Share this story
Close X
Switch to Desktop Site


Responses to Scandal Coverage

Bravo to Lisa Ross for her opinion essay "Women Mind Their Own Business" (Feb. 5). What your news story "Why Women Still Support Clinton" (Jan. 30) missed, and Ross clearly states, is that many women support President Clinton because the other choices are so horrifying. The thought of a Trent Lott or a Newt Gingrich in that post, telling us what kind of work we should do and how we should raise our families, is enough to make any independent woman cringe.

About these ads

In 1992, Clinton was the only candidate who seemed to believe that a woman could make a valuable contribution outside the home. (In fact, many of the other candidates were also trying to tell us what to do inside the home.) That is why I crossed party lines to vote for Clinton in '92, and that is why this woman "still supports Clinton."

Jennifer L. Jacobs

New York

As I read it, as long as Mr. Clinton satisfies the author's agenda, all bars are down and she can benefit from "the brilliant political artist from Arkansas." What hypocrisy in the face of her judgments of Clarence Thomas. It would appear that all is forgiven as long as her favorite issues are addressed.

Sandor P. Walker

Thomaston, Maine

I have an idea, Mr. Blankenhorn ("What Do I Tell My Child?" Opinion page, Feb. 5). Why not explain to your son that we do not judge someone guilty before he's had the chance to explain himself in a court of law?

About these ads

You could continue the lesson by explaining there is a fundamental Christian principle to be learned by many adults who claim to be Christian. Jesus said, "He that is without sin ..., let him first cast a stone."

I suggest you also discuss the idea that we know one thing for certain: that a young woman was betrayed by someone who claimed to be her close friend. You can explain this in the context of Judas Iscariot.

This is, in fact, how we explained the media frenzy to my eight-year-old daughter.

Julia Sutherland

Bloomington, Ind.

The media has been working its way down to the level of the checkout tabloids. It finally arrived there with the sensationalization of the rumors, speculation, and allegations in the latest presidential "sex scandal."

We were disappointed when the second sentence of your article "The Stakes Suddenly Rise for Clinton" (Jan. 23) included the words, "Resignation or impeachment." I must believe that most responsible journalists would agree that it is much too early to be talking about impeachment.

Paul Gamble

New Wilmington, Pa.

Imagine my consternation when, on the day of the State of the Union address, I read on the front page of the Monitor of the "scandal" surrounding Clinton and how it will lower his credibility. This is preposterous! There is NO SCANDAL. The president denies the allegations, the woman in question denies them, Hillary denies them. Beyond those people, whose business is it to pursue it?

The urge to titillate has usurped factual reporting.

Geoffrey A. Corson

Alva, Fla.

Thank you for your coverage of the "scandal" in the White House.

I believe we have a right to expect character, integrity, good morals, truthfulness, and high standards from our politicians, especially from the president of the greatest country in the world.

The Founder of Christian Science and of this newspaper was asked, "What are your politics?" She answered, "I have none, in reality, other than to help support a righteous government; to love God supremely, and my neighbor as myself."

Doesn't this speak to all of us to remember the Ten Commandments and to adhere to them in all that we think, say, and do in our daily lives?

Virginia M. Britt

Olympia, Wash.

Letters for publication must be signed and include your mailing address and telephone number. Letters should be mailed to "Readers Write," One Norway St., Boston, MA 02115, faxed to 617-450-2317, or e-mailed to

Follow Stories Like This
Get the Monitor stories you care about delivered to your inbox.