BECAUSE SHE'S A WOMAN.

ANYONE CAN CALL HER A BITCH. I WON'T VOTE HER.

I vote my pocketbook. I don't vote my genitals.