If I were Barack Obama, I would send Hillary Clinton a short memo saying, "You lost" ("Obama's historic step," June 4). I also recommend that he decide on a running mate as quickly as possible. If he doesn't, the speculation about Clinton will be the topic of discussion for weeks or months. Like that sticky piece of paper on the sole of our shoe that we can't seem to dislodge, the Clintons never seem to go away. The Obama campaign needs to remove that piece of paper and throw it away - quickly.
There's only one problem with Barack Obama selecting Hillary Clinton as his running mate (Inquirer, June 4): If they win, we'll have two vice presidents, Hillary and Bill.
Hillary Clinton campaigned against Barack Obama in a way that not only sought to accentuate distinctions between the two, but also with the goal of making him so damaged and flawed a candidate that he would have no chance of winning the general election. Her husband consistently served as attack dog, essentially calling Obama a fraud and a liar.
If Clinton were to become Obama's running mate (Inquirer, June 4), how could she effectively disavow all that she has done to tear down not only Obama, but also the Democratic Party and its hopes of providing the winning candidate for president this year?
Oren M. Spiegler
Upper Saint Clair
For years, Democrats have tried to convince people that diversity lies in physical features such as race and gender. They have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. Indeed, this is a big part of what their constituents view as significant when sizing up other people. In Tony Auth's illustration (Inquirer, June 4) regarding the role of racism and sexism in the primary campaign, it is important to note that he is referring to the bigotry of primary voters who register as Democrats.
Those of us who view America as "one nation under God" and appreciate what works care more about the character, biography, expressed thoughts and actions of candidates as opposed to superficial elements of their appearance. That is why it will be easy for us to vote against Barack Obama, and his liberal intentions, with a clean conscience.
Being a museum director is not as simple as it appears to outsiders. In fact, it is often just the opposite. Anne d'Harnoncourt beautifully mastered the complex and often arcane art of museum directing and provided a stellar example for the rest of us in this unusual calling ("D'Harnoncourt cast a long shadow," June 4). The fact that she so successfully followed her muse in Philadelphia, a place known for its proud provincialism and wealthy cheapskates, was extraordinary. Her accomplishments there are so startling and wonderful that her legacy will indeed live on for many, many generations. Art and Philadelphia were fortunate to have her as their champion.
I knew Gov. Rendell's budget secretary was heading back to Philadelphia for a schools job, but I had not realized the governor's press secretary was writing Inquirer editorials ("Pennsylvania's budget: Spring! Time to stall," June 3).
As gas prices have reached $4 a gallon and food prices multiply, I think most Pennsylvanians would agree that now is not the time to tax, borrow and spend without discretion.
Just because Wall Street, which makes money when taxpayers incur debt, says the commonwealth can borrow more, does not make it right or proper. Just because members of the General Assembly disagree with the governor, does not make them obstructionists.
Once again, Inquirer editors publish a completely prejudiced editorial without any facts to back it up. Your propaganda piece does a disservice to your readership.
State Rep. Sam Smith