Opinion: Imagine, actually ‘preparing’ for a debate and for the job

To the editor: You know, it was really unfair of Hillary Clinton to study and prepare for Monday night’s debate against Donald Trump.

Then, to take things even further, she “stooped lower” and actually knew facts about things the moderator, Lester Holt, asked.

( “Trump goes back on attack,” Sept. 28 and “As expected, debate broke record for viewership,” Sept. 28)

And, she continued to respond throughout the debate with coherence, clarity and a sense that she actually knew what she was talking about.

This sneaky tactic of “preparing to be president” is just what Americans have come to expect from Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Charles Freeman, Jr, Baldwin Hills

::

To the editor: Of course the mainstream media and Democrats are praising Lester Holt. He asked antagonistic questions of Trump, including his taxes, birtherism, his position on the Iraq war, and if Clinton looks “presidential.” Of Clinton, he asked zero antagonistic questions.

If the situation was reversed, the howling over the unfairness would be deafening, as Matt Lauer has learned. Working the refs paid off.

Robert Chapman, Downey

::

To the editor: For those patriots who were disappointed that Trump didn’t really attack Clinton during the debate, consider this. Trump and his advisors knew that she and her media allies are doing everything they can to try and paint Trump as a bully in dealing with women.

Therefore, I suspect that Trump was doing everything he could to restrain himself from the obvious opportunities to expose Clinton as the incompetent political opportunist that she really is. He was in a difficult position, especially considering his large masculine body, that he not appear as a bully.

Dave Connell, Laguna Beach

::

To the editor: After totally embarrassing himself in front of a national audience, Trump still has supporters?

This is not an election of competing political philosophies. It is now one between a rational and educated person verses a cheating, bigoted simpleton. I do not believe there has ever been a more unqualified “person” running for this office than Donald Trump.

I understand wanting “change.” Observing the status quo makes that pretty obvious. But those who want change by supporting a mega-rich imbecile are attempting to drive this country off the road and down a disastrous mountain side.

S.R. Fischer, Los Angeles

::

To the editor: In claiming that Clinton wants to make the election all about Trump, your reporter is not acknowledging that Clinton came prepared with in-depth knowledge of the issues and specific policy proposals to address problems faced by American voters.

A strong argument can be made that Clinton is one of the best presidential candidates in decades.

She’s not only a brilliant woman who understands domestic and foreign policy as well as anyone alive, she’s also been a passionate fighter for 30 years for the cause of improving the lives of ordinary people.

While this gets routinely ignored, we’re bombarded instead with stories about emails and manufactured scandals. Your analysis follows the same pattern, completely overlooking the considerable substance she brought to the debate.

Seth Jackson, San Marino

::

To the editor: Open letter to Trump: I’m no fan of Hillary Clinton. But clearly she wants to be president and will do everything to plan and prepare to achieve that goal.

It is a very fair observation that she was ready for the debate, you weren’t. Yes, the moderator was unfair, but there was nothing in the debate that planning and preparation could not have anticipated. Perhaps you feel that you can wing it? You are wrong and it showed.

Would you hire someone who was unprepared for an interview or an important meeting? Should the American people hire a president who does not prepare for international events? Hillary will not get my vote, but you will not either, unless I see some serious application.

William N. Hoke, Manhattan Beach

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook