Prospective candidates who take "daring issue stands" tend not to get nominated or elected. This is a political reality that many fail to grasp as they rant away about Hillary Clinton's failure to grip third-rail issues with both hands. They revere the bold, unambiguous stands taken by the candidates on the right and left. But these candidates cannot appeal to enough voters to win. Grow up--we all have to compromise to accomplish anything.

Deborah B. Goldstein

Pleasantville, MNY

Let's get this straight: the New York Times reported quite recently that Hillary Clinton's campaign had a "long-planned strategy" to play the gender card--to manipulate her presentation to the public as a woman defending herself against men attacking her because she is a woman--and this was, according to the reporter, directly claimed by members of Clinton's own campaign staff. All the bloviating on "piling on" aside, Clinton's own staff claims that they have been preparing to play the gender card for a very long time.

Hillary Clinton has run the most evasive and cowardly campaigns of the entire primary. She has pathologically dodged and dissembled and done anything she could to take no position at all, straddling the fence between any positions that emerge around her, and to let everyone besides her take the risks of taking the lead on daring issues stands. Her campaign is quite reminiscent of Arnold Schwarzenegger's candidacy for the governorship of California, where he relied on star power, PR consultants, big media connections and evading serious questions in order to get the votes of an unthinking and angry crowd.

Hillary is not only perfectly happy hiding behind her gender if this is convenient; her candidacy is actually quite threatening, if you pay attention to her sponsors, history and activities.

Seymour Friendly

Seattle, WA