Hillary's JobDuring the campaign of 1992, it was made...

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

January 18, 1994

Hillary's Job

During the campaign of 1992, it was made evident that -- in the event her husband became president -- Hillary Rodham Clinton would not be "staying home and baking cookies," that in fact she would go to work alongside her husband.

The people who voted for Bill Clinton -- those who were paying attention, anyway -- implicitly approved of this partnership. Some of us were excited about it.

James Fisher (Opinion * Commentary, Jan. 5) misses this point entirely, sniffing that neither management theory nor Roman history support this model of governance.

Well, that would be the definitive nature of "change," wouldn't it?

As for accountability, Mrs. Clinton serves as an extension of her husband. Bill Clinton is directly and irrevocably responsible for his wife's performance, more so than for any of his appointed staff.

If she fouls up, he suffers the consequences. It's that simple. Neither divorce nor lame excuse will serve to deflect blame from Bill Clinton.

Walking a public tightrope, Mrs. Clinton remains focused on her assignment and -- by most accounts -- has done a very fine job of it so far.

Yes, it is "Hillary's job," and thank goodness it's in such good hands.

Lea Jones

Baltimore

Public Disservice

Baltimore City State's Attorney Stuart O. Simms was accused in The Sun of improperly halting the search of an attorney's residence in connection with a narcotics investigation.

In his Jan. 4 letter, he conclusively demonstrated why The Sun's allegations were utterly false, a conclusion supported by the state special prosecutor's investigation of the matter.

Mr. Simms' modesty, however, prevented him from making an important point about the unfairness of The Sun's charges.

The Sun must have failed to research Mr. Simms' career before assassinating his character.

Had it done so, the newspaper would have learned from Mr. Simms' former colleagues at the U.S. Attorney's office, from those who work under him at the State's Attorney's office and from those lawyers who have faced off against Mr. Simms that his reputation for integrity has been, and should remain, second to none among the state's law enforcement officials. Your reporting completely ignored Mr. Simms' impeccable record of public service.

The Sun is the only daily in town. As such it has a heightened responsibility to provide fair and accurate reporting of our public officials. The Sun does a serious disservice to its readership when, as in the case of Mr. Simms, it fails in this responsibility.

Charles P. Scheeler

Towson

Innocent Man

How is it possible that an innocent man can be found guilty of murder and sentenced to death?

Just ask Baltimore County State's Attorney Sandra O'Connor, and she will tell you, "The evidence against the defendant was extremely strong."

After reading the lengthy article in The Sun Jan. 9, it is quite clear that she does not know what she is doing. Even after Kurt Bloodsworth was found innocent of the murder, she has refused to apologize and admit to her mistakes.

I think it all boils down to gross incompetence . . .

Kalle Teel

Baltimore

McLean Coverage

Samuel L. Banks, a periodic contributor to The Sun's letters page, objected (Dec. 29) to the "epidemic proportions" of publicity given to revelations concerning Baltimore City Comptroller Jackie McLean.

With a touch of self-righteousness . . he presumes to educate us in the well-known -- the concept of the presumption of innocence.

But this is nonsense. Mrs. McLean has not been denied this presumption in any of the accounts appearing in The Sun. Indeed, as is common with all news media, the world "alleged" is religiously and liberally used.

In his final paragraph Dec. 29, Mr. Banks compounds his pretentious nonsense by the preposterous suggestion that The Sun has full control as to how or whether the McLean allegations will proceed and should therefore desist in any further reporting.

All of this is part and parcel of the hackneyed complaint that a person accused of a crime is being "tried and convicted in the media" when in fact the public, for the most part, is simply being apprised of available information and continuing developments.

When it comes to those on the public payroll, citizens have an unassailable right to every scrap of information obtainable, and for that they must depend primarily on newspapers. To call this informing of the public "journalistic poisoning of the well" is misguided hyperbole.

It would be well to recall that among the most vital functions of a free press is to keep the citizenry informed of what its government is doing, for there is a long and unhappy record of dereliction and self-aggrandizement on the part of public employees. A minority, of course. But it exists.

Martin W. Mayer

Arnold

The Difficult Life of an American Artist

I take great issue with many of the points Ferebe Streett made in her commentary "Capitalism's Corruption of Art" (Jan. 6).

Baltimore Sun Articles
|
|
|
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.