Letters: Clinton - Untrustworthy or presidential?

ISSUE | CAMPAIGN 2016

Candidate of big business

After reading excerpts of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's interview with the Inquirer Editorial Board ("Speaking on issues of trustworthiness," Tuesday), I would have thought the Inquirer would endorse someone trustworthy for president of the United States ("In a word, Clinton," Sunday). The board pressed Clinton on the transcripts of her Goldman Sachs speeches that she has refused to release.

If Goldman had not liked her first speech for $225,000, they would never have had her back for two more - proof that she really is the corporate candidate.

|Joseph J. Obelcz, Hatfield, jobelcz@verizon.net

In a word: Why?

Unless there were missing words in my edition of Sunday's paper, your endorsement of Hillary Clinton seemed to be lacking something - the "why." You wrote that she is "thoroughly qualified" yet cited not one valid example. Her statement to your Editorial Board, "We have to continue to lead the world," was just flag-waving.

You wrote, "Sanders may have the best words," but why let the facts get in the way of a woman whose questionable political career is "historically unprecedented by the long line of men who have occupied it"? Actually, a vote for Clinton is a vote for more of the same.

|Barry Berg, Langhorne

Can't overlook Clinton's flaws

The Inquirer's endorsement of Hillary Clinton stretches mightily to find support for that view. Yes, comparing her to Bernie Sanders is an easy opening, but her cited contribution to the nuclear deal with Iran, "a bright spot in President Obama's foreign policy," is highly debatable.

Sloughing off her deceitful connivances as merely "Clintonian guardedness" gives a free pass to someone whose every move is calculated. It's one thing to see her as "thoroughly qualified" - that's in the eye of the beholder - but to add that her election would be "historically unprecedented" is not a justification to ignore her many character flaws.

|Stephen Hanover, Doylestown

Battle-tested in foreign affairs

Unless you are in the military or a member of a military family, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are distant and sometime things. The one presidential candidate who has not been distanced from the reality of those wars is Hillary Clinton. She has lived in that reality.

As secretary of state, she visited some of the worst places on the face of the Earth, where she met and established relationships with leaders of those countries. She gets it like no one else. None of the other candidates can say that.

That experience alone makes her the best person for the job.

|Mary Osburn, Lakewood, Ohio, mary@glenmerehouse.com

Weak record as secretary of state

The claim that Hillary Clinton has foreign-policy experience is beyond laughable. She took part in no substantive negotiations as secretary of state, though she did have her picture taken witnessing the extrajudicial execution of Osama bin Laden.

Any informed reader of Inquirer columnist Trudy Rubin could claim more.

|James Robison, Philadelphia, yorkimperial@icloud.com

Not transparent, but solid

When Hillary Clinton is being herself, she is not transparent. She resonates with Wall Street titans. She is a smart and competent manager and has a boatload of relevant experience. She's prepared for a presidency that will take the country along the centrist path. She's the anti-change agent.

Detractors say Clinton needs transparency to gain trust and that it could be gained by releasing transcripts of her $675,000 worth of speeches to Goldman Sachs. A small number of voters want those transcripts, but most of them are already "feeling the Bern." Many more will be voting for Clinton in November if not in next Tuesday's Pennsylvania primary.

|Don DeMarco, Philadelphia, donald.demarco@verizon.net