Talk:Ken W. Clawson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

"He had a wife and a family and a dog and a cat." Hee. Leave that in, no matter how this article is expanded or changed. It's like the guy (or gal) who legitimately worked in the phrase "eats shoots and leaves" in the Giant panda article. Classic.

I am pretty sure he didnt have a cat. Dog yes. Cat... um... pretty sure no...
  • Bob Woodward's book All The President's Men quotes Clawson as saying he had a cat. I'm putting it back.
Where in the book does it quote this. This is a line from the movie. Also I have checked with family members he did not have a cat, and it is also not revelent to who he was or what he has done. This is a bio, adding "he had a cat" does not add to his lagidity as a jornalsit or for his position with Nixon. It makes him sound like he was a joke.
Okay, I can understand your perspective, as a personal friend of the family -- However, I think this can be resolved.
Most Americans don't know who Clawson was. Those who do know, identify him primarily in connection with the "wife and a family and a dog and a cat" line. But why is he portrayed as saying that? Because he was distressed over the mistake he'd made. As part of CREEP's "ratfucking", he wrote a fake letter to make it look like Muskie slurred the Canadians and then bragged about it to a friend in the newspaper business -- someone who wrote for the very paper that he knew to be working on exposing the ratfucks.
This is your point -- that they think of him only in terms of one incident, overlooking the whole rest of his life. I agree that he was a lot more than that. Whatever good things he did in his life are just as worthy of inclusion as this one foolish mistake. Why don't you go ahead and fix up the article to talk about his life history and all his other accomplishments? The article as it exists is a stub. The more hard information it contains the less likely it will be that people will tolerate wisecracks like that. But that line is too good not to include some way. Therefore, I'm going to re-insert but contextualize it. See what you think of how I do it. --Bluejay Young 19:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)