Politically damaging doubts

Re “Is the right right on the Clintons?” Opinion, Jan. 26

I don’t know who Jonathan Chait talked to during the 1990s, but most of the liberals I know always doubted Bill Clinton’s integrity, no matter how relieved we were to have a (somewhat) kindred spirit in the White House.

Our suspicion of Hillary Clinton, perhaps born of the travel office and other debacles during “her” White House years, coalesced over what seemed like a series of politically opportunistic votes in the Senate, particularly on the Iraq war. The inappropriate and offensive mud-slinging the Clintons and their surrogates have indulged in during this campaign seems in character.

Yes, the Clintons were victims of an astonishingly virulent, dishonest right-wing campaign that included spending millions of taxpayer dollars. But, really, did anyone believe in the integrity of a guy who thought it was meaningful that he tried marijuana but didn’t inhale and who “did not have sex with that woman?” Hillary Clinton needs to overcome these doubts, and she’s going in the wrong direction.

Blair Charnley

San Clemente

Chait nailed it. The Clintons’ determination to win at any cost is becoming apparent to many of us who have admired and supported them in the past. The result is that the situation has shifted from near certainty of a Democrat in the White House in 2009 to the real possibility that the Republicans will retain control of the government and be enabled to continue the Iraq war, to destroy the middle class and to diminish the prospect for progress in climate change and energy independence -- to say nothing of the long-term implications of a Supreme Court made up of Antonin Scalias on steroids. We can kiss independents, moderate Republicans and many moderate Democrats goodbye if the choice in November is between a widely respected John McCain and the widely distrusted Clintons. The risk of a Mitt Romney presidency would be somewhat less but the consequences much more severe.

Bert Scott

Villa Park