Burrs' column on Hillarydraws many responses

April 25, 2008

(Editor's note: On April 19, The Herald-Mail printed Jonathan Burrs' column about Hillary Clinton, in which he defined her as a "bamboozling politician." This drew many responses from all over the U.S. Not all signed their names, but letters from some who did appear below.)

· If Sen. Barack Obama's candidacy is unable to withstand the mild attacks from his own party, can we expect him to win in the general election?

I think not. Please remember, only 130 votes separate these two candidates. The primaries are far from over, though the Obama campaign wants us to believe otherwise.

Obama has faced relatively little criticism and scrutiny.His demeanor this past week has been one that questions the impertinence of the media for asking questions he'd prefer not to answer.


The Republicans will not defer to him, nor will they allow the coronation of Obama and the demonization of McCain, as has been the case with Hillary Clinton. Let's allow the remaining states to cast their ballots and finish the process, before we start calling for people to step aside or we call Hillary Clinton selfish because she refuses to do so. If the roles were reversed, no one would be calling upon Sen. Obama to do so.

Emilia Cooney
Cumberland, R.I.

· Jonathan Burrs is entitled to his opinion of Hillary Clinton, but do we have to read about it in The Herald-Mail?

Burr vilifies Hillary Clinton. What is her sin, exactly? The best he can do is call a 12-year-old faulty memory a "lie" - a ridiculous statement. If he had read the explanation of others on that trip (see the recent New York Times article, for example) he would realize that the First Lady was repeatedly warned about sniper fire on that trip. But is Burrs open-minded enough to believe anyone who contradicts his own biased views?

If the votes of millions of people in Florida and Michigan were counted, the Democratic election would be a tie. Why aren't those votes being counted or those elections being held again? Because Obama's campaign successfully fought against it. What a Catch-22 - if Hillary Clinton drops out, those votes would be counted immediately and it would look like a foolish decision on her part.

Meanwhile, Hillary's criticisms of Obama have all focused on facts: His lack of experience, his relationship with the hate-mongering Rev. Wright and his behind-closed-doors put down of people from small towns.

Hillary is the stronger candidate. She has won the states and the "Reagan conservatives" needed to win in November. Dropping out would be the worst thing for the Democratic party that Burrs says he wants to win.

Diana Zuckerman
Bethesda, Md.

· If Obama were in the same situation, no one would have the guts to ask him to drop out. We are too afraid of hurting his (African-American) feelings. Why does every male think Hillary should drop out when close to 50 percent of the population wants her in?

This is not 5 percent, it's 50 percent. Should their voices not matter?

Joyce Osborne
Northbrook, Ill.

· Supporters of Hillary Clinton are getting sick of hearing her demonized for every mistake while even successful attempts to confront Barack Obama's lies are spun against her. Did it ever occur to someone that a person entering a war zone for the first time may have confused the warnings from those protecting her. Perhaps she was under sniper protection, i.e. Secret Service agents, and misstated it as sniper fire.

Again, Obama can attend Wright's church of hate for 20 years, party with terrorists and associate with others of questionable ethics and somehow it all gets blamed on Hillary. My goodness, people cannot even say his full name without being called a racist.Barack Hussein Obama would command much more respect if he embraced both his Muslim and Christian roots, acted proud of his middle name and started trying to actually unite people. Instead, it is easier to vilify Clinton. Now that's business as usual.

Suzanne Matthews
Horseheads, N.Y.

The Herald-Mail Articles