From Newsweek:

[The Clintons] remain reviled figures in some quarters. But they are admired, especially by Democrats, as architects of what, increasingly, look like the "good old days" of the American economy. Indeed, if the Democrats are going to beat Bush, they'll have to brag about Clinton's economic record. That, in turn, means bringing the man himself--in all his controversial dimensions--back onto the stage in 2004.

The Clinton Nostalgia Tour begins next month, with the mega-hyped [!] arrival of Hillary's "Living History"...Her husband, meanwhile, is far along on his own book, now scheduled to be published in the fall of 2004--smack in the middle of the general election campaign.

Oooh. OOOOOH. That's gonna be good.

Also notable is the front cover, whose headline reads: "She Works, He Doesn't: The Latest Twist in Jobs & Family; Why 30% of Working Women Earn More Than Their Husbands." Well, shit, guys, I would think that the problem would be that that number's not closer to 50%, wouldn't you say? The article on this subject (which I've mercifully avoided reading) also features one of the most meaningless statistics of all time in a pull-quote: "54% of Americans know a couple where the woman is clearly the major wage earner and the man's career is secondary, according to the Newsweek Poll." Wow--a majority know someone like that? Couldn't you have told us for how many couples that actually is the case? Or would that have been too "scientific"?
posted by Mike B. at 3:13 PM 0 comments