Your endorsement of Barack Obama comes as no surprise to me ("Barack Obama: Democrats Deserve a Nominee for Change," April 16). Tony Norman, of your editorial staff, recently had a column about Sen. Hillary Clinton showing that his attitudes are in line with Mr. Obama's, choosing to ridicule as a method of deflecting recent Obama comments ("Team Clinton Presents: 'The Duck Hunter,' " April 15).

Your endorsement was accompanied by an interview explaining Mr. Obama's comments about why he has trouble with the middle class (" 'Bitter' Flap Regrettable, Obama Says," April 16).

It was not the word "bitter" -- it was the rest of his statement that was so offensive: "they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or an anti-immigrant sentiment ... as a way to explain their frustrations" and "when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama, then that adds another layer of skepticism."

He said that the flag pin was a substitute for true patriotism, and he wouldn't wear it on his chest.

I do not wear a flag pin, nor do I own a gun, but I would not question the motives of the flag pin wearers, nor look down on hunters or people who find comfort in their religion. I also try to judge people only on their attributes. Mr. Obama said in his speech that these stereotypes must end, but it only seems to apply when it concerns him. I find his all-inclusive comments offensive.

The people of Pennsylvania will see through his facade and show their dissatisfaction with him on Tuesday by voting for Hillary Clinton.

SUSAN DEL SIGNORE
Trafford

---

I was so very proud of Sen. Barack Obama's restraint in the first half of the forum Wednesday night in Philadelphia ("Final Duel for Democrats," April 17). As Sen. Hillary Clinton accepted every invitation from the moderators to pound upon Sen. Obama for already old news of isolated words from his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and his own admittedly artless comments about small-town Pennsylvanians, Sen. Obama declined to reciprocate on her fabrication of sniper fire on the tarmac in Tuzla.

He chose to focus on the issues important to me: the debacle in Iraq, the sinking economy, the horror of our health-care system, to mention only a few. Sen. Obama is setting a new tone for our political campaigning and drawing a new generation into our body politic instead of working to discourage voters from participating.

He is a candidate for the 21st century, which is why I am working as hard as I can for him in this primary and, hopefully, in the fall.

JANET ANTI
Squirrel Hill

---

I am writing to register my disgust with the negative tenor of the Democratic primary season in general and the "tabloid" style that ABC News employed in the candidates' debate Wednesday evening in particular.

Sen. Barack Obama has been unfairly portrayed as a drug abuser, an anti-American Muslim who attends an anti-American Christian church, an overly ambitious kindergartener and an uncaring, condescending elitist, although he expressed the same sentiment about why some folks vote against their economic interest two years ago on national television, which, by the way, is not a unique concept. See Thomas Frank's book "What's the Matter With Kansas?"

All of this mud permeates the political atmosphere well before the Republicans wheel out their attack machine. Perhaps we should just hand the presidency to John McCain and spare ourselves six more months of this ugliness.

RONALD BERGMAN
Greensburg

---

I had the honor of presiding over a college club-based event featuring former ambassador (and PG associate editor) Dan Simpson as guest lecturer days before President Bush's fraud-based Iraq catastrophe launched.

Mr. Simpson's then-thoughtful remarks were well received.

But judging by his April 16 column ("There Are Plenty of Reasons to Vote for Barack Obama -- and Against Hillary Clinton"), I'd have thought Mr. Simpson was either serving as envoy from George Orwell's Oceania or replaced by the Body Snatchers. His skewering of Sen. Clinton -- plus the PG's endorsement of Sen. Obama in the same edition -- is rife with unsubstantiated allegations, cheap shots and a breathtaking absence of evenhandedness or context.

From what parallel universe does Mr. Simpson now declare -- in full contravention of his until-now consistent position -- that the "Bushes ... set a high standard of personal behavior" and, further, that Hillary Clinton has a "sometimes shaky relationship with the truth"? What are readers to make of Mr. Simpson's unsupported claim that the Obamas "would not be troubled" by money-related conflicts of interest?

Where is the support for your assertions, Mr. Simpson?

And the most absurd statement of Mr. Simpson's life perhaps: "Even the most partisan Republicans should favor putting the better of the two Democratic candidates into the general election." Since when has the Karl Rove putrefaction machine ever wanted a fair fight on anything?

Hillary Clinton is our best choice. Sen. Obama can thrill, but we still suffer under a president who had on-the-job training. We can't afford another to follow.

JOHN D. DUNMIRE
Bellevue

---

The failure of Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to as yet deliver a major address on the environment, as noted by Don Hopey in his excellent report "In Primary, It's Not Easy Being Green" (April 7) is no doubt rooted in their fear that many people, particularly people in places like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana who have seen their states' industrial bases devastated, consider environmentalism a major factor in corporate America's decision to off-shore American factories and American jobs to the developing world.

Yet, I think such a fear is unwarranted. By now most Americans, including those of us who dwell in the "Rust Belt," have long realized that corporate America's abandonment of the United States had little to do with environmental regulation and everything to do with the search for cheap labor. For several decades, corporate America has referred to its employees as "human resources" and pretty much treats them as it treats "natural resources." In other words, corporate America strives to obtain them as cheaply as possible and then, when it has used them up, discards them on the ash heap and expects society to clean up the mess.

Corporations that have no compunction about lopping off mountain tops to obtain "natural resources" more cheaply will have no compunction about lopping off American jobs to obtain "human resources" more cheaply from foreign sources.

So, Sens. Obama and Clinton, don't be shy about proclaiming your environmentalism proudly and loudly. You might find yourself surprised at the support you will receive in a place like Pennsylvania.

NANCY SAUNDERS
Oakland

---

We welcome your letters. Please include your name, address and phone number, and send to Letters to the Editor, 34 Blvd. of the Allies, Pittsburgh 15222. E-mail letters to letters@post-gazette.com or fax to 412-263-2014. Letters should be 250 words or less, original and exclusive to the Post-Gazette. All letters are subject to editing for length, clarity and accuracy and will be verified before being published.