DESPERATELY SUING SUSAN

Letters

I read Judy Bachrach's article on Susan McDougal, "Joan of Arkansas" [January], with interest. It occurred to me that McDougal shares quite a lot with President Clinton, even if they never shared each other's sexual affections. Like Clinton, McDougal comes from a poor background and became successful by sheer ambition, some native intelligence, and an almost complete lack of scruples. Neither she nor the president has picked up much class in their ascent. Neither seems to have learned the value of truth. Both have put the best spin they could on their conduct. Both have lied.

Most people from hardscrabble backgrounds who have achieved success have done so through hard work and have lived honest lives. Clinton and McDougal have done it the other way. McDougal's manipulation of the jury in the Mehta case—her turning Nancy Mehta into the villain and herself into the innocent friend—is like making the victim a vile seducer and the rapist a hero. Sometimes, sick as it is, it works, as it did for Susan McDougal.

JAMES C. FRASER-PAIGE San Francisco, California

JUDY BACHRACH'S ARTICLE on Susan McDougal clearly was written by someone who did not sit through the embezzlement trial. As jury foreman, I can tell you that our acquittal of McDougal rested solely on the prosecutor's inability even to begin to meet his burden of proof. Bachrach speaks of sums that "are of legitimate concern" which were apparently overlooked because the "audience" was "enchanted" with McDougal. Not only did we seriously examine every alleged bad check and credit-card charge over and over again in the courtroom, but we quickly decided in deliberations that hardly a word of Nancy Mehta's testimony was to be trustedtestimony that was crucial to the finding of guilt on six of the nine charges. Bachrach speaks of the "middle-class alliance" McDougal sets up with the jurors with her "open, agreeable face" and talk of excessive Mehta spending. Hogwash! Not only were the jurors from every economic class, but the Mehtas' spending was not even remotely relevant to our finding McDougal guilty or not guilty. Unfortunately for the prosecution, Nancy Mehta's testimony was. The prosecution was baseless, disorganized, mean-spirited, juvenile, and became more and more of a witchhunt every day. The defense, by contrast, was straightforward, reasonable, and clearly presented. We were by no means blinded or coerced by what Bachrach seems to think is McDougal's "elusive and contradictory personality." We kept an open mind and reached the only verdict possible.

RUFUS GIFFORD Santa Monica, California

JUDY BACHRACH SUCCESSFULLY revealed the complexities of Susan McDougal's life. I can't think of another instance in American judicial history in which a person was put in prison strictly to serve a partisan political purpose. This has yet to be made public.

I hope the trial on charges of criminal contempt and obstruction of justice does take place. I believe it will expose just how partisan and vicious the endeavor was, and I have faith that a jury will reject prosecutor Kenneth Starr's tactics in no uncertain terms. I certainly hope so, for the health of the democracy. No one should be coerced by the government to participate in a political undertaking not of his or her liking, in court or elsewhere. Freedom from such coercion is too fundamental to the idea of democracy. In its heart, the federal judiciary knows it made a terrible mistake in allowing McDougal to be incarcerated. This knowledge is the real reason behind her eventual release.

JERRY D. CHANEY Long Beach, California

JUDY BACHRACH MAY THINK Susan McDougal is a complicated subject, but to me, she sounds like another conniving, scheming opportunist. From the beginning she has used anyone in her path for monetary gain. Mrs. Mehta was very naive and foolish to give her free rein and Susan took full advantage. The world is full of such con artists. Though McDougal has done a pretty good job, when the story plays itself out we shall see how she ends up: Everyone who touches the Clintons ends up dead, in jail, or disgraced.

MARY LOUISE DICKEHUT Del Rio, Texas

The Midnight Hour

ROBERT SAM ANSON'S ARTICLE on Y2K ["12.31.99," January] was excellent. Alas, it will probably follow the course of others of its kind and settle to the bottom of the pile due to massive denial. After the fall, a whole new school of sociology will arise to study why so few did so little to abate the catastrophic flood.

KIRBY METCALFE Fort Worth, Texas

DOES ROBERT SAM ANSON really expect that at the "instant past midnight, January 1, 2000, ... prison gates [will] have swung open"? Will America's 1.7-millionplus prisoners then walk freely into the night? Come off it!

In spite of Y2K aberrations, real or imagined, all will be secure at the Federal Detention Center and the Federal Correctional Institution in Seagoville, Texas, as I suspect it will be throughout the land. Like most prison locks, ours are designed to remain closed without electricity or human intervention.

Anson is pandering to a fear frequently created by sensational media that include such programs as Cops and America's Most Wanted. In fact, the crime rate now is the lowest it has been in 25 years. I pray for an enlightened citizenry when I'm released.

ADAM P. SMITH Seagoville, Texas

Anchors Uh-Way

MSNBC ANCHOR BRIAN WILLIAMS is smooth ["Man of the Hour," by Marjorie Williams, January] and certainly pretty. But, whatever his virtues, he has an enormously annoying speech mannerism that the author failed to mention. Did she not notice Brian's frightful proneness to the "uh" syndrome when not reading from the TelePrompTer or a printed page?

For me, Brian is "Mr. Uh-Man." Recently, I took time to count Brian's "uh"s. The informal result: within five minutes of ad-libbing, Brian's ratio of "uh"s to real word sounds approached one to five.

The only current, large-scale professional on such an "uh" scale seems to be President Clinton's press secretary, Joe Lockhart, whose pattern seems to be "uh-uh-uh," rather than Brian's "uh," though with an occasional "uh, uh."

Few of us are perfect, but some producer should tell Brian to stifle the "uh"s.

TOM SUMMERS Reno, Nevada

Gardner's Paradise

WHAT A TERRIFIC surprise when I opened your January issue and found an article on Gardner McKay ["The Real McKay," by Dominick Dunne]. I felt as if I had taken a voyage back in time. Adventures in Paradise was one of my favorite television shows. I never missed an episode and have thought about it fondly through the years. I have also always wondered what happened to Gardner. It's great to find out that he is enjoying life as a writer—to me, the best profession. I look forward to his new book.

SUSAN CARMODY Clinton, Iowa

Hollywood by the Numbers

AS A TELEVISION development executive I've followed the Riley Weston story ["Youth or Consequences," by Ned Zeman, January] with a combination of amusement and horror. So she pulled one off on her agents and a studio. They were knuckleheads not to have thoroughly checked out her credentials, which seem as transparent as plastic wrap. But what I do resent, on behalf of hundreds of hardworking, talented writers, especially women writers, is the fact that the people who gave her a coveted job on a writing staff knew and did not care that she didn't have "the write stuff." These jobs are the training ground for future generations of Lydia Woodwards, Susan Harrises, and David Kelleys, and every time a woman (particularly one who ends up an emotional puddle) does not meet expectations it gives a largely male staff the excuse for not hiring a woman for the next show or season. Riley Weston got it wrong: her emotional age is 12, not 19.

NANCY MEYER Studio City, California

BRAVO, RILEY! Or is it Kimberlee? Whatever your name is, bravo! Poor Hollywood. You've been duped.

STACY SEAHOLM Roseville, California

Coyers and Coyerage

YOUR MALE READERS get to salivate over semi-nude pictures of breathtaking starlets, such as Charlize Theron ["Venus in Hollywood," by Kevin Sessums, January], while we women are forced to look at the utterly adorable Ewan McGregor ["A Star's Wars," by Zoe Heller, December] fully clothed and holding a rooster? Come on, if you are going to use titillation to sell your product, realize that women are your customers, too.

BURGIN STREETMAN New York, New York

Greetings from Microsoft

REGARDING THE ITEM on Steve Ballmer in "The New Establishment 1998" [October], I feel compelled to let Vanity Fair's, readers know that it is untrue that Microsoft president Steve Ballmer ever sent Christmas cards to the children of Microsoft competitors. This is a repetition of an erroneous report in The New York Times which is worth correcting just for the sake of eliminating an annoying inaccuracy that otherwise will live on. Apparently there has been confusion because of a 10year-old incident wherein another Microsoft executive, Jeff Raikes, sent birthday cards to the children of Pete Peterson, an executive at a competing firm. This was when Microsoft was a distant No. 2 and the two executives were on personal and friendly terms. In fact, a recent article in The Seattle Times recounting the incident reads, "As zealous as it may seem, Raikes said it was done in good humor. Peterson agreed. 'It wasn't acrimonious at all. I never felt any malice.'"

MICH MATHEWS General manager, public relations Microsoft Redmond, Washington

A Check to Remember

MARY CANTWELL'S ARTICLE on Cafe Nicholson ["A Nightspot to Remember," January] brought back fond memories of a just-married couple and a wonderful restaurant, operated by a warm and caring owner. It was 35 years ago, and I was a journalist working at The Baltimore Sun. My wife and I were taking our Christmas honeymoon in New York City, a land of glitter and magic.

Off to Cafe Nicholson, a restaurant whose literary reputation preceded it. We were having a wonderful meal in such a charming setting, and a theater engagement was to follow. Then, lo and behold, we were told they didn't accept credit cards—cash only. What to do? This young couple did not have enough cash to pay the check. Would we have to wash dishes? Johnny Nicholson came over to chat and, after hearing our tale, simply said, "Come in tomorrow and pay!" and he sent us off in his limo to the theater. Truly a night to remember.

LLOYD B. DENNIS Redondo Beach, California

A Postscript for PM

THERE WAS ONE LAST effort to breathe life into PM's "impossible dream" of a pluralist, left-of-center, labor-oriented, and anti-racist newspaper for New rk ["PM's Impossible Dream," by David Margolick, January]. Ted O. Thackrey had been editor of the New York Post (and husband to its publisher, Dorothy Schiff) when, in 1948, the two had a falling-out over which presidential candidate the Post would support. (Thackrey supported Wallace, and Schiff supported Dewey.) The rift widened when Thackrey refused to support the North Atlantic Treaty and the Fair Deal, and he resigned from the Post in 1949. The following year, Thackrey and Schiff divorced, and Thackrey went on to publish and edit The Daily Compass from the rubble of PM.

With the country in the stranglehold of McCarthyism and blanketed by a culture of stifling stupidity, the Compass was lively and enlightened, fueling sparks of cultural criticism and leftist thinking when it was considered almost treasonable to do so. The paper squeezed by with its loyal dime-a-day readership until the eve of Eisenhower's election, when the country was left in the journalistic night it has not yet awakened from.

MATTHEW P. DUMONT Belmont, Massachusetts

Letters to the editor should be sent with the writer's name, address, and daytime phone number to: Vanity Fair, 350 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10017. Address electronic mail to vfmail@vf.com. The magazine reserves the right to edit submissions, which may be published or otherwise used in any medium. All submissions become the property of Vanity Fair.

Those submitting manuscripts, photographs, artwork, or other material to Vanity Fair for consideration should not send originals unless requested in writing to do so by Vanity Fair All unsolicited materials must be accompanied by a self-addressed overnight-delivery envelope, postage paid. However, Vanity Fair is not responsible for unsolicited submissions.