Not a moral equivalent
Editor of the Reformer:
In his column last week "Choosing between a punch in the face or a kick in the shins,July 27) Fish called Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton "two of the worst candidates ever."
That is unfair and untrue. Yes, Trump is a cretin (which I know from personal experience, having worked on several projects for the Trump organization.) But Hillary Clinton has a strong record of effective service in human rights, social justice, racial and gender equality, the environment, health care and children's issues.
Clinton may not be Fish's ideal candidate: it's true that she accepted payment for speeches to financial organizations and used a private email server for classified communications. But she is also an intelligent, compassionate human being and unquestionably dedicated to serving our country's interests. She does not deserve to be lumped in with Donald Trump as his moral equivalent.
Sanders supporters always knew that Bernie was a long shot. And when he lost the nomination, they blamed the Democratic Party's "superdelegate" system. But superdelegates aren't new. Back in 2008, Democratic superdelegates helped nominate Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton. And there were no objections then. In fact, Clinton conceded gracefully, then threw herself heart and soul into campaigning for Obama.
If Fish truly believes that Clinton is "one of the worst candidates ever," I would draw his attention to former candidates George Wallace, Lester Maddox, George W. Bush, Bob Barr, and Barry Goldwater. Then there's Richard Nixon, who was unquestionably racist and paranoid, and Michael Dukakis, who seemed clueless at times. And what about James Buchanan, servant of the Southern slavery system? In fact, in terms of intelligence, heart, dedication, experience and executive ability, I think you'd have to look long and hard for a better candidate than Hillary Clinton.
Patience Merriman, Jacksonville, Aug. 1