Dear Maureen Dowd,
I fully agree with Clinton's rant. My career has little to do with politics, so I always assumed that those who choose political reporting must have far more interest in policy than I do. When columnists (sadly including you during the Lewinksy affair) focus on personality and style so completely as to ignore policy questions, I find it extremely upsetting.
What's your opinion about American in-kind food donations to the UNWFP, and how we use them to push GM crops on unwilling African nations? How appropriate was Clinton's response to the currency crises in SE Asia? How many died in Afghanistan when we interrupted food aid there?
Any one of these questions should be millions of times (in terms of lives affected) as important as Clinton's disgusting abuse of power with Lewinsky. Even if he killed and ate her, they would be millions of times as important, though I'm not sure the press would agree with me here.
I realize that you're not the only one responsible for this, and appreciate how you've changed somewhat during the Bush presidency. Nevertheless, Clinton is completely right that he deserves more scrutiny on Bosnia than on Lewinsky.
01 September 2004
This is old news by now, but in June, Maureen Dowd wrote a reaction to Clinton's book that brought me back to the good old impeachment days. My letter to her is posted below, but I recently found a much better explanation of what I was trying to say.