Stuart Meiklejohn:

Hillary Clinton doesn't believe in anything other than her own right to power; we have had that for the last seven years and it hasn't served us well.  And pointing to her "experience" in the Clinton administration's foreign policy is a bit odd when you consider how inept much of that foreign policy was.  What worked in the 1990s was the economy and she can't take credit for that.

John Edwards is an articulate and thoughtful candidate who will fight for certain principles, most of which I, too, view as important.  I'm not sure how much political capital he can generate in support of those things, though.

Barack Obama seems to me the best bet for genuinely new ideas and new approaches toward solving problems that are qualitiatively different from those faced by the political world in which Clinton and Edwards have succeeded:  an America that is so far off its true course that it needs radical correction; a global community that needs to identify and deal with issues of common concern, many of which have, bizarrely, become points of division instead of agreement (like terrorists who want to blow up things and people in many different parts of the world); and a planet that may well not be habitable by humans in a few generations.  It's true he's young; that's part of the point.

George Dufresne, La Habra:

THE MOST QUALIFIED CANIDATES ARE  SEN JOE BIDIN AND SEN CHRIS DODD, THEN GOV RICHARDSON OF NEW MEXICO. BUT THEY WILL NEVER GET THE NOMINATION BECAUSE IT TAKES $100,000.000. TO WIN ..WE MUST HAVE PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FINANCING..YOU  CAN NOT CAMPARE THE TOP THREE.. CLINTON, EDWARDS AND OBAMA .TO BIDEN ,DODD OR RICHARDSON WHEN IT COMES TO EXPERENCE, SUCCESS IN LEGISLATION AND HONESTY. THANK YOU

Donald K. Switzer, Rogers, Arkansas:

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The Editorial of December 31was, at least to me, a masterpiece of prose and an admirable encapsulation of  the horrors we and the entire World have faced over the almost concluded seven years of the Bush II Administration. But,  most importantly, it makes it more clear than any other one "piece of paper" I have come across the true enormity of the decisions we all have to face in the upcoming election. 

This is not only a terribly important time; it may well be the very last time we have a chance to set our Nation back on the right track--to take back the blessings of Liberty from those who have, without exageration, consciously conspired  to extinguish our liberties by enlarging the powers of the Executive at the expense of the Legislative.  They have, as was so well-stated in the Editorial, relied upon those too timid to speak up, those too fearful of terrorism to insist upon Liberty and thereby let our freedoms of free speech, of reasonable search and seizure only upon warrant, of habeus corpus, excising the right to trial from the Constitution and so many, many others start that slide away in the ephermal name of  "security."  This is not an easy matter upon which to write, for it is so clear that each of us has friends and family who have, out of either conviction or fear, knowingly and quietly allowed those rights to start sliding down that "Oh so slippery" slope. 

The question of who should be the next President is made even more difficult than it should be since we are not simply discussing issues.  We, of necessity, have to look within the hearts, minds and souls of those who are running for the office and determine (if we can) who is the better man or woman to lead the Country in this time---without becoming "hooked" upon one or more issues upon which the candidates may seem to agree with us personally--and thereby forgetting the larger landscape and its collage of problems. 

Campaign speeches and platform promises have never meant very much over the course of our history, and the so-called media "debates" that have taken over the airwaves since the original Kennedy-Nixon era have made a mockery out of actual intelligent discourse.   The "debates" have obviously always been flawed by the demands of campaign managers made upon the television networks; but in the instant campaign the flaws have become so much more apparent, even dangerous, because they have had the effect, on the Repubican side, of allowing a former disc jockey, sports announcer, divinity school drop out and Southern Baptist Preacher who became the Governor of Arkansas totally by accident to suddenly become someone who is seriously considered as a serious candidate--simply because his offbeat and unremarkable work history has made him glib of tongue and quick with a retort.  There is no substance behind the glib tongue (I personally know the man), yet the media and the juvenile system of "debate" being used has made a vacuous "artful dodger" such as he appear likeable!

So, we have to make a choice within the context of a system which is unworkable, even useless, if its object is actually to ascertain who is the best available candidate to lead the Country.  My belief is that somehow, some way, we as a Nation of three hundred million persons must determine, or be convinced to determine our candidates of the major parties on the basis of character, experience and wisdom--but equally important is the fact that we must not confuse raw, sometimes brazen intellect with wisdom, and we certainly must not vote for someone because we believe he or she is a "nice person."  Likeability or "niceness" is too easily feigned and is but the facade beyond which any responsible voter must view the candidate.

I cannot personally know for an absolute fact who is the best "person" to choose; but I do have some ideas when I think about the character of the candidates, one whom I know personally, one I have met on one occasion, and another I went to Vanderbilt Law School with.  Another candidate my brother knows personally, and I helped him write a book in the last year which he has, of course, used in his campaign.  Based upon this bit of personal and some second hand knowledge, and upon my close following of  the campaign, as tarnished as I admit my judgment must be by my some inevitable prejudices, my belief is that the Country would be in a pretty good position to resolve the issues facing it if the Republican nominee were John McCain and if the Democratic nominee were John Edwards.   

Mr. McCain is someone with inestimable experience, possessed of a superior intelligence, and he has battled the wars of politics on the National and International scene for many years.  if ever there were a man who, on paper, were qualified to be President it is Joihn McCain.  I do not believe there is anyone else of even arguable substance now running for the Republican nomination. 

Mr. Edwards, whom I have never met, impresses me for his sincerity, his ability to communicate with persons of great and little stature, and his clear conviction that in a democracy it is the "man on the street" whose rights must not be given away or trampled upon by the special interests of the petroleum, financial, defense, and pharmaceutical industries.  He is not substantially experienced in international affairs; but I do recall from Robert S. McNamara's In Retrospect his relation of a conversation he had wth President-elect Kennedy in the interrugum between the election of November 1960 and his taking office in Janurary 1961.   McNamarra, despite his enormous intellect, was truly concerned about his lack of applicable experience to become Secretary of Defense, expressd this of the President-elect, and Mr. Kennedy replied words to the effect that what he was looking for was a man of strength and intellgence, not afraid of standing up to Generals or defense industry representatives--or those on the "Hill" pimping for them.   And besides that, "They do not have a school that teaches anyone how to be President either."

So, if faced with that choice, where I would be convinced that either candidate would be capable of and inclined to bring the United States back to that status of liberty of which we have always dreamed, I would vote for Mr. Edwards.  He is such a good man; someone of great intelligence and substantial political and legal experience, he has a good heart and has  manifested tremendous jugment.  Has he made mistakes?  certainly.  But I am not aware of any candidate of either party who has lived a life free of mistake.  And if there were a school for Presidents Senatr Edwards would finish at the top of his class.  I believe that former Senator John Edwards should be the next President ot  the United States.

Lucy Flanner, S. Lake Tahoe:

At this point in my studying of all our candidates for the presidency, I would choose Joe Biden.   He appears to have the most experience and overall knowledge and the common sense to use them intelligently.   He would also be able to pull our warring do-nothing Congress together to work for the good of the Country rather than their own selfish interests.   

Sheldon J. Baer, Woodland Hills:

The Bush legacy will not be overcome in a single four year term but the next President can begin to offset the damages done by trying to convince the American public that the Reagan mantra is and was wrong.

...First, the government is NOT the problem but greedy, dishonest individuals make it seem that way.

...Second, a country's obligation is to ALL its people, not only to the wealthiest. Fair taxation is not sin

...Third, a great country leads in the effort to minimize the planetary threat of global warming by offering an alternative energy plan. It does not cling to hydrocarbons and deny reality.

...Fourth, our country can no longer pretend that it has the answer to all political and socioeconomic problems. It must first regain its credibility by living up to the promise implicit in the Constitution and set its own house in order.

...Fifth, fear is the antithesis of good governance. We can confront our many problems by dealing with them honestly and recognizing what each of us can do to make things incrementally better for all.

Jennifer Lee, Glendale:

I strongly support John Edwards, he is smart, knowledgeable and sincere, I believe that he is the most electable of the thee leading candidates. Unfortunately, it seems to me that the LA Times has covered him less than the other two front runners which I think this is a mistake, I hope to see more about him in the coming days and I really really hope that you will support him.

Leonard Auslender:

THANK YOU for presenting this series over the last several weeks. You had the guts to say what needed to be said and to exhort what still needs doing. Keep it up.

Eric J. Beck, Reseda:

To The Times,

I support Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, or "The Whacko Ticket", as I call 'em. I know, they'll never get elected, much less make up a ticket. But I support integrity over a "lesser of two evils". I would rather vote my conscience than waste my vote on a surer thing.  So, either they get their respective nominations, and my vote for President, or I don't vote.

I'm one of the guilty, one of those who cast a vote in 2000 for another "whacko", and a man of great integrity, Ralph Nader.  Vilified years ago for the choice, it now looks as if I and other Nader supporters were right! George W. Bush has been a disaster for this country, and Al Gore, the guy we were supposed to vote for, now stands on a platform more familiar to Nader, one built more on humanitarian principles than campaign promises.  And lo and behold, the rest of the world regards Gore a hero, fighting for the globe and the future all mankind! Too bad he didn't embrace these Nader-like values back in 2000. He would've been elected. And it's too bad that in THIS country, because of the media's enslavement to Big Business, Gore is now largely regarded as...a whacko.

Like Nader, Kucinich and Paul are also men of great integrity. No flip-flopping, no pandering, no selling out. These men have staked their reputations, and gotten elected, on the same set of principles since the first day they ran for office.  They've taken highly unpopular stands, defied conventional thinking, opposed their own party, been labeled "whackos" in the doing. But whether it's opposing the Iraq War, promoting environmentalism in order to sustain growth, prosperity and public health, protecting the Constitution of the United States for obvious reasons,  or fighting Big Auto - and stubborn Americans who initially fought "for the right to go through the windshield" - to install seat belts in every car (How many lives do you think Ralph Nader has saved for that act alone?), these men have shown true honor and altruism in their public lives.  And you'll note these men span the political spectrum, and I don't agree with everything they say. But I trust them, and that trumps everything at this point.

So, let Americans fall for the same old crap as they get misled by media and candidates to vote for the same candidates, in different clothes, over and over and over again. Let these other candidates sell America to the highest bidder, while they neglect the poor and hungry, the young and old. Let these other candidates, in the name of profit, despoil this great land, along with it's air and water.  Vote for Romney. Vote for Giuliani. Vote for Hillary.  Vote for campaign promises over character and principles. And watch yet another four years of a nation imploding, and listen to another four years of buyers remorse.  Me, I'll rest easier, knowing I made the right choice, despite the fact that my heart will ache that so many didn't.

Naomi Stephan, Ph.D., ASCAP, Ojai:

Dear LA Times:

I support Dennis Kucinich for President for one reason alone:  he would allow my foreign born partner to obtain residency in the US, allowing us to enjoy all the rights and privileges of marriage equality that heterosexuals do. None of the other candidates gives a damn about gay and lesbian rights. They posture.

We do not participate in the alleged Blessings of Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness in America.  They are denied us daily in countless ways. As 10% of the population (when you count all us closeted ones), we deserve equal rights and much more media attention about our plight. (You barely mentioned us in your nine editorials.)

Dennis promises to change all that. 

As a feminist and former civil rights marcher, it is sad that I cannot vote for a woman or an African- American candidate. At age 69, I shall be watching the election from my new European home, which does not feel the need boast about freedoms they enjoy and grant.

Bonnie Burns Price, Ph.D., La Mesa:

Dear Editors:

This message is sent in response to your request in today's editorial in the Times for submissions of rationales for support of presidential candidates.  I have attached an endorsement message I drafted for Hillary Rodham Clinton for distribution to my family, friends, and their associates, for their consideration prior to voting.  I hope your editorial board will consider the message as part of your deliberations in advance of endorsement of presidential candidates, too.

Thank you for providing this opportunity to participate in your decision process.

Joseph  A  Blackman:

A great Editorial. Much of the content you wrote about the past seven years (Bush Presidency) poll today on the Iternet news AOL rated his job performance 67% POOR.  With this record most employers in any company would long ago dismissed him.  Why is he still in office! People in Europe and Central and South America can't believe the American people are so quiet. From early childhood I was told how beautiful this country is blessed with good leaders and how we would accomplish great things for whole world. Right now I am not proud to be an American. I'am not sure we have the luxury of time (one more year in the White House) . I pray all of us will take your editorial seriously and make a good choice come next November.

                                           
Nick Seidita:

The reasons I support Dennis Kucinich for President are largely  stated by his prime endorser The Nation in the January 7/14  2008 editorial.

"In his stands on the issues, Dennis Kucinich comes closest to embodying  the ideals of this magazine. He has been a forceful critic of the Bush administration, opposing the Patriot Act and spearheading the motion to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney. He is the only candidate to have  voted against the Iraq War  in 2003 and has voted against funding it ever since. Of all the serious candidates, only he and Governor Bill Richardson propose a full and immediate withdrawal from Iraq. And only Kucinich's plan sets aside funds for reparations. Moreover, Kucinich has used his presidential campaign  to champion issues like cutting the military budget and abolishing nuclear weapons; universal, single payer healthcare;  campaign finance reform; same-sex marriage and an end to  the death penalty and the war on drugs.  A vote for him would be a principled one."

In addition,Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate for President who has endorsed the movement to amend the Constitution with a CHILDREN'S  & YOUTHS' BILL of Rights for EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. I and the Alliance for Democracy initiated this movement in 1996. It has been endorsed by listed, distinguished, secular and religious progressive leaders. It calls for public services to provide the young in need with adequate: protection from poverty; health care; child care for disabled or unemployed parents; suitable education; and transition from school to a suitable job with a living income.

 
David Morgan:

Even though I've previously voted mostly Democratic, this time I'm thinking seriously about Ron Paul. He's the only candidate who states quite specifically that we need to stop our disastrous interference in Middle Eastern (and other non-American regional) affairs and, in general, return to the concepts of our national forbears. Returning powers taken from Congress by the President and powers taken from the states by Congress seems to me a good and positive thing. And the Fair Tax idea seems fair indeed.

Returning manufacturing to our shores is another sound idea, as is not spending more than we take in.

My fear of the other candidates is that they (with the exception of Edwards, my 2nd choice) will be too manipulable by the existing corporate-run political and economic system. And the neocon American Empire concept sends shivers up and down my spine---we have neither the right nor the might to try to bring that into being.

The money we spend on foreign meddling should be spent on solving our own problems, especially education and health-care.

Those are some of my current thoughts, for what they're worth. Thanks,

Ann Sherman James, Los Angeles:

I support for president Giuliani because of his proven leadership in crises.

And I support for vice president Obama because of his desperately needed common sense.

I am fully aware of the political disparity.  I think it would be healthy for our country.

Thank you, Ann

Mike Buttitta, Rancho Palos Verdes:

Hi, my name is Mike Buttitta.  I am a retired Police Detective, having served both Los Angeles City and the State of California for more than 35 years.  I grew up in a Democratic family and supported both Kennedys in the 1960s.  As a young adult I had a change of mind and actually became a Reagan Republican.  Reagan appeared to be the president we needed at the time, but his policies and those of the republican machine have haunted America since.  As I experienced life in general I slowly realized that I was more of an independent thinker and changed my political affiliation to "Declines to State", saying I would vote for the "best" candidate, no matter which party.  Then came the Bush administration.  The nation has been bullied and fooled by this administration.  They have attempted to create issues that really divide America, but in fact do not really affect many of us.  As an investigator I have been amazed at how the country has been lied to, cheated and mislead.  It takes little effort to read or listen to several different information sources to figure out that something is terribly wrong.  Barack Obama has inspired me.  He speaks from his heart and not to the polls.  He tells us what he believes and not what he thinks we want to hear.  He talks of uniting us and not dividing us.  I feel and truly believe that Obama can change the direction and the "politics as usual" that has plagued Washington for far too long.  We have had either a Bush or a Clinton since 1989.  We deserve a change.  The 2008 election is vitally important, not only to me, my children, my grandchildren, but also for generations to come.    We need a change in our government and we need it now.  The best person to lead us into that change is Sen. Obama.  Let us restore the United States as the true leader of the World.  A United States that can be respected, trusted and relied upon.  We must all get out and vote this time.  Good luck to all of us.

Linda Seltzer, Davis:

I am voting for Gov. Bill Richardson.  I believe he has the best diplomacy experience to resolve the Iraq situation and keep the US out of war.  In addition, he has worked to bring jobs into New Mexico.

Edward Tabash, Attorney at Law, Beverly Hills:

Each of the Republicans running for the presidency would appoint justices to the Supreme Court who would overturn 60 years of precedent by nullifying the separation of church and state.  If government at all levels could begin to formally push and promote religious belief, even generally, the rights of conscience of the non believer and of many religious dissenters would be gravely compromised.  Each Democrat running would nominate Supreme Court justices who would preserve the historically accurate interpretation of the religion and free speech clauses of the First Amendment.

So, it comes down to choosing among the Democrats.  All of the Democratic candidates have fine qualities.  However, Barack Obama is the very best among the very good.  He stands out from the rest of the candidates of his party with his in depth proposals regarding education and health care.  While he would never get us involved in preemptive wars like the one currently bogging us down in Iraq, he would not hesitate to enter Pakistani territory in an effort to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden, the main individual source of terror against the United States.

Senator Obama embodies the principles of a mainstream moderate liberalism that can serve as the best antidote to right wing fundamentalism, without steering us into left wing extremism.  He has a calming and charismatic approach to rectifying our problems that can soothe and heal bitter divisions and that can inspire all of us to seek a new era of compassionate cooperation with each other.  I urge the Los Angeles Times to endorse Barack Obama for president.

Mark Heinemann:

Obama voted against the war and fought against the torture of prisoners. The news speaks of how the "surge is working". It is working to do what? Iraq has moved away from the progress it had, and it is now moving toward the dark ages. Woman are losing their rights. Poverty is everywhere.

If we were fighting to free the Iraq people, we are losing. If we are fighting to steal the oil and give control of the oil to Haliburton, it is a big win.

I fear that this "war against terrorism" is simple an excuse for a power grab. We handed control of this nation and all our freedoms to the NSA and CIA. I hope Obama can reverse some of that, although I am not sure anyone can. Secret courts and the liberal use of torture is a long way from the America I once fought for in the military!

Again, I see Obama as some hope, and the rest as no hope.

Reta Richardson, Ninety Six, SC:

Of all the strong and good candidates running in the Republican and Democratic primary races,  the one who stands out and above all the others: Obama. 

Gwen Packard, Veyo, UT:

As a registered Independent for over 40 years, this campaign has been one that has caused many doubts and even fears regarding what the candidates really believe and would do for (and to) our country.  I have tuned out the many debates and most of the hoopla and tried to concentrate on the core beliefs of the candidates and find that the only one who gives me any sense of honesty and truthfulness is John Edwards.

Religion has come to be a rallying cry for too many of the candidates and I do not trust a candidate who wears his religion on his sleeve.  Edwards has his faith, but does not push it in my face or seem to think that belief in God is a primary qualification for the leader of this country.  I do not know what he will do in the months before the election or if he will even be the Democratic nominee, but he seems to be the one who cares most for the future of the country and its people.

Bill Seibel, Glendora:

My choice for president is Barack Obama.

The biggest issue facing us today is global warming.  Other things of importance are the power of the executive office in general and how it relates to the particular issues of torture and privacy.  Other top issues are healthcare, and Iraq.  Overriding all the issues is the fact that I want a president of the United States not some 25 to 30% frothing-at-the-mouth “base”.

Republicans will be too beholden to their base; this would only insure the status quo on the issues.  John McCain would probably address global warming with more effectiveness than Bush and would set us on the right course on torture (there would be none). He is still is too hard-headed on Iraq among other things but I do respect that he truthfully says where he stands.  I could see him working with the opposition party more than just about anybody (except Obama).

This only leaves a democrat as a viable choice for me.  Obama and Clinton are the only ones who stand a chance of getting nominated.  Clinton does not seem genuine at all and is beholden to big money interests.  She is polarizing and I could see a “fortress Clinton” White House before long.  And finally, I don’t think she is electable in a general election. 

Obama, while he is not very experienced, is bright and articulate and intellectually qualified for the job (quite a change over the last 8 years); I have no doubt he could learn on the job.  He seems to understand and desires for bringing people together.  This is what the American people need more than anything now.

Carol A. Becker, Torrance:

Thank you, L.A Times for inviting your readers to state our reasons for supporting a presidential candidate.  Thank you, too. for running this enlightening and inspiring series on American values.  Reading your brief discussion of a phrase from the Preamble to the Constitution, followed by a historical perspective tied to our present challenges helped me to define my reasons for supporting Barack Obama for President of the United States.

In your editorial titled 'Pursuit of Happiness', you discuss some of the challenges the next president will face when trying to bring fiscal discipline to the Congress.  I haven't seen much mention in the press of candidates' legislative accomplishments; therefore, I will go into some detail on this point.  The other day during in a speech in Iowa, Senator Obama remarked that we don't need more "heat" in Washington,D.C.  We need more "light"!  Government transparency or "light" has been the goal of much of the legislation that Senator Obama has proposed and passed during his time in the US Senate.  A bipartisan effort between Senator Obama and Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma resulted in the passage of the Federal Funding and Accountability Act of 2006--(S2590) requiring full disclosure of all entities or organizations receiving federal funds on a website maintained by the Office of Management and Budget.  As of December 2007,  this website is operating.  Senator Obama, with Senator Russ Feingold, passed S230 to restrict the influence of lobbyists, and to require disclosure of campaign contributions from bundlers, PACS and party committees.  In addition, three other related Obama bills were passed by the Senate that will shed light on earmarks by the disclosure of the name of the sponsor, the justification for the earmark, the prohibition of a financial interest on the part of the Senator proposing the earmark, and the disclosure of the amounts spent by lobbyists. As president, Obama's "light" will inform the American people who will in turn instill accountability and support for responsible budget decisions. 

As a retired teacher, I was encouraged by your recognition of Senator Obama as an education leader in the editorial "Promote the General Welfare.  He has been a teacher himself!  I have read testimonials written by the students who studied Constitutional law with him.  His understanding and appreciation of the structure and meaning of our Constitution give me confidence that he will be a president who will champion "Equal Justice Under Law"  as was cited in your "Justice" editorial.  I have been distressed by the erosion of our Constitutional rights and by the decline of America's moral and political leadership in the world.

I believe that Barack Obama's election will send a message of inclusion to the many people around the world who are watching our election process.  Many of my former students came from Japan and Europe with their parents who were working for a few years in California. Now they have returned to their home countries.  Every Christmas I hear from them, and this year they all wanted to know about Obama!  They already know about his early opposition to the idea of going to war in Iraq, but it is his life story that gives them hope.

Last October, I attended a rally outside the Federal Building in West Los Angeles.  We had gathered to listen to the reading of a speech Barack Obama had delivered five years before in October of 2002 when he was running for the US Senate.  His speech was delivered in opposition to giving President Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq. His words were prophetic; "an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, with undetermined consequences."  As these words were echoing through the crowd, we heard the traffic rushing by on Wilshire Boulevard past the Obama signs. Drivers were honking their horns, cheering and waving, and lifting our spirits. We watched as an older man approached the lectern.  It was the actor James Whitmore who is now 86 years old. He spoke about the fourteen Presidents of the United States who have been in office during his lifetime.  Then in his still strong rich baritone he told us about what he heard and saw  in this relatively young man--Barack Obama.  He spoke of Obama's foresight and judgment in opposing the war in Iraq, his intelligence, his life experience, his temperment, his integrity.  Lastly, in that wonderfully resonating voice he added the quality that gives me joy and hope--his WISDOM.

Jean and Sam Sapin: Sherman Oaks:

The LA Times, which had been wavering in and out of our approval rating for quite awhile, is now back in our good graces with yesterday's editorial. It portrays a great democracy being destroyed by bad leadership, but then expresses renewed hope that America can still be rescued by the right presidential candidate. Our choice for this office is Sen. Joseph Biden, who has long been a member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. His experience has given him contact with leaders all over the world, and he has a wide knowledge of other cultures and political history. He's the only leader of any importance who's devised a specific plan for getting our troops out of Iraq by the summer of 2008. He's a man who's sustained great personal tragedy yet has never faltered in his quality of service to our country. His ability to present his ideas in an intelligent, fluent and well-organized fashion would be a refreshing change from our present leadership. We cannot understand why the press has not given this outstanding candidate the attention he deserves.

Jeanne Mount, Beverly Hills:

Thank you for inviting public participation in the opinion process.

My choice for president, for many reasons, is Ron Paul. I love his being so "old-fashioned" that even the young people are flocking to him as being a Constitutional rock in the storm. It's the Constitution that has allowed us to be the only nation in history with a 230-year tradition of peaceful transfers of power. Its values are part of the American consciousness; the 8th Amendment fosters our outrage against torture and cruelty.

I'm glad we have a candidate with "a defining love of liberty"--to use your words; who refuses to take refuge in the "slow forfeit of our rights," who is not afraid of energetic political expression, and who loves the boisterous sea of liberty!

Jose Ruibal:

Gentlemen:

I read  your 12-31-07 editorial inviting your readers to voice their opinions about whom they support for president in the upcoming primary and presidential elections.

First of all, I want to thank you for inviting your readers to participate in this endeavor.
It's like one of our time honored traditions in this country:  town hall  meetings, public debate, and an honest exchange of opinions about what's going on in this country and in the world; something that's been sorely lacking for the past 10 years.

My choice for president, hands down, is Representative Dennis Kucinich.  There are a number of reasons I support him.  He:

a.  Is for the immediate and total withdrawal of all our combat military forces from Iraq; a war, in my opinion, that we should have never become involved in; in the first place.
b.  Has always supported the rights of ordinary workers; their efforts to improve their working conditions, health, living wages, and retirement benefits.  I believe that if  big business and manage have the right to form "associations" to advance their particular agenda, finance the activities of various private  and political organization, or persons running for office, worker unions should have this same right.  It is a plain fact that any business can not function without the efforts of its employees.  For example, could the Los Angeles Times function without its reporters or its other workers?  Impossible. 
c.  Opposes the North American Free Trade Agreement.  This trade and other past agreements have been a disaster for our manufacturing industrial base (by outsourcing many of our traditional industries to other countries such as clothing, shoe, TV, automotive auxiliaries, etc.) and the elimination of many traditional jobs held by workers in this country.  Not only labor-type jobs but even technical ones.  Now, we are even importing workers from other countries such as scientists and engineers from India so that they (some American companies) can pay them less wages than American workers.  Henry Ford, in the past, significantly increased the wages of his employees.  When asked why, he replied (this is not an exact quote, but he said something to the effect):  I want people to have enough money to pay for my cars!  This one reason I support an adequate and livable  minimum wage that would allow all workers to adequately support themselves or their families, without the necessity of having to get two jobs or forcing their wives or others in the family to go out and get a job, just to put enough food on the table, pay their rent, or mortgage; to name just a few of the problems facing the people in this country.  It's a fact that if you put money in the hands of millions of common, ordinary, people, they will spend it:  thus helping the country, economically.  Observe what happened this Christmas season:  millions of  common, ordinary, people in the malls and stores shopping and buying  things to give to family members, relatives and friends for Christmas. This absolutely helped our economy, no doubt!
d.  Has always supported equal rights for all our citizens.  In this country, there is still a lot of discrimination practiced against some of our citizens.  It is more subtle now, but, nevertheless, it still exists.  All this hysteria about "Muslim terrorists, "illegal Mexicans immigrants," "black gangs," and so on is nothing but a vicious racist and xenophobic  attempt by some in this country to shift the blame and focus the attention of the uninformed on others about the reasons for some of the problems facing this country, and to cause division  and ill will amongst various ethnic (this includes the so-called "whites") and religious  groups in this country.
e.  Will (I believe) appoint to the Supreme Court justices that would strictly follow the dictates of our Constitution. It should make no difference if his appointees are Republicans, Democrats, or others of a different political party or persuasion.  All judges, not only on the Supreme Court, but on lower courts, as well, should not allow personal prejudices, biases, or pressure from powerful individuals or groups to influence the decisions that they make about the law.  All their decisions should be based strictly on the Constitution and Bill of Rights. 

Those who oppose a livable wage for workers, I believe, is based on greed (for more money for themselves and their supporters) and a desire to keep the common, ordinary,  people in this country in a low state of  fear, misery, and dependency.  This is not a very "Christian" attitude!  This is the reason I think President Franklin D. Roosevelt is one of the greatest presidents we've ever had in this country; he understood that the vast majority of the people in this country are not educated, rich, or poor.  His policies helped end the depression of the 1930s and '40s.  Even after the war, his  New Deal policies continued to build one of the greatest middle classes this country has ever known.  Now, it seems, with these continued attacks on the government and attempts to "privatize" virtually everything in this country, we are slowly but surely going in the opposite direction.

I do not subscribe to this nonsense that everything the government does is "bad" or that everything the private sector does is "good."  I believe there are some things the government does better than the private sector (such as keeping our military forces "public," not outsourcing them to private security agencies or companies like Blackwater; a private entity (being paid for by our tax dollars) that seems to have no accountability or oversight by anyone, not even from our own government!  This is truly scary!)   It's a sad state affairs when the American people  must fear their own government, rather than some external enemy, as it has always been in the past.  On the other hand, I do believe that there are some things that the private sector can do better than the government.  I am not "purists" in matters such as this.  All public and private agencies's policies and actions should be based  on facts and experiences, not on theories or myths. We went through this fabrication in in the past (about the economy during the Great Depression).  I do not wish, and I'm sure millions of other American people and I'm do not wish, to repeat what happened during that era.

Other great presidents in our history, in my opinion, were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt.  They all worked for the greater interest of our country and people,  not just for the narrow interest of certain private individuals or groups.

Problems such as in inadequate health system that does not cover all our citizens; poverty; the homelessness of thousands of our citizens in one of the wealthiest countries in the world; unemployment cause by the out sourcing of many traditional  jobs to other countries;  ongoing wars in Afganistan and Iraq that seem to have no end:  these are some of the problems I would like to see the current crop of presidential aspirants focus their attention, not on less important issues as outlined above.

Of course, as already mentioned, these are some problems facing our country, but the greater numbers of  Muslims, Mexicans (and other Hispanics), and black people in this country are hard-working, honest, tax paying, and patriotic people (like most whites and Asians) , and are not criminals as they are often portrayed as in the mass news media.

These and other problems problems are less serious than the systematic and ongoing assault by some of those in power (both in the private and public sectors) upon the rights of American citizens that has always been guaranteed to them, historically, under our Constitution and Bill of Rights.  These people engaged openly and secretly in this activity are the true "terrorists," in this country: not the people speaking out and opposing what they are trying to do.

These are but a few of the reasons I support Representative Dennis kucinich and his campaign to obtain the Democratic nomination for president.  I believe he would work for the interests of all the people of this country and in the traditions of  the previous presidents I mentioned.

My second choice would be John Edwards; however, I think I've written enough about what I think about the upcoming primary and presidential elections.

The present Republican candidates?  They all, it is clear, intend to follow the same or worse disasterous policies of the present administration; God forbid if any one of them should win the next presidency!

Once again, thank you for allowing me and others to participate in this forum about the upcoming elections. 

GB:

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

WHAT WE NEED IS A VIABLE THIRD PARTY AND NOT MORE OF TUDELY DUM OR TUDELY DUM.  MOST POLITICIANS ARE IN THE GAME JUST TO PROTECT THEIR RICE BOWEL AND INSURE THEIR POWER BASE.  WE NEED STATESMEN OR STATESWOMEN WHO BELIEVE IN THEIR COUNTRY AND ITS FUTURE NOT WHAT HE OR SHE CAN GET OUT OF IT, ECONOMICALLY OR EGOTISTICALLY.

THE SO CALLED DEBATES ARE ATROCIOUS EVERY ONE PANDERING TO PUBLIC AND WHAT THINK THEY WANT TO HEAR AT THAT TIME.  HILARY HAS NOT ANSWERED ONE QUESTION DIRECTLY AND SHE IS NOT THE MINORITY.

IF I HAD TO CHOOSE ONE IT WOULD BE HICKABEE, SIMPLY BECAUSE HE IS STRAIGHT FORWARD EVEN THOUGH I DON'T AGREE WITH MANY OF HIS BELIEFS AND QUESTION HIS LEVEL OF PRESIDENTIAL EXPERIENCE, BUT AGAIN THERE IS ON THE JOB TRAINING.  THE LEARNING CURVE IS SO EXPENSIVE

CAN'T WE DISCOVER A NON PARTISAN GREAT LEADER - IF NOT THIS COUNTRY IS IN VERY SERIOUS TROUBLE.

Dorothy Green, Los Angeles:

This holiday season I have been obsessed by the strangle hold that corporate American has on our body politic, on our environment, the economy, and on our very society.  Every decision coming out of Washington that should be science based has been politicized and rewritten to support the positions of corporate America.  Every war we have ever gotten into has been driven by the corporate need for profit.  Remember Eisenhower's warning against the military/industrial complex?  The world is now facing the biggest challenge of all -- the impact of global warming, and because of corporate control of the Congress and the President, nothing significant can possibly be done to start making the changes that must be made. They are totally amoral, concerned by law only for their own bottom line.  They have little or no ability to be concerned about the environment, or the social structure of our nation.

There is only one candidate for President who is talking about the power of the corporations, their strangle hold on our politics, and is willing to take them on.  He is also the only candidate who supports the public financing of elections, where we must begin, if we are to take back control of our democracy.  John Edwards.

Moana Evans, Educator, San Diego:

I have really enjoyed reading your series about American values and the next president.  Over the past few months, I have been researching each candidate, trying to figure out who I should vote for on February 5th.  I recently made up my mind, and I am currently very optimistic that our next president will be able to help this country regain the domestic peace and foreign respectability that have gone by the wayside in the past few years.  We cannot count on one president to fix our country – the problems we face today require citizens all across America to stand up and work hard to accomplish change.  We do, however, need a leader who can inspire America to reach for this goal, a leader who can unite the diverse people who make up this great nation to action.  That is why I have chosen to support Barack Obama for president.

Though all of the candidates talk loudly about the things they hope to accomplish once elected, there is only one candidate with the record to back up his rhetoric.  Barack Obama has accomplished much in his relatively short span as a politician, and a large part of his work has been done with Republican and independent backers.  Our next president needs to be able to create a new majority in order to pass universal healthcare and comprehensive immigration and education reform.  Obama is the only candidate who can bring people together to effect change.  His support among independents and republicans is unparalleled by any of the other democratic candidates, and if he wins the primaries, he is sure to achieve a formidable victory in the general election. 

The most important goal of the next administration should be transparency.  Americans are sick of the secrecy and shady deals that have defined the past seven years, and we are tired of a executive branch that tries to conceal problems instead of solve them.  Obama has helped author and pass the most important ethics reform since Watergate, and did this in a Congress which has been criticized for its inability to get anything accomplished.  He coauthored the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, which allows any citizen to track government spending - just go to http://www.usaspending.gov/.   Want to know how much money the department of Veteran's Affairs is spending on Krispy Kreme donuts? ($11 so far this year)  This resource is a crucial first step in allowing easy access to public information.  Obama is the only candidate that seems to realize the desperate need for the government to open its doors to the public, and the only one who understands the technology that is readily available to help achieve this goal.

Lastly, and perhaps most appealingly, what strikes me about Obama is the fact that he is not afraid to speak bluntly and honestly when it is most important.  He went in front of Wall Street and praised the free market, but told the executives there that they were not doing enough to protect the middle class.  He appeared in front of the National Education Association and said that he supported merit pay for teachers, although speaking honestly meant the loss of many union endorsements.   He spoke at Saddleback church, in front of a group of Christian conservative evangelicals, and told them that he supported condom distribution to prevent AIDS and sex education that preached more than just abstinence.  And after his arguments, Obama said, "I know that there are those who, out of sincere religious conviction, oppose such measures. And with these folks, I must respectfully but unequivocally disagree."  He disagreed – and left with a standing ovation.

You ended your series with a quote by Thomas Jefferson, and that is how I will end my letter. That great orator once said, "I never had an opinion in politics or religion which I was afraid to own.  A costive reserve on these subjects might have procured me more esteem from some people, but less from myself."  I can only hope that this year, the American people will elect the one candidate who is not afraid to own his opinions.  Go Barack!

Mark Aaron, Santa Monica:

The Times reminds me of the clueless Hollywood actor who prides himself on championing the downtrodden out of both a genuine desire to help the poor schmucks and a misplaced sense of success guilt. An apt Jeffersonian nugget of wisdom comes to mind: "I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious". Well, red meat America rejects your denunciations and your prescription for leadership in 2008. Would General George Patton call our politically correct pussyfooting in Iraq a "blunt exercise of force"? Would he fret over waterboarding an enemy combatant to help achieve a military win or to save lives? I think not. The Times and the Hollywood know-it-alls are clearly out of step with working class America. We recognize that the "slow forfeit of (our) rights" is not without precedent and small potatoes in light of the bigger, unheralded picture: six years of obviously doing something right since 9/11. That editorial omission is why Thomas Jefferson also stated " Advertisements contain the only truth to be relied on in a newspaper".

Michael Duran:

I support Gov. Bill Richardson for President. 

He possesses the rare combination of intelligence and relevant experience.  Like Bill Clinton he has an executive branch track record, albeit in a small state.  I have deep roots in New Mexico and he has popularity that I view as extremely promising.

His views on foreign policy, first and foremost on the quagmire in Iraq, are straight forward and are free from the awful 'nuance' that infects Clinton-Obama. It was, at best, a mistake to go in.  It is a crime to maintain a troop presence.  We need to get out. Period.

The fight to claim the nomination will be tough, made all the more difficult given the "top three' coverage by the main stream media.  Nevertheless, I think he, better than any other Democrat, can appeal to the vast middle of our polity, Yellow Dog Democrats like myself, Independents, Blue Dog Dems, moderate Republicans and Decline to States. 

C. L. Gay, Boulder, Colorado:

I have long thought Joe Biden was an excellent choice for President and have been dismayed that the media gives little or no attention to Democratic candidates other than the top three.  Especially when they give so much press to all the Republican candidates.  I am outraged that the media has so much influence over who is elected by merely choosing who they will mention.

I so agree with what Gretchen Adamek East of Hartford, CT said in your comments: "But I'd also like to say that I might be endorsing Joe Biden, who is more experienced than Clinton who is running on her experience, except that I'm sure he won't be on the ballot by the time the primary reaches Connecticut. And that's too bad. Most of the mainstream media covers only the top three candidates (per the latest polls) rather than affording all the candidates equal time. By highlighting only the presumptive contenders, the choice each American gets is diluted. Of course most of the media is owned by big business these days, adding some legitimacy to Mr. Edwards claims."

Thank you for asking for our opinions!

Cheryl Rogers, Santa Barbara:

I support Hillary Clinton for President because she is a qualified woman and this country is long overdue in electing a woman president.  Furthermore, we cannot discount Hillary's experience in Washington as First Lady, but also her election to the Senate from New York with 64% of the vote.  As everyone knows this country needs change, and I am confident that Hillary will bring real change particularly in the area of foreign relations which could use a woman's touch instead of guns.