Here's a rule that seems to work pretty well this year: If it's a page 1 (or top of the website) story in the New York Times about one of the leading presidential candidates, it's a completely worthless piece of pseudo-psychological bullshit that uses a few pieces of completely unrepresentative evidence to draw broad and unwarranted conclusions about that candidate's personality and psyche.
Does anybody out there think the letters they sent when they were a teenager tell us anything about what they are like as a middle-aged adult? It's ludicrous and it's embarassing to see in our nation's "paper of record."
But at least it's another good candidate for Brendan's contest.
PS What kind of a publicity-seeking dick releases to the press private letters a now-famous friend sent almost 40 years ago?