Palin not a good choice for the country
It’s high time to break some shells in the excessive “politically correct” environment that has everyone walking on eggs these days here in the “land of the free.”

John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin to run for vice president on the November ticket was obviously based on her gender and image. Consider McCain’s brief decision-making process based on a nodding acquaintance. When she became mayor of Wasilla, Ala., as a bold novice in government administration, she dismissed suggestions to hire a city manager, remarking the post didn’t require “rocket science.” Yet, once in office, bravado gave in to reality, and Wasilla did get a city manager.

Palin boasts her view of Russia from “Alaska land” as credentials for experience in foreign affairs. Yet the sophistication gained by traveling abroad develops a tolerance and greater understanding of different people and cultures.  This is necessary for repairing the damage that has transformed our allies into aliens recently.

But do not underestimate this woman. Beneath the Colgate smile and rapid rhetoric, we see a shrewd politician marching to the Bush beat, but also aware of the bonus the notoriety this campaign brings to her state’s tourism and other business.

As for women voters, especially Hillary Clinton supporters, it is imperative not to allow justified disappointment to distort priorities with a revenge vote. The McCain-Palin ticket holds little hope for women’s health issues. Despite having two daughters of her own, Palin does not even consider rape or incest reason enough for a woman to measure her own stamina to survive this criminal act.

Yet “pro-Animal-Life” demonstrates a different turn for Palin. As a self-proclaimed skilled marksman who hunts moose, she opposes gun control despite the deaths of urban innocents killed by criminals with easy access to other than hunter’s weapons.

As a peer within McCain’s age group, I honor the military service and sacrifices of his youth which probably explains his adamant intention to keep our troops in Iraq even if “it takes 100 years.” But this is a new day in dire need of new solutions.

Palin’s gender and image is not reason enough to vote her into high office. The timing is bad considering the current crisis in foreign and domestic affairs. Her nomination reads like a rerun movie – party loyalty above national need. Shame on such selfishness.
Jean Rodgers, Broadview

Clinton supporters should support Barack Obama
At least in politics, this is “The Year of the Woman.” We watched a skilled, intelligent, compassionate woman run for president. We saw her narrowly lose to a talented man whose policies and priorities basically mirrored those of Hillary Clinton’s. The Democratic primary race made me proud to be not only a woman, but an American.

Here, in these two presidential candidates, we had the  opportunity to instill wisdom back in the White House, into our international reputation and in our future. When Sen. Clinton conceded, many of us felt defeated. Yet, we still had a candidate with her qualities who championed her aspirations. As a country, we could still be winners.

Each time I hear a Hillary Clinton supporter proclaim that she is now undecided about her vote, I cringe. Didn’t Hillary Clinton stand for your beliefs? Doesn’t Barack Obama continue to uphold them? And where, oh where, are they in John McCain’s platform?

Disenchanted women voters make me cringe. Sarah Palin for vice president makes me recoil in horror. Can this blatant ploy to ensnare women and ultraconservative voters really work? Is it possible that women cannot discern between an intelligent candidate who supports their values from a wholly unqualified, anachronistic candidate who happens to be a woman? Some commentators heralded John McCain’s vice presidential choice as “brilliant.” Brilliant in what way?

A brilliant way to get elected, regardless of the dearth of skills required to actually do the job?
If judgment is still an issue in this election, as justifiably it should be, doesn’t the McCain-Palin ticket telegraph to all of us the lengths to which John McCain will go to serve his own interest, regardless of the consequences to this country’s?  Am I the only one feeling badly used by the Republican party?

We had an admirable woman presidential candidate, a hope to prove to the country just how well a woman could lead. She lost, but in her place stands an equally deserving Democratic candidate.

We also have a naive, inexperienced woman vice presidential nominee; outstanding Republican women were overlooked. Sarah Palin is not my choice for a trailblazer. She and we are being badly used. John McCain, you should be ashamed and if we fall for this manipulation, we will get the leadership we deserve and we, too, rightly should be ashamed.
Nancy Luiz, La Grange Park

Republicans rewrote welfare reform
In the interest of integrity and accuracy, please allow me to prevent Charita Goshay from rewriting history and promoting her own version of past events (“Cufflink Welfare; 17 Sept.”). Ms. Goshay writes, “It took Bill Clinton, who pushed and prodded a Republican led Congress, to intiate (welfare) reform.” Not true.

Historians record that Clinton capitulated to Republican demands and finally signed welfare reform legislation after vetoing it twice. House and senate Republicans had to push it through a third time to get Clinton to sign it. Clinton signed, against the outrage of senior Democrats and the entire left wing liberal establishment. The Republican Congress dominated the writing of the legislation creating the actual program.

Republicans wanted to break the entitlement to “free money” and make getting cash contingent on serious attempts to find work. In the years since the program was initiated, welfare roles have decreased 60 percent and the employment rate of single mothers has reached the highest level ever. The real earnings of single mothers have increased every year, while receiving less money from welfare. Republicans drove welfare reform and Clinton signed it.
Greg Saganich, Riverside