Opinion: Finally, some positive coverage for Hillary Clinton

To the editor: I sincerely hope that The Times’ editorial endorsement of Hillary Clinton is not merely preaching to the choir. I trust that the fence-sitters and yet-to-be convinced voters will see, as the editorial states, that “Hillary Clinton is one of the best prepared candidates to seek the presidency in many years.”

( “An easy decision: Clinton for president,” Editorial, Sept. 25, and “Scope of Trump’s lies unmatched,” Sept. 25, and “No comparison between Clinton and Trump plans,” Sept. 23)

By contrast, Donald Trump denies that climate change is happening; Trump would repeal the Affordable Care Act, and he has denied the danger of nuclear proliferation by suggesting that other nations go nuclear.

Ben Miles, Huntington Beach

::

To the editor: Thank you and kudos to the writers who so clearly and succinctly enumerated the characters of Trump and Clinton. The Times has factually pointed out Trump’s lack of qualifications for presidency of the United States and, conversely, shown Clinton’s background of public service and her staunch ability to carry on with the duties of a president. The public needs more of these honest, straightforward and informative statements. Carry on.

Rhya Turovsky, Pasadena

::

To the editor: Michael Finnegan’s article comes as a great relief because it shows that at least one journalist (and one newspaper) is willing to tell it like it is in this election.

But to me, the most salient (and ominous) part of the “T phenomenon” is the number of Americans who are actually going to vote for him. I call it “the Schwarzenegger syndrome.” I think that to many people climbing on the Trump train, political choice must amount to “celebrity first.” California learned about that failure the hard way.

Jules Brenner, Hollywood

::

To the editor: Finally, The Times reported some substance about what Clinton is accomplishing during her candidacy. She is “heavily engaged” in the process of policy development, talking to stakeholders and advocacy groups about real-time mental health issues that affect all American families; she is ahead of the curve and already creating solutions.

This woman is phenomenal. We should be proud to name her our commander in chief. Clinton is presidential in addressing these issues. Let’s face it; she’s already on the job.

Carla Johnson, Claremont

::

To the editor: It’s not the depth and breadth of Trump’s lies that are at issue. It’s the long-standing acquiescence of the press, and a strain in the American character willing and eager to be taken in by a huckster. Why is it only now, so late in the campaign, that major news outlets have publicly announced they will use the term “lies”?

What does it say about us as a society when so many are eager to embrace someone I think is a racist, misogynist, xenophobic narcissist? Can such a man become our president?

Isaac Hirschbein, La Mesa

::

To the editor: The Times left out one other obvious virtue of the Clinton candidacy. She has the ability to become president without the support of a single white supremacist, while Trump needs them all.

Gary Bock, Los Angeles

::

To the editor: I wish all important issues in life were as simple as the “... easy decision: Clinton for president.”

Gail Feuerstein, Irvine

::

To the editor: Finally, something positive about Clinton. Please review how many times over the last few years that you have made strong, positive, true statements about her compared with, at best, hand wringing and ambiguous comments or, at worst, unchallenged repetition of false Republican charges.

Your previous error has been — in the name of balance — to give everybody’s failings equal weight.

Donald Burnett, Arcadia

::

To the editor: I strongly disagree with your opinion. I think Clinton is also unqualified to be president. You should not be telling people whom they should vote for.

Someone like Clinton is unqualified because she is unethical and immoral for accepting money from the rich, “talented” people who make a pretty good living. I can’t stand it.

I believe that a qualified candidate must have business ethics, moral values, and be ethical and uncorrupt. People who make a good living control and bribe politicians because they don’t want to change the status quo. For once, I want to see a change in the status quo.

Lionel Mares, Sun Valley

::

To the editor: Hear that sound? It’s the sound of many hands clapping and voices shouting, “It’s about time!” Trump’s lies were exposed years ago. They’re just now being reported for what they are — instead of simply being repeated without clarification.

Sharon Graham, Huntington Beach

::

To the editor: I’ve subscribed to The Times for nearly 49 years and to see it backing someone I believe to be a truly dishonest and corrupt person like Clinton is disheartening. Whatever happened to fair and balanced news?

Almost all of your articles concerning the election, like this one, are pure liberal nonsensical propaganda for Clinton. All of us pro-life Christian readers should look for the truth somewhere else. Sad to say, you don’t represent our concerns or values any longer.

Gerald Marka, Whittier

::

To the editor: Some of us have waited a long time for The Times and others to “correct” Trump’s lies. You write that journalists are “grappling” with the notion of printing the truth? Really?

Trump is a bully, and I think the press and journalists continually tiptoe around him because they are afraid of him.

Barbara Farren, Rancho Palos Verdes

::

To the editor: That Trump lies as much as he does and gets away with it is no fluke. Our American culture is riddled with fabrications on all levels.

I think our federal government has lied to its citizens. Remember George W. Bush and the “weapons of mass destruction” that opened the door to invading Iraq? Our entire advertising and marketing industry is built on fabrications. The American public has been bombarded by lies, but very few of us bother to read beyond the headlines to discover the truth.

David Novis, Santa. Barbara

::

To the editor: I acknowledge the comment concerning Trump’s “lies.” However, I think you omit lies Clinton made to the FBI regarding her use of a private email server. I hope your readers aren’t naive enough to believe your liberal slant.

Gary Patterson, Brea

::

To the editor: Sexism speaks to Clinton’s likeability more than anything else. A powerful woman is an easy target. Opposition to that conclusion is loud, yet it never articulates a viable explanation.

Lisa Harmon, Yakima, Wash.

::

To the editor: Your reporting on the scope of Trump’s lies is timely. Will the story be read by any Trump voters and will it give any Trump voters any second thoughts?

As for the debate, I think the right wing will simply declare Trump the winner no matter what actually occurs.

John von Szeliski, Santa Ana

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook