Bingo, this is precisely the issue. Why is Hitchens so caught up in the machinations of elite reps of capital to begin with? I wish he would devote half his energy to articles on Mumia, Social Security,...anything but Monica and...Especially considering that he writes for a mag that actually gets read by more than left leaning readers (i.e. Vanity Fair).But then again, those 2-0's lunches with the rich and famous are hard to give up to begin with...
I think what it comes down to is that some lefty journalists have a seriously bloated sense of self-importance and think their role in capital's latest dramas actually will make a contribution to change for the 'masses'...
On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, Picciotto, Sol wrote:
> I hope I'm not intruding, but it seems to me that the various posts on
> different aspects of these threads all weave around the central point. That is,
> that various far-right interests have used Starr and Monicagate to ensure the
> Clinton administration gets totally bogged down and has no prospect of doing
> anything even remotely reformist. So the only response is to try to focus on
> substantive politics. From that point of view, why was Hitchens even bothering
> to get involved in giving 'evidence', but even more, why do we waste time
> discussing whether he was right to do so?
> We have the same problem over here, politicians and personalities only get in
> the news for some scandal, and there is no coverage for any serious issues. For
> days the lead item on the news has been the sacking of the England soccer
> coach, and even that was not done over whether he is a good coach, but because
> of a stupid and offensive remark he made about reincarnation.
> I'd like to hear more on this list about the Clinton budget, and what a really
> progressive solution for welfare would look like