Let's look at Hillary's qualifications by examining Health Care Reform. Hillary was way in over her head and portrayed herself as someone reaching out when her leadership on Health Care was "my way or the highway".
While a student at Army War College in 1993, I did my own analysis on Health Care Reform and discovered that if MEDICARE and MEDICAID were restructured to be part of the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program (similar to what Senator Christopher Dodd proposed), that coverage could be expanded and savings up to $956Billion could be realized over a four year period (yes that is Billion with a "B").
I wrote Hillary, William, Al and Tipper Gore on the issue to provide this input. You see, I bought into the "tell us what you think" statements they were making. I got confirmation of receipt from all four and did not hear anything back.
Later, while on a trip to DC as part of the War College curriculum, I was in the Old Executive office building. I decided to look up Tipper Gore's office and hand carry a copy of my analysis to Tipper for her review.
What I saw indicated complete lack of organization and disregard for inputs from American citizens on the issue of Health Care. Specifically, there were pieces of paper hung up on doors with masking tape with the words "Health Care Task Force" handwritten on them, indicating a complete ad hoc approach to the task. Secondly, there was what I call the "dead letter" file. There was an abandoned cart in the middle of the hallway with hundreds of letters stacked up. These letters were from people across the country pouring their hearts and souls into the effort, trying to help where they could. I know because I read some of them. Yet, for all the talk on inclusion, inputs from people across the country were ignored.
The "Let's Chat" mantra of Hillary is an act - don't let her kid you. In addition to ignoring inputs from citizens, she has simply proven herself to be inept at building consensus and at being willing to face facts and realize one shoe does not fit all. Health Care needs to be reformed but in a systems integration approach of making sure people are able to select, based on market availability and their needs, what they need for health care, instead of having it forced upon them.
Hillary's lack of ability to sheppard our country through difficult times ahead and take tough challenges head on by building teams/coalitions is troubling at best and points to her lacking the qualifications to be President and Commander in Chief.
Gregory S. Hollister
Colonel, USAF, Retired
Colorado Springs, Col.

Political candidates should be fined each and every time they intentionally distort an opponent's records and held accountable for this kind of unethical behavior and slander. Example, Hillary's recent statement she made on Meet the Press in which she said: "Sen. Obama's chief strategist accuses me of playing a role in Benazir Bhutto's assassination.'' When in actuality David Axelrod never made such an accusation. He said former Prime Minister Bhutto's death will ''call into issue the judgment'' of ''taking the eye off the ball and making the wrong judgment in going into Iraq.''
That statement of her's is Outrageous and potentially Slanderous! After all, most of us teach our children to play fair -- not to lie, cheat and steal! The leaders we elect to office should be held to a higher standard and should be people of principal, high moral character, honest and forthright.
Second: There is a time to be silent and a time to speak. Unfortunately, Senator Obama had no choice other than to diplomatically confront the Clintons on their lies and misstatements. He cannot and could not allow them to paint a picture of him that is NOT TRUE. The Clintons' tactics are old time party politics and should be a thing of the past as we move towards the 21st Century, towards cleaner air, cleaner water, cleaner politics, towards a more holistic way of living. It is a greater duty and in the best interest of the country for Barack Obama to continue to stay positive and hopeful while attempting to clear his record from these misstatements -- as he continues to try to bring this country together and lift it up from fear and a distrust of one another -- and to continue to show the American people and the world there is another way to run for office other than smear and fear and tearing your opponent down with lies and slander -- Swiftboating! That is why Obama and Huckabee are so appealing. They are authentic and each in their own way are trying to lead the Americans away from dirty campaigning, lies and tricks. How can we as a country be blessed and be a beacon of light to others after all that ugly and dirty fighting (lies, distortions and slander) we can't be. There is a positive way -- honorable way to fight with dignity, honesty and truth and a dirty way to fight that is unethical and slanderous and without dignity. And too, we have to ask ourselves as a people, why do we allow this unethical and negative way of campaigning to be acceptable and then reward this kind of behavior, with one of the highest offices in the land?
Julie Washington
Philadelphia

I am fustrated! It seems mainstream media is trying to hand select the presidential candidates. Awarding coverage to those with "enough money to win" or "issues that are resonating". All of the candidates should receieve some regular coverage.
If I didn't read extensively and watch alternative media, I wouldn't even know that Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards are still running. John Edwards is a viable candidate. Why are you not showing more of him on your programming? All I see is Obama and Clinton on the Dem side. If your afraid of confusing the American people with to many options, your not. This is to important to play games with the amount of coverage each candidate should receive.
Actually, the less money a candidate has in his or her campaign, the more coverate they should recieve. Stop surpressing democracy by trying to dictate who "should" be the front-running cadidates and play fair.
Anthony Maccaroni
Ewing, NJ

Dear Trentonian:
Barak Obama is no friend to the Arab-American community.
This is not a newsflash to many. However, the masses swallowing Obama's message of "change" and "hope" are cause for alarm. One can assume these people espouse liberal ideals: a domestic agenda centered on social justice and foreign policy which will see an end to the ill-conceived war on Iraq.
Of all the presumably well-meaning, wide eyed masses at Obama rallies chanting "Fired Up! Ready to Go!" and the sound bytes of voters echoing the "change/hope" mantra, it is doubtful any of them can name one specific example of what Obama will do to bring about that change once-God forbid-he is elected president.
For that matter, do any of them care to examine Obama's voting record in the U.S. Senate? While Obama proclaims he is the only major candidate who did not vote for giving authorization to invade Iraq (he was not yet serving in the Senate when that vote took place), he has voted to appropriate additional funds, enabling the war and occupation of Iraq to continue. Furthermore, Obama voted for the renewal of the Patriot Act and for the construction of the 700-mile border fence with Mexico.
Speaking of "security fences," not only is Obama a wall-builder here at home, he is a staunch supporter of the Israeli government's wall to separate Palestinian farmers from their land, children from their schools, patients from their hospitals, workers from their jobs. Like nearly all U.S. politicians-at least the ones that are upwardly mobile-Obama is a die-hard supporter of Israel and is in the back pocket of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). But this was not always the case.
Ali Abunimah, founder of the Electronic Intifada and contributor to the Chicago Tribune, wrote in March 2007 that Obama had frequented Arab-American community events in the past, including a 1998 fundraiser featuring the late Edward Said as a keynote speaker. Obama was openly critical of U.S. policy vis-a-vis the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
That all changed when Obama, who had been defeated in a bid for the House of Representatives, began his successful run for the U.S. Senate. According to Abunimah, Obama told him at a gathering in Chicago, "'Hey, I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front."
It never happened. Obama became further ensconced in the politics of Zionism when he co-sponsored an amendment to the Illinois Pension Code enabling that state to lend money to the Israeli government.
In January 2006, Obama made his first trip to Occupied Palestine, seeing it first from the vantage point of an IDF helicopter. Later he met with a group of college students at Jerusalem University's Ramallah branch. An International Solidarity Movement (ISM) member, identified only by her first name, Katie, was in the audience.
Like Ali Abunimah, Katie was under the impression that Obama was a progressive, compassionate individual who would be sympathetic with the plight of Palestinians. And like Ali Abunimah, she was in for a rude awakening.
Katie recalled the event in a widely disseminated e-mail. She questioned Obama's comments regarding the need for Arab governments to embrace democracy, not theocracy. "...How can you explain to the Palestinian people how the U.S. can be opposed to these things (theocracy and terrorism) but still supports a state that has racist, oppressive, unjust and apartheid policies...?" she asked.
According to Katie, Obama informed her that he would not accept the assumptions she made, thereby ignoring that part of her question. He added the U.S. relationship with Israel was not going to change. And this is our "change" candidate?
Obama made it clear in his speech to AIPAC on March 2, 2007. The following is taken from the text of that speech, as prepared for delivery: "...we must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs. This would help Israel maintain its military edge and deter and repel attacks from as far as Tehran and as close as Gaza. And when Israel is attacked, we must stand up for Israel's legitimate right to defend itself." The sinister implications of this statement are twofold. This highly creative scenario involving Iran can be used to justify another pre-emptive U.S. attack at some point in the future. Secondly, it further demonizes the beleaguered citizens of Gaza, casting them in the role of aggressor. Such rhetoric is lockstep with the Bush administration.
Obama, who claims to be anti-war, has said in numerous interviews that "no options are off the table" when it comes to Iran. This agenda also bows to the will of AIPAC, as it was Ariel Sharon who said "first Iraq, then Iran."
Ironically, during a Democratic debate held just days before the New Hampshire Primary, Obama decried the influence of special interest groups on Washington. He also called for more bipartisanship, more "cross-aisle cooperation." Sorry, Senator Obama, but my idea of bipartisanship does not have room for saber-rattling against Iran, wiretapping my phone or sending the FBI to my door. Not to mention that multi-million dollar border fence. If Obama supporters are duped into thinking he is the self-proclaimed "candidate of change," they can guess again. With Obama, we can expect more of the same: Zionist interests ahead of America's. Always.
Sincerely,
Tammy Obeidallah
Bradford, Ohio

By LA Parker

OK, America, we have had our fun with idealistic dreams of a black man being president of these United States.Now we can return to the status quo that presidential candidate John Edwards voices his heartfelt disdain for before people actually begin believing this pipe dream.Barack Obama supporters packed the Trenton Marriott on Tuesday night before Queen Hillary Clinton unleashed a New Hampshire primary victory that put the political world, and our society, back into perspective.Obama may well be an agent of CHANGE (Come Help A Negro Get Elected), but America is not ready for a black man with a middle name of Hussein being leader of the most powerful nation in the world. A nation that, just two decades ago, struggled with the notion of putting a black man in as an National Football League quarterback, should not claim it’s prepared for a black signal-caller for the country.The relative proximity of Obama to Osama (bin Laden) and Hussein, as in Saddam, registers as political liability in a nation that remains traumatized by September 11 events, when terrorists employed hijacked airliners as projectiles into World Trade Center buildings, the Pentagon and one other plane that ditched in a Pennsylvania field.Political pundits attempted to understand how Obama lost an estimated double-digit lead in New Hampshire, although the answer is simple: A significant number of voters obviously were not forthcoming when asked whom they would support.In less politically correct terms, they lied.With the Obama hysteria in full force after a stirring Iowa caucus win, an understanding exists here why people would say they had hitched their support to the Illinois senator’s star. However, what people do in the privacy of their isolated voting booth often is an antithesis of what they espoused in the white hot light of a television camera or an inquiring pollster.Truth becomes an objectivity lost somewhere between one’s heart and mind during an exchange of information when we give the questioner answers they want to hear.While white voters might hedge their real thoughts, fearing the perception regarding their own persona might not be politically correct if they voice their support for anyone other than Obama, blacks face their own scrutiny.Those blacks who may believe Clinton or Edwards may be a better choice than Obama probably hold tight to those ideas instead of falling victim to “you ain’t black unless you vote for the black candidate” ridicule.If you listen to political prognostications, Obama will do well in South Carolina because half of the electorate is black. The assumption is that blacks will, should or must vote for the black brother, which is a blatantly racist conclusion.Let me understand this: Whites will vote for the better qualified candidate, but blacks in South Carolina, at least, will uplift Obama because of his race.Our march toward civil rights garnered numerous advantages, including one called freedom of choice.If one more person blathers that the Obama victory in Iowa represents some great leap forward for America and restores faith in these United States and a wonderful ascent of white people, the hope here is that Mother Nature directs a meteor to strike downtown Des Moines.One look at urban and rural areas that teem with violence, drugs, unemployment, murder, gun proliferation, inadequate health care, derelict education systems, poverty and prisons filled up with more black men than on college campuses, display real issues of this presidential race.Any suggestion that blacks have somehow arrived because Obama runs for president misrepresents the real black experience.L.A. Parker is a Trentonian award-winning columnist and reporter. His column appears on Thursday and Saturday. Reach him at laparker@Trentonian.com.