Another Clinton in the White House? Unlikely
Godfrey Sperling's July 1 column, "Don't underestimate Hillary," had several amazing omissions of presidential political facts. Bill Clinton won the '92 race with less than a majority, and Ross Perot, with 19 percent of the vote, siphoned off a large bundle of Republican votes; the '96 race was a replay with Bob Dole. To omit the Perot factor in the Clinton elections is a common intentional practice in election analysis among liberals.
To become president, Hillary Clinton would have to beat back the unparalleled antipathy of almost half the electorate, who would work night and day for her defeat. Condoleezza Rice may well become president someday, but, I believe, not Hillary.
Regarding your July 1 article "Iraqis begin warming to US presence": The poll indicating that 67 percent of Iraqis want the US to stay until the mess is cleaned up is certainly contradicted by the frequency of attacks against our troops.
If the Iraqis are really interested in having our military protect them, then they should be proactive in exposing these Saddam Hussein loyalists and allowing our troops to take proper action.
Silver Spring, Md.
The June 30 Monitor shows a perfect editorial cartoon. It depicts an apparent majority racer on a track and a minority racer placed in an outer lane, somewhat ahead of the other racer. The commentary, "Hey! How come you get a head start?!" may be lost on readers who have never raced on a track where there is a staggered start. The apparent "head start" merely equalizes the distance to be run. This is what the Supreme Court has sought to accomplish - to allow a fair start through affirmative action.
I applaud the perspicacity of the editorial cartoon and urge Monitor readers to dig the paper out of the recycling bin and post the image on their bulletin boards.
The Monitor's "Picking a new EPA chief" editorial (July 3) is disappointing, as it fails to point out that vigorous finger-pointing is not an inappropriate tactic of the environmental community. Kevin Phillips in "Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich" shows the increasing power of wealth to control our democratic governmental processes.
Given this huge power advantage, environmental groups that rely solely on voluntary contributions from interested citizens often have no other resources than their voices or the courts to preserve any kind of environmental balance in governmental actions.
If you say that environmentalists' warnings for a sustainable future for our delicate planet's resources and its citizens are inappropriate, please give honest attention to only a few of the most recent regressive actions of our government regarding clean-air standards, mineral-waste disposal, clean drinking water, endangered species, wetlands, fuel economy, fish protection, toxic cleanups, and wilderness preservation.
Sun City, Ariz.
Regarding your June 30 article "As O'Connor votes, so tilts the Supreme Court": Justice O'Connor seems to be middle of the road in her votes on the court; she is therefore not only in the majority of the court but also the majority of US citizens.
May she spend many more years on the high tribunal.
The Monitor welcomes your letters and opinion articles. Because of the volume of mail we receive, we can neither acknowledge nor return unpublished submissions. All submissions are subject to editing. Letters must be signed and include your mailing address and telephone number.
Mail letters to 'Readers Write,' and opinion articles to Opinion Page, One Norway St., Boston, MA 02115, or fax to 617-450-2317, or e-mail to Letters.