Greg Sargent has a nice weblog:
The Horse's Mouth: TIMES READERS SOUND OFF ON STORY ABOUT CLINTONS' MARRIAGE. Well, it looks as if Times readers are pretty ticked off with the paper for running [Pat Healy's] 3,000 word front page story on the state of the union -- the Clintons' union, that is. Check out these reader comments about the piece on The Times's new political blog. Many readers are very, very upset, and sentiment is running overwhelmingly against the piece, though that could be a reflection of the intense blogospheric reaction.
Before the lectures about blogospheric civility and the "angry left" start, let me quote from one of the comments:
I expect front page articles in The New York Times to be well-sourced, newsworthy, and related to important national and international issues. This article, though, was a gossipy, mean-spirited hit piece that seemed to serve no purpose except as a forum for idle speculation about the state of the Clintons' marriage.
Your reporter cannot find anyone to give a quote that says that the Clintons have anything but a normal, loving, supportive marriage, but he consistently implies that this is not the case. The most glaring example is when he writes that their friends' stories about their affection for each other are a product of "eager[ness] to smooth any rough edges on the relationship." What if the stories are simply true?