In the ’60s, a Future Candidate Poured Her Heart Out in Letters - New York Times
I was raised to believe that a letter is a private thing. The thought of someone making private letters public without permission is highly offensive to me.
While it's easy to envision scenarios in which such a unilateral release would be justified, this doesn't seem to be one of them. That holds even though, in one of her letters, young Ms. Rodham jokes about saving her correspondent's letters for the money they might be worth in the future.
I don't know whether John Peavoy had Mrs. Clinton's permission to release her private letters to Gail Sheehy or to the New York Times, but if not he should have his face slapped. If so, never mind.
There's just something unseemly about all this.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I've been thinking about this. He owned the letters I suppose. It's kind of creepy that he would release them so easily unless he thought they would effect the campaign, depending of course on his feelings toward HC. Maybe he wanted to help; maybe he's still pissed off that she stopped writing. It's probably not financially wise either because they would be more valuable if he waited. Then again, maybe he believes she doesn't have a chance, or maybe he's showing that he's not afraid of her, or maybe he is afraid and wants to unload his secrets to limit their dangerousness. There's a lot to think about and you can't really analyze it without knowing more. Very puzzling.
The real thing that sticks with me though, is that I have letters out there somewhere myself that I really wouldn't want to see again. Then again, I might have been a little dumber than HC and my letters a little stranger.
Post a Comment