I ORIGINALLY THOUGHT that your paper attempted to print articles about offbeat, though seemingly trivial, topics written with objective creativity for entertainment value. And I thought that your editorial staff had a semblance of taste that might be above some of the crap the Washington Post lets into their paper. But the article on Gennifer Flowers’ book-signing (“Precious Bane,” The District Line, 5/12) reeks of politically motivated Clinton-bashing, and bad taste in putting some Barbie-looking hack-diary writer on a pedestal.

Matt Labash may try to sound objective by calling Flowers’ prose “graceless,” but I wonder about his bias in his attempts at humor, with comments like, “Color me shill, but the woman has a mighty strong pull.” What? Like Penthouse while he’s looking at the centerfold? Or does he feel that pull from confessions on expensive 900 numbers? Then he gets quotes from the enlightened: “Or maybe, as one 23-year-old Republican staffer opined, this was indicative of a grave lapse in taste on the part of our president. “She’d make a much better first lady….one we could be proud of who’s also good lookin’.’ ” By that logic, I’d judge Hillary Clinton the best first lady we’ve ever had. But I’d like to think that I’d graduated from judgments on people’s abilities in relation to their looks when I graduated from elementary school.

Labash might try to defend himself by pretending he was being tongue-in-cheek when he gloated over “Genny” as a “dixie-licious cupcake,” but I’ve noticed too many well-researched accounts of conservative plants in the media (see Silent Coup on Bob Woodward, or Manufactured Consent on the whole industry) to not wonder why Labash wrote such a fawning article on Flowers, with so many knocks on the Clintons. Even if he didn’t have a politically conservative agenda, his sexually conservative comments are ones I’d barely expect from a ’90s pre-teen. After Flowers’ suggestion that Hillary Clinton may have had bisexual experiences, he states, “Yikes!”—though it’s interesting that, with Flowers’ suggestion of her possibly vicarious bisexual practices, he uses the line that Flowers has a “strong pull.” I could say more, but I’ve wasted enough time reading this crap, much less reacting to it.

John Potash, Mount Pleasant