A CLINTON, IN EVERY WAY

Chelsea’s snogs and Oxford’s snobs; Jack and Suzy in the box; Reese Witherspoon all covered up; James Wolcott’s tabloid love affair; war reporting’s fearless femmes; plus Senator John Edwards and that witty Mike Tyson!

Chelsea Clinton apparently hasn’t learned that one cannot be considered an Uberbrain and a politico on the rise while simultaneously zooming around the world attending fashion shows and birthday parties, snogging one’s mate at every possible moment, interviewing one’s daddy for one’s thesis, and being the poster child for Yankee Doodle Diva Goes to Oxford [“Chelsea’s Oxford Whirl,” by Nancy Jo Sales, June]. You can be Hillary Clinton or you can be Paris Hilton, but you can’t be both.

C. BROOKS KURTZ Stillwater, Oklahoma

CHELSEA CLINTON and her boyfriend, Ian Klaus, stand out as shining examples of America because they chose not to be quoted in your magazine. Running Chelsea down with a series of disingenuous comments from children whose affluence and privilege have clearly gone to their heads showed how little culture they possess.

CLAIRE TAYLOR Somerville, Massachusetts

AS A BRITISH SUBJECT now residing in the U.S., I read with great interest your story about Chelsea Clinton and her time at Oxford. I feel compelled to note in regard to the dreadful group of down-market beautiful young things interviewed at the King’s Arms, though, that it is really a bit rich for these creatures to label Americans as “uncouth.” Such self-important twaddle from such supremely unimportant youngsters. Clearly these “Sloanes” would dearly love Vanity Fair and its readers to believe they spring from aristocratic backgrounds. Their graceless comments and lack of sophistication give the game away.

Pots of dosh could not purchase what they so desperately lack.

ANNE DE ATH Glendale, California

WOMAN BEHAVING BOLDLY

I READ YOUR ARTICLE “Romancing the C.E.O.” [by Suzanna Andrews, June] with a mix of both amusement and surprise. There is little romantic or sexy about the business world or the Harvard Business Review. I know, because I was there. As an editorial assistant at the Review from 1998 to 2000,1 got quite an interesting schooling in what the real world, the best education, and the best connections can offer; in the end, I came to see “the Harvard Way” as the cornerstone of everything I find unsavory about the business world.

To say that Suzy Wetlaufer was indiscreet is an understatement, but to make her the lightning rod for Female Professionals Behaving Badly is a bit over the top. I have seen her in many different capacities, and there is no easy way to describe her, nor to dissect her or judge her. Certainly she has rubbed many people the wrong way over the years, perhaps made rash decisions and stepped on some toes, but in the end, like it or not, she is the type of woman many strive to be. And maybe that is why the media are so quick to attack. Bold, intelligent, attractive, witty—I don’t think even her harshest critics would disagree.

I do not condone her journalistic ethics, but with what I have seen go on in both academia and the business world over the past few years, I can’t say such behavior surprises me. What does surprise me is that it has taken a personal incident such as this to reveal the Review’s culture of underhanded tactics and the deceptive nature of the organization itself— perhaps the best H.B.R. case study of all.

SHANNON O’NEILL Dearborn, Michigan

MODESTY BECOMES US

UNBELIEVABLE! A cover with a classy lady [Reese Witherspoon, June] who did not bare her belly button, her behind, or part of her breasts.

EVELYN FLORIO Los Angeles, California

TRASH TALK

I ENJOYED JAMES WOLCOTT’S accurate and analytical article on the tabloids [“U.S. Confidential,” June]. I’m glad he recognized the fact that our tabloid stories are regularly poached by so-called legitimate entertainment magazines and news shows—while we do the trench warfare on the front lines.

JILL ISHKANIAN Senior reporter, Star Magazine Los Angeles, California

WOLCOTT’S WELL-DONE STORY on the tabloids confirms for me a long-held belief: part of the delight in tawdriness is in affirming moral superiority to it.

MICHAEL LEVINE Los Angeles, California

AMANP0URISASIZE8

EVGENIA PERETZ sets out, gamely, to prove that on the front line, in some of the most ravaged, war-torn places on earth, female war correspondents are not simply “Safari Susans” [“The Girls at the Front,” June]. However, Ms. Peretz spent enough space covering how the women she profiled attracted their men and the beauty secrets of the down-anddirty that I am just shocked we weren’t given their dress sizes, weight, height, and the like!

ABIGAIL E. ORMSBY Seattle, Washington

YOUR ARTICLE on the “girl” reporters abroad was terrific. These women, with their strong and brave competence and their very important work, exemplify so much the feminist ideal. Hats off to Janine di Giovanni and Marie Colvin for their recent reports from Jenin and Ramallah. I thank their British and American colleagues for getting the story out, and I will continue to devour their dispatches.

NANCY HEDRICK Portland, Oregon

CENTRAL CASTING'S CANDIDATE

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS ALWAYS has something refreshingly cynical to say, but in the June issue he astounds not by his absence of cynicism but by his extreme naivete. In his article about John Edwards [“Next Stop, the White House?”], Hitchens mentions Edwards’s boyish smile, his Redford looks, and his ease with female voters, but he never mentions any political ideology or program. When Edwards campaigned as “the people’s senator” (sounds Maoist), he offered no clear ideas behind his smarmy and soft-focus populism, and today he still has developed no ideas, no rationale for being in office or for seeking the presidency. He is a profoundly shallow and vacuous candidate. He is a pretty nonentity, but a nonentity nonetheless. I expected better of Hitchens.

JONATHAN TEPPER London, England

IN THIS CORNER, INGA

I WAS QUITE APPALLED to see you giving any coverage, particularly the usually delightful “Proust Questionnaire,” to that thug Mike Tyson [June]. It may be tactful to gloss over a conviction for rape as “his run-ins with the law,” but that does not reduce the seriousness of the offense, one which should disqualify him from being paraded in your publication. Since the indecent sums of money Tyson continues to be paid are for his brutality, not his bons mots, in the future could you leave the discussion of criminals and the bad behavior of the wealthy and/or influential for Dominick Dunne to mediate?

INGA WALTON Melbourne, Australia

Letters to the editor should be sent electronically with the writer’s name, address, and daytime phone number to letters@vf.com. Letters to the editor will also be accepted via fax at 212-286-4324. All requests for back issues should be sent to FAIR@neodata.com. All other queries should be sent 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.