Hillary Clinton’s task: To cast the election a choice between her and chaos

To the editor: Smart people can, and often do, disagree about almost everything. From economics to religion, from sports to nutrition, it’s easy to find qualified people on opposite sides of any argument, which is why most of our political contests are between qualified people with differing opinions. (“The Democratic convention is Hillary Clinton’s chance to get voters to trust her,” editorial, July 24)

Not this one. This presidential race is between, as The Times says, “one of the best-prepared and most knowledgeable candidates ever to seek the presidency” and Republican nominee Donald Trump.

This isn’t just a difference of opinion about international trade or national security or immigration reform; it is literally a wealth of experience versus none at all. That is the point likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has to make at the upcoming convention.

Then-Texas Gov. Ann Richards delivered one of the great political speeches of all time at the 1988 Democratic National Convention in which she mocked George H.W. Bush, and did it with grace and humor. I hope Clinton can do the same.

Bart Braverman, Los Angeles

See the most-read stories this hour >>

To the editor: So the Times tells us that Clinton must “win over voters who question her integrity and honesty.”

Presumably, that would be to convince those voters to cast their vote for her despite her lack of either integrity or honesty, since the public has had more than 25 years of observing her questionable honesty and integrity dating back to the Rose Law firm and extending to her lies about her email system and her and her husband’s creation of a political shush fund, the Clinton Foundation, disguised as taxpayer subsidized charity.

As the saying goes, a leopard cannot change its lack of stripes.

Kip Dellinger, Santa Monica

..

To the editor: The media and others keep referring to Clinton having a problem regarding honesty and integrity. Those are such vague terms. Rarely is a good example given to justify talking about Clinton this way.

Even with the email situation, she has admitted that using a private server while secretary of State was a bad decision. But then again, exactly what do people think she was doing? Selling off the states, one by one? Sabotaging the country?

Really. It is like putting a cloud over her head that she cannot bat away because it has no substance. I expect The Times’ editorial board to be more specific about this.

Marie Wade, Hermosa Beach

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook

MORE FROM OPINION

The media has cried wolf about GOP candidates for ages. Now no one will listen to warnings on Trump

Is homelessness a priority or not?

Trump’s opposition research firm: Russia’s intelligence agencies