|
|
|
Updated 10 p.m.:
Arianna Huffington uses the first installment of her campaign diary on Salon.com to respond to Susan Estrich's "bad mother" column.
I assumed we were long past the argument over whether you could be a woman, a leader and a mother without having the powers that be shaking their heads and pulling out the slime.
This kind of dirty politics is one reason more than 13 million Californians didn't vote in the last election. People are sick and tired of campaigns as demolition derbies, with candidates -- and their designated hatchet men and women -- attacking each other until there is only one candidate left standing.
Earlier in the New York Post gossip column:
What this is about (the public part of the spat, at least...)
Also on Page Six: CAA denies Times story that it's helping Arnold, now that the other talent is riled.
She's a lawyer, Roberto, and no doubt has represented people of varying beliefs and values. Why assume a connection between her views on parenting and von Bulow's?
Posted by: Tim McGarry at August 22, 2003 03:32 PMI'm with Bobbo--she represented a man who destroyed his child's mother, so obviously, she has no real scruples.
Posted by: rachel at August 22, 2003 05:33 PMShe (Estrich) is really beginning to lose it, following Coulter's odd example of what's-expediently-in-your-head-is-journalism; but I fault editors (and Arianna here) for merely paying attention to her.
Posted by: joseph at August 23, 2003 01:57 AMWhat did Estrich say that isn't correct? Arianna, the professional opportunist, did push her kids aside to run her campaign for governor. Her spat with her ex and her inability to run a more successful career, where she isn't able to deduct so much and ends up having to pay some serious taxes, makes me think she's more of a flake than anything else.
Posted by: Carter at August 23, 2003 04:10 PM
of LA Observed
Susan represented Claus von Bulow, so her views on parenting are somewhat skewed, I'd say.
Posted by: Roberto at August 22, 2003 01:49 PM