This is how Barack Obama can lose the November general election in three steps ("Clinton set to bow out," June 5):
Secure the Democratic presidential nomination based on the promises of change and no more politics as usual in Washington.
Make a backroom deal with Hillary Clinton or succumb to pressure by her supporters to name her the vice presidential candidate - that is, through politics as usual.
Watch former Obama supporters (including myself) vote for John McCain, not because we agree with him, but because we know where he stands - and he is not Clinton.
The Democrats have nominated a naïve lamb to represent us in a world of hungry lions (Inquirer, June 5).
William F. Trainer
Rick Santorum's column " 'Coal' is not a dirty word if we are realistic about saving the Earth" (Inquirer, June 5) makes several faulty assumptions. Start with his belief that climate change is liberal propaganda but could be part of a natural cycle (so then it would be OK?) or maybe it won't happen because "global temperatures have actually cooled over the last 10 years." He provides no data nor peer-reviewed studies to support his beliefs. Does he think scientists are conspiring to support climate change?
He then suggests ways to cope with climate change (that won't happen?) by burning coal and capturing the carbon dioxide underground. This technology is not proven and will add significant cost to his "cheap" coal. He then compares Obama's goals of reducing carbon emissions with capturing carbon dioxide underground, an apples-to-oranges comparison.
Santorum has sold his family values for coal values.
I cannot but feel both amused and irritated at alleged bad behavior by local news anchors ("Anchor shuffle," June 5).
I'm amused that they show us time after time that they are not serious journalists, merely spoiled brats with overdeveloped egos. Most will never be mistaken for Edward R. Murrow or Walter Cronkite.
The aggravation comes from their obscene salaries, which underscore that they are entertainers providing infotainment rather than fact-finders. For $700,000 a year, we get prima donnas spewing pablum and regurgitated newspaper items off a teleprompter. It's a disgrace.
Edward J. Wallace
A word to the angry women: Hillary Clinton lost ("Furious over Hillary-bashing, women vow to sink Barack," June 4)! She couldn't win fairly; she couldn't even win dirty. She even tried changing the rules, but she just lost. It's over. Now, if her supporters want to cut off their noses to spite their faces and vote for a Republican, they will show how monumentally childish they can be - and how incredibly destructive for our country.
We truly are not ready for a woman president if what we get from the losing candidate and her supporters are tantrums.
Allene A. Murphey
As a white female Democrat in her 50s, I recognize and appreciate the disappointment of Hillary Clinton supporters at the outcome of the primary elections (Inquirer, June 4). However, jumping to the John McCain camp out of anger or frustration would deny everything Clinton stands for: women's rights, gay rights, a swift end to the Iraq war, tax breaks for the middle class. Let's not embody that reviled stereotype of the woman who acts with her emotions instead of her intellect. We're way more evolved than that.
For the first time in my life I am ashamed to be a woman. I hope the women who intend to vote for John McCain and 100 more years of Iraq can face themselves in the mirror the day after the election. I know I couldn't.