Dear BeyondChron,

I disagree with Paul Hogarth's view on Hillary's last stand in Pennsylvania. I would say her small net gain in delegates from this primary is less significant than (a) the perception that she has won and can win in November the big states (California, Ohio, New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania), (b) the perception that Obama is weak among white, working-class voters (men and women), and (c) the potential effectiveness of a&b in persuading superdelegates to go for Clinton and the old Democratic coalition and (d) all of the above resulting in an Obama stall at the convention. My other observation is that if California had kept its old June presidential date we would've been the last stop and the real last stand in the primary electoral trail this year. Our impact might have been decisive.

Chris Chow
San Francisco



To the Editor:

Bravo, Bravo, for the story from Paul Hogarth "Re: Hillary Clinton's Last Stand." Living in Australia, I was thinking there mustn't be anyone left in America with any fair and just reporting sense. After viewing Fox News reports day in and day out with constant biased Obama bashing, how refreshing it is to at least see some responsible reporting of the facts as they really are.

Can't believe a leading country i.e. America could have such a stuffed up election process anyway (Florida-Michigan etc) and the silly Super Delegate System. Thank You for a responsible, intelligent, informative comment on the "REAL DEAL."

Ronny Pullen
New South Wales, Australia.



To the Editor:

If reason or logic were self-evident, let alone obvious, few could fault Paul Hogarth's lucid finale: Pennsylvania results "didn’t change anything . . . [nor] alter the outcome of the nomination, because that conclusion has already been reached. And now it’s up to her supporters to acknowledge the obvious."

Alas, as Hillary-fan Maggie Layne testifies, the "obvious" for the outraged and put-upon is less about winning I think than not losing, not being disrespected, not ever again getting bashed. Your analysis falls by the wayside, disagreements reduced to absurd "garbage." Clearly Layne's "obvious" links to her sense of victimization: Hillary had no choice, tellingly identified as "a woman" (duh? --- the most famous presidential wife), who just had to go belligerent to present all those "stories the media refuses to put out."

Are we not being asked to confuse the major league basher with the gentlemanly bashee? Obama faces no scrutiny while Saint Hillary is assaulted -- here by that giant media bully, Beyond Chron, for either 1) nasty bashing, or 2) making Hillary even nastier, or 3) helping her get the nomination. Puts you in good company, alongside Hillary helpers: "Thank God," Layne exclaims, the ABC debate finally started asking "tough questions."

Thank God indeed, for here is faith alone, not facts, determining what is true, moreover morally suspect by justifying their noble end justifies any means, however nasty or insulting to our free speech. I suspect delusion rules: Hillary isn't really behind, that's just biased media fabrication: these folks are mystified that politics is so hard, that it is impossible their candidate is flawed and won't win.

So many of these letters make it hard to know which non-thinkers are more dangerous, the ideological GOP fundamentalist or ideological Democratic fanatic. Here, for those curious how it works, is the kind of distraught Hillary fan so upset about getting constantly bashed John McCain looks good.

Robert Becker
Mendocino CA



You can submit letters to the editor by clicking on this link: feedback@beyondchron.org or by writing to:

Beyond Chron
126 Hyde Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
415-771-9850 (phone)