Clinton has said that she will end the war when she is President, if Bush doesn't (although she did speak about leaving a "residual" force of, I believe, 60,000 soldiers). McCain, on the other hand, has spoken in favor of the surge (he was in favor of sending in more troops from the beginning), and doesn't appear to be interested in ending the war. I find it hard to believe, given that McCain (and I believe all of the other Republican contenders except Ron Paul) is more in favor of continuing the war than Clinton, that Clinton would receive more money from defense contractors, as the article reports. Something isn't right.

Scott Kaplan

Pomona, NY

I am offended by Robert Scheer's suggestion that Obama was against the Iraqi war. The three of us in my family have demonstrated against the War since 2003 in and around Washington, DC, and have finanacially supported ANSWER, CODEPINK, World Can't Wait, etc.

Question: Can Mr. Obama show any proof of such participation, either by photographs of his presence at a rally or financial support of any of the anti-war organizations? Show us the pictures or copies of checks, Mr. Obama. Else, you are a sham "leader," full of vacuous talk aimed at the young and easily excited, people who don't have much sense of history. It is unfortunate that Leahy and Kennedy are supporting you.

A. Kares Jhangiani

Reston, VA

As a woman, I was a bit offended by Mr. Scheer's simplistic view that feminists who support Hillary Clinton were doing so out of "simplistic gender politics." Oh, how I wish I could deduce the female experience in one tight little phrase like this! The truth of the matter is that because we are often caretakers of society, we are concerned about issues that affect those besides us--children and eldercare. We are concerned about domestic violence because we are disproportionately the victims of it. We are concerned about reproductive freedom and birth control as healthcare issues because we need it to remain independent and are disproportionately burdened with its effects. We are concerned about child support because we are, again, disproportionately the victims of non-payment and, thus, its effects.

Unfortunately, these issues simply haven't been addressed by male candidates. I dare say, it's not even on their radar. Can you blame us, however, for having the tantalizing dream that a woman President might put our needs on the map? Might, perhaps, give voice to them or even, dare I say, address them?

I don't think that's simplistic at all. I think that is hope.

Janet Oelklaus

San Rafael, CA

Robert Scheer makes many fine points, among them his clear identifying of Gloria Steinem and others as feminist apologists for Hillary Clinton's terrible record on peace and economic fairness.

These feminists have already begun discrediting their entire movement, by substituting principled demands for peace and economic justice with an unprincipled, shallow demand for the emotional gratification of seeing a woman, any woman, in the Oval Office.

One is left to wish dearly that there would be some form of accountability for the Steinems of American feminism; you see, if Hillary is elected, and she continues to attack the well-being of the poor in America, and to try to bomb foreign nations in the name of US corporate and imperial domination, these apologists who sold her to half the electorate will have so much suffering and blood on their hands as to be unredeemable.

I wish to point out to letter-writer Janet Oelklaus that the previous episode with the Clintons saw, for example, the final destruction of the social safety net through the ending of welfare. Clearly, many, many womens' needs were not met by the ending of welfare, and I can't help but wonder if maybe Oelklaus needs to ask herself how much of her hope is illusory.

The Clintons have specialized in economic and social policies, across the board, that have egregiously impacted women and children very much for the worse. Beyond the symbolic support for reproductive freedom, the Clintons have eliminated welfare, started wars, aggressively supported sanctions regimes, pushed for draconian laws that have unnecessarily incarcerated lots of men with childcare payments due, failed totally to support living wage legislation, supported the offshoring of jobs and prosperity, fought for trade pacts that have created poverty and abusive labor practices abroad, and innumerable other activities sapping the well-being of women and children in the world.

Seymour Friendly

Seattle, WA