Readers Write (July 30): 2016 campaign

I woke up Friday morning still a little heady from the Democratic National Convention. I opened to the opinion page and, wow, my head started hurting. How can half of us so completely believe one thing to be true and the other half believe just the opposite? Liberals and conservatives must have completely different synapses going off in their brains; that is all I can conclude.

One reader claimed the Star Tribune hit a "disgusting low in integrity and misreporting" regarding its story that many among us are astounded by Donald Trump's encouraging the Russians to hack Hillary's e-mails. I watched Trump's statement over and over. I tried to find sarcasm. I couldn't see it, yet I believe I know sarcasm.

Another reader likened Trump to Steve Jobs. Now my head was pounding. I also read the supposedly worst of the 20,000 hacked DNC e-mails, wondering about Bernie Sanders' faith. My take was, "Well, if that's the worst of them, big deal." From John Kennedy to Mitt Romney, we expect to understand a little about a potential president's faith. I wouldn't care if Bernie is an atheist, but I'd like to know that piece of him. But to Republicans this e-mail is evidence of a huge, scandalous collusion.

As recently as 2015, Bernie still considered himself an independent. I don't care what he calls himself, but is it so unrealistic to think there would be a couple of biases shown toward the 40-year Democrat among 20,000 staff e-mails? Do Republicans actually think that if the RNC e-mails were hacked there wouldn't be a single e-mail wondering about a way to influence voters away from Trump? C'mon.

• • •

Even if we give Donald Trump the benefit of the doubt and say that his remarks about Russian espionage were simply sarcasm, questions still remain about his carelessness. Every word that a world leader utters is analyzed inside and out. Do we really want a president whose comments cause frantic backtracking and disavowal — even by his own supporters? We need a president who realizes the dangerous impact that careless words can have.

• • •

Only when it suits the leftist agenda of the Star Tribune does this newspaper not seem to recognize hyperbole.

• • •

Now that the conventions are over, I think I can sum up, in two words, one of the key differences between the Democratic and Republican national parties — dependence and ambition. I will let you decide which word applies to which party.

• • •

I have never been prouder to be a Democrat. Despite the dark pessimism and bizarre obsessions of the far-left and the even darker jingoism and fearmongering of the mainstream right, Hillary Clinton's campaign has shown us the essential decency and strength of this country — and our commitment to doing better. Our party has reclaimed the muscular patriotism of John F. Kennedy and combined it with the economic progressivism of Bernie Sanders to create a truly modern Democratic Party that proudly waves the flag, while also demanding the rich pay higher taxes; that embraces police officers and military service, while also celebrating diversity and promising criminal-justice reform, and that honors entrepreneurs and business success, while also demanding a doubling of the minimum wage. Our symbols of patriotism are a Muslim gold-star father pulling a copy of the U.S. Constitution out of his breast pocket and a woman accepting the nomination for president. Theirs are a massive wall protecting us from dark-skinned foreigners and June Cleaver smiling in the kitchen. I am confident the country will chose our vision of America over theirs.

Gail Collins of the New York Times (Opinion Exchange, July 29) imagines centuries of feminists admiring Hillary Clinton's pantsuits and high-fiving each other. On the same page, editorial cartoonist Steve Sack imagines something similar, with Susan B. Anthony hugging the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

It is, however, more likely that those generations of trailblazers and suffragettes would be utterly horrified by Clinton — because they were almost invariably pro-life.

Historical revisionism by modern-day abortion supporters makes a tortured argument that early feminists would have a different opinion given modern conditions. They also argue that these women did not make many statements on abortion. But the fact is that the statements that we do have refer to abortion as "child murder" and the exploitation of women.

At the Democratic convention this week, the arena erupted into ecstatic cheers when one speaker mentioned her own abortion. That is not the reaction of people who want abortion to be "safe, legal and rare." It's certainly not the reaction that Susan B. Anthony and her historical sisters would have.

• • •

I am a retired professor — for 44 years, I taught at Normandale Community College. When I introduced the idea of a Women's Studies curriculum in the 1970s, a "Women in History" course and even a day care center so women with children could go back to school, the college supported me, but there were others who did not. I was threatened with my life more than once. I received hate mail, and I was sent a picture of me in chains being dragged by the neck from a doghouse. I was stalked for several years. All because I was attempting to make life better for women who have been ignored for too many years.

My experience has been repeated over and over again by other women, but we kept at it, for it was the right thing to do. We should all be shouting in the streets for joy for this unbelievable but now believable moment in our history.

• • •

Now that the media has covered the major-party political conventions, it is time to provide audiences with ample coverage of minor political parties. With both major parties fielding the two presidential candidates with the worst favorability ratings in the history of polling, the public deserves to hear about some alternatives. Both the Green and the Libertarian parties are offering compelling alternatives to the corrupt political system and unfair economic system that are fueling voter disgust, but they receive almost no coverage.

The standard justification by media outlets for a lack of coverage of minor parties is to point to their relatively low polling numbers. However, such rationale presents a catch-22 — of course they won't poll well if the public is unaware of them, but how can the public learn of them if the media does not cover them?