_______________WHY CLINTON SHOULD NOT BE IMPEACHED -- YET BY DAVID HOROWITZ (09/28/98)
	David Horowitz's latest column regarding the "wounded" Henry Hyde is so much nonsense. His personal feelings about Hyde are beside the point. No matter what "gentility" Hyde has managed to construct for himself as one of the Republicans' white-haired dinosaurs, it doesn't remove his own mendacity in this matter. To say the least, Hyde has been an embarrassment for years, particularly on issues relating to women. Hyde willfully disavowed what was a serious involvement (at least to Ms. Snodgrass) as a "youthful indiscretion" when it was, in fact, a long-term relationship that caused significant pain to the wronged spouses and to the Snodgrass children in particular. Clinton may be a heel, but Henry Hyde, Dan Burton and Newt Gingrich have also used and discarded women with impunity. It is also obvious that Rep. Hyde is visibly gloating because he now has the opportunity to stick it to Bill Clinton. Kenneth Starr and Hyde have the upper hand at present, but they can hardly claim to be either just or impartial. Spare us the crocodile tears, Mr. Horowitz. Getting the Clintons is still the name of the game, and by any means necessary, as the endless Starr "investigation" has shown. -- Mary Hess It was interesting to see David Horowitz slouching toward sanity in his "Agonizing Personal Dilemma" story. I guess receiving vicious hate mail from Republicans insisting he disown Salon has brought a little bit of sobriety to the self-righteousness he has been soaked in lately. Maybe, being a journalist, he was a little shocked at the insinuation of interference with his freedom of speech. He is such an intelligent guy, and I often really enjoy his writing and his critique of the left, which he left in order to be on the right. On the other hand, his subtitle "... should not be impeached -- yet," is simply the strategy Republican strategists have sold their henchmen. The purpose of the whole Stalinist "Mock Trial" of the president is only to smear Clinton and exhaust the American people, so that Democrats will be too dismayed to vote. Whereas Republicans, overjoyed by the floods of soft-core pornography put out by the Republican Congress, will flock to vote. As everyone knows, actually impeaching the president would be counterproductive. They would then wind up with Al Gore in the White House, and unless the Republican strategy is to assassinate him, they would still be in a bad position. -- Lorin Roches I just read today's column by David Horowitz and was very impressed. Previously, his views were so "off the charts" to the right that I could not stand to read them. I am pleased that David Talbot's story on Henry Hyde shocked him into thinking! If David Horowitz can stop and think what the world would be like if the heroes of the right were judged by the same standards as Bill Clinton, maybe they would find compassion for personal privacy and fairness in the political processes. And if David Horowitz can find rational analysis, then there may be hope for a little statesmanship from the Republican-controlled Congress (but I doubt it). -- Chester F. DeWitt For the first time, David Horowitz showed an intelligence that has been seriously lacking from almost all the media reports regarding the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. He analyzed both sides of the fence and figured out why there is so much outrage. This is good journalism. This is constructive. This is what is missing from Capital Hill. I don't agree with Horowitz on much of his politics, but he has, at least, bothered to understand how I feel about this mess. Starr's reports on Travelgate, Whitewater, Filegate and so on may change the way I feel about Clinton's qualifications to continue as president. Nothing will change how I feel about Starr and Congress. Both have shown their true colors. The country suffers the consequences from their actions and hypocrisy more than they do from Clinton's affair and lying. More writers in the press can learn from this article. It is encouraging to know that an outspoken writer like Horowitz can put aside his opinions long enough to discover why the other side is just as angry as he is. He did it without cutting his opponents down. He did it with a compassion that is hard to find in political writing. So, I will continue to disagree with the man on politics, but I will respect his opinion a bit more. -- Geoff Scott That Mr. Horowitz is upset by Salon's publication of the Hyde story is no surprise. Like most other conservatives (including Ken Starr), his take on the entire Clinton saga is shaped not by reason, objectivity or even legal analysis -- but, rather, ideology. Ignored by all the detractors of the Hyde story is that impeachment is a political, not a judicial, process. Thus, inevitably, it will be subjective, not objective, factors that determine whether particular politicians vote for impeachment and, if it reaches that level, conviction. In the end the politicians making these decisions will, by and large, base them on the political benefits or risks involved, not on whether any laws were broken. Given this oft-ignored reality, it is more than fair that the morality and hypocrisy of those sitting in judgment of the president be examined. Unlike Clinton, Hyde cheated with a married woman and contributed to the break-up of her family, which included children. Now Hyde sits in judgment of the president in a political forum, a forum with no rules of evidence or obligation of fairness. It's politics, and in politics, like love and war, all is fair. Just ask Ken Starr. -- Todd Sanders
_______________DATE NIGHT, ABC BY JOYCE MILLMAN(09/25/98)
	I hate to be a nudzh, but I think Joyce Millman missed the boat to "Fantasy Island." She describes it as a sort of purgatory, but had she brushed up on her Shakespeare, she'd have realized that "sweaty bellhop" Cal, who in the season opener demonstrated his ability to be in two places at one time, is short for Caliban; the shape-shifting Girl Friday, named Ariel, is based on another ephemeral Ariel; and Roarke, able to conjure up tempests, is Prospero. That said, I find it interesting that ABC has paired two programs back-to-back that loosely borrow from mythology and literature. Viewers watching these programs on Saturday night instead of partying must make up the "aging liberal arts majors" demographic. I think I'll start getting out more. -- Pat Katzmann
_______________THE GARNER REPORT: OCTOBER 1998 BY DWIGHT GARNER (09/28/98)
	I hope Mr. Garner understands the world of books better than he understands the world of television. Describing Jim Lehrer as a "PBS news reader" is comparable to calling Cormac McCarthy a "sentence writer." -- Mel Waggoner Lake Oswego, Ore.
_______________THE PRESIDENT AS LAB RAT BY GARY WOLF (09/25/98)
	The military references in Gary Wolf's article (mission, drafted, volunteered, front lines, etc.) were hilarious and infuriating at the same time. As a former Marine I am constantly amazed by the left's schizophrenia when it comes to the military. They hate us as a matter of policy and yet they never tire of utilizing our language, our traditions, our history when it suits their purposes. This, in my mind, indicates the lack of honor and intellectual honesty of most of those on the left. Bill Clinton dodged the draft to avoid going to Vietnam. There can be no intellectual argument against this. This, more than likely, led to another young man being drafted to take his place. The fate of this person will never be known. However, there is one thing that I, and everyone else deep down in their soul, know. Bill Clinton is a coward. He is a physical coward; he is a moral coward. Mr. Wolf's attempt to paint him as some type of hero in his article is laughable. His article should have been titled: "The President -- Trapped Like a Rat." -- Mark A. Byler Fort Wayne, Ind.
_______________THE GRUELING WORLD OF WORK BY HEATHER CHAPLIN(09/25/98)
	I read Salon every day and I have never noticed your Money section. And it's a shame, since the way I noticed Heather Chaplin's great story on "The Grueling World of Work," was when my colleague e-mailed me demanding I check this story out. He had to give me the URL, since I couldn't find it. Hey guys, don't hide these great stories from me! How I find out what I want to read is through your home page or on the left hand column links you have throughout. If it's not listed and described, then I don't know it exists. Granted, now that I went looking for "Money" I found it on the links bar at the bottom and found an icon for Money, but it had no description like you usually have about your contents. Hey, this is too good to miss! Promote, promote, promote! Treat it like an equal! Take my suggestion into consideration. I swear I have no affiliation with Ms. Chaplin or the author of the book she reviewed, Mr. Levine. -- Viviane Valvezans SALON | Sept. 30, 1998

R E C E N T L Y+| CDA -- THE SEQUEL? BY JANELLE BROWN

If you would like to submit a letter to the editor for publication, please e-mail us at salon@salonmagazine.com. Letters sent by fax or "snail mail" are less likely to be accepted. Do not send attachments. Please include your full name and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours, so we can confirm your identity. This information will not be used for any reason other than verification and will not appear on the site. Letters may be edited for clarity and conciseness. Brief letters are more likely to be published. Place the name of the article you are responding to in the subject heading of your e-mail. If you do not wish your letter to be published, please say so in the subject line. For more information on Salon's letters policy, click here.