At 03:20 PM 1/30/98 EST, Maggie wrote:
>Sigh, I can't believe I mentally exchanged Lipinski for Lewinski -- brain
>damage -- too much pollution. Anyhow, Max, I agree, this may not have
been as
>planned as a conspiracy, but it is certainly moving in Clinton's direction.
>The 'bad boy' who the right wing was supposed to be able to use to make their
>conservative contentions look good just is not cooperating. maggie coleman
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think it's more useful to see this is as yet another example of how truth
is so much more strange than fiction. If this last week was a movie, who
would believe it? That the president would be more popular _after_ this
broke (70+% according to the latest snap poll I saw)? And that the
insanely cynical media pundits would be upset that the public was more
interested in Clinton's policies than his pants? I mean, those rallies
that Clinton attended in the Midwest, would any director have the chutzpah
to put them in their movie? Even Rob Reiner would've balked.
And what about characters like Monica "90210" Lewinski, Ms. Tripp, and her
right-wing crazed book agent, who'd represented Mark Fuhrman? According to
something I heard on the radio, at one point Tripp's agent even tried to
get Fuhrman to write a book about the Foster suicide--although at this
point, given how much "proof" most news reports are relying on, who knows
if it's true (another example of something it'd be hard to believe in a
satire). If a movie included Monica's mom as someone who'd written a book
denying that she'd had an affair with a famous opera singer, would't a
critic say, that's totally unbelievable and it's also a really ham-handed
use of symbolism? For that matter, who would believe characters like Bill
and Hillary? "Wag the Dog" is looking more tame every day....
Anders Schneiderman
Progressive Communications
P.S. It's too bad Hunter Thompson is past his prime; he couldn't ask for
better material.
