Oprah and Obama

I'm offended and disappointed with Oprah Winfrey's foray into politics ("Oprah, Obama fire up nearly 30,000," Dec. 10). She's using her cult of personality to back a charismatic but very inexperienced male candidate named Barack Obama. After years on her personal pulpit espousing the power and glory of women, she dumps Hillary Clinton, whom she has praised many times on her show, for a rising black star in the Democratic party.

Such an about-face smacks of racism to me. And now she expects her flock of rich white women to ignore her years of proselytizing about female empowerment. It's time for Oprah to be more color-blind and practice her gender sensitivity.

Anthony J. Frascino

Cherry Hill

» READ MORE: ArtGardenr@aol.com

The other tapes?

Does anyone really believe that the two destroyed tapes are the only ones the CIA ever recorded of harsh interrogation tactics ("Key tape questions unanswered," Dec. 12). If so, I have a bridge to sell you. For their own purposes, the CIA must have recorded


interrogation session as a general policy. Where are all those tapes?

Samuel M. Goldwasser

Bala Cynwyd


How dare Glenna Geiger make generalizations about those of us in the pro-life movement (Letters, Dec. 11)? She sneers that if pro-life people lived up to that label, we would have health care and education for children, mandatory family leave, SCHIP, Head Start, etc.

Who is she to judge the sentiments and actions of pro-life people? Does she know how many of us fight for children's rights, support homes for mothers, give our best when teaching children, lobby our employers for family leave, donate holiday gifts to families in need, spend volunteer hours at Children's Hospital, put money in Salvation Army pots, contribute to Toys for Tots, work for Habitat for Humanity, and on and on?

To snipe that those of us who are pro-life care only about the pre-born is unfair, biased and plain ignorant.

Hannah Dougherty Campbell


Romney's religion

Your editorial "Church and state: Enlightening views" (Inquirer, Dec. 11) badly skewed Mitt Romney's speech on religion. What he did say is that he believes the Bible is the Word of God (he did not specify which bible). You also left out the major distinction between his speech and John F. Kennedy's. JFK said he believed unequivocally in the separation of church and state. Romney, on the other hand, said he believes religion should be a part of the "public square." Is that a new code phrase for putting the Ten Commandments in courthouses or does he envision every religious group placing its own maxims in public places? What a jumble of views.

In 1787, the founding fathers realized that each of the 13 colonies had, in effect, a different religious tradition. Thus the Constitution would never have been ratified if it had not specified the separation of church and state.

Let's leave religion in church, where it belongs.

Richard S. Greeley

St. Davids

Nation of Christians

Mike Huckabee is sincere, affable - and scary! As a member of a religious minority, I find it disturbing in the extreme when a candidate for the highest office in the land espouses the idea that only a Christian should be president of the United States, which he refers to as a "Christian" nation.

Without question most Americans adhere to one denomination of Christianity or another, but there is a universe of difference between claiming the United States to be a Christian nation, and the acknowledgment that we are a nation, largely, of Christians.

Gary Kaplan