Know when to say goodbye

Re "Clinton nudged by her friends," May 8

I am a lifelong liberal Democrat and a great admirer of Hillary Rodham Clinton. However, George McGovern is right in asking her to withdraw, and she should heed his advice.

It has gotten to the point that even I -- as much as I respect her -- cannot stand to hear supporters on TV keep repeating her bogus bullet points as to why she should continue. It is the first time in my life I have had to turn the TV off when a Democrat was talking.

Bill Clinton once said that it depends on what you mean by "is" -- but whatever you mean, this "is" over. Hillary Clinton will hurt the party, and herself, if she continues. Al Gore knew when to say goodbye. Clinton must do the same. Hillary '12, anyone?

Stan Coleite

Santa Monica


Re "Possible next move: Prolonging the path," May 7

Your article states that Clinton won Florida and Michigan "handily." Those states were stripped of their delegates long before the primaries by the Democratic Party for moving their election dates in contravention of party rules. Both Barack Obama and Clinton pledged to forgo campaigning in those states; Obama wasn't even on Michigan's ballot. Winning "handily" in a race with only one candidate is nothing to brag about in my book.

I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Here's how it works: After the last primary on June 3, the Democratic candidate with the most votes is the winner. Is the party seriously considering disenfranchising its voter base by anointing a candidate who lost the popular vote? This is a recipe for political disaster from which the party would never recover. The fact that Clinton is apparently angling for this outcome makes her unfit to lead the country.

Stacy Bermingham

San Diego


Re "What McCain expects from judges," May 7

Your coverage of John McCain's address at Wake Forest University omitted his sneering dismissal of Barack Obama's September 2005 commentary on John Roberts' Supreme Court confirmation as "vague words attempt(ing) to justify judicial activism."

With this comment, McCain revealed an alarming ignorance of the constitutional role of the judicial branch, as well as his ignorance of Obama's commentary.

Like the previous Republican presidential candidate, McCain achieves the lie by simply ignoring the truth.

Joe Riley



Re "The wear and tear on the Democrats," letters, May 6

It's difficult to understand how anyone, particularly a Democrat or independent voter, can dislike Clinton (or for that matter, Obama) so much that they would be willing to not vote or vote for John McCain. Do they not realize the consequences of a Republican victory this November? McCain admits he knows little about economics, is ready to remain in Iraq for years, has accepted the torture policy of the Bush administration and will do little to change the president's disastrous policies. At least as important will be the turnover of Supreme Court justices and the appointments of any number of federal judges, continued pressure to privatize Social Security and increasingly expensive healthcare costs.

Please consider all this before permitting your animosity for whichever Democrat wins the nomination to overcome your desire to see our great country win back the esteem of its citizens and the world. This will only occur with a President Obama or Clinton.

Eleanor Jackson

Palm Springs


Re "Give voters a clue," Opinion, May 6

I'd like to thank Jonah Goldberg for setting me straight: The policy proposals of presidential candidates are meaningless -- what's really important are their values.

I guess I'm old-fashioned, but I still believe that the point of an election is to try to figure out who is going to do the best job as president.

If I may use an extended metaphor: This country is a very sick patient. The illness stems from the malpractice of the last guy we hired to take care of us. We rehired him based on his values. Or because the other guy was a weenie. In any case, it certainly wasn't because of any on-the-job successes.

When I go to a doctor, I don't ask him about his religious affiliations or focus on whether or not I'd like to have a beer with him. Why? Because those concerns are utterly irrelevant.

The Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. circus is irrelevant to whether Barack Obama will be a successful president. Nobody seriously believes that Obama shares Wright's views. But the Clinton/ McCain gas-tax holiday is counterproductive policy -- it would exacerbate our oil addiction and increase revenue to countries that bankroll Islamic terrorists.

That is direct evidence that these two would make poor decisions as president. Obama's refusal to get on the pander-wagon is direct evidence that he would make good decisions as president.

Branden Frankel

Los Angeles

Copyright © 2019, Los Angeles Times
EDITION: California | U.S. & World