Re: Sept. 26 news story.
The first presidential debate was a win for Hillary ClintonÌıandÌıa loss for Donald Trump in almost all areas. It left no doubt on the question of who has the better temperament and stamina to be the leader of our country. Under pressure, ClintonÌıremained calm, composed and pleasant, definitely presidential. On the other hand, TrumpÌıstrayed off topic, interrupted with remarks, grimaced, made faces and seemed less presidential. I want a leader who can relate, remain in control of hisÌıorÌıher emotions when opinionsÌıandÌıdesires are not in agreement with national or international leaders. I felt that Trump struggled to do that. I didn’t learn anything new from this debate but definitely felt more confident who could best work with our allies or stand up to our foes. I will vote for ClintonÌıfor president of the U.S.
Carolyn McIntosh, Littleton
Re: Sept. 26 editorial.
Monday’s presidential debate was hard to score. I analogize it to a boxing match. In one corner was the experienced, overtrained, slick Hillary Clinton. In the other was the brash, cocky, heavy puncher, newcomer Donald Trump. Their styles are totally different. Clinton doesn’t have a knockout punch and came out pecking away with annoying jabs, hoping to score points (which she did) and throw the challenger off balance. But the impetuous Trump countered with some hard wallops, which forced Clinton into the ropes. The newcomer could have finished her off by using his best punches, namely hitting her with Benghazi, e-mail lies, Obamacare and failures of the last eight years. Instead Trump chose to go off on tangents and engage in her rope-a-dope tactics. She may have slightly won on meaningless points like the “birther†issue, but the anti-establishment newcomer won on the main issues: the economy, national security, the fight against the Islamic State threat and crime in our inner cities. Clinton will not win the next two rematches. She will face a better-trained opponent, who will not let her off the ropes.
Peter Bruno,ÌıArvada
The Clinton/Trump debates serve to inform and enlighten us on many issues. In the first debate, both candidates met expectations. Clinton performed as a practiced, prepared, politician, and Trump, as a less-prepared non-politician, presented as the agent of change. Yes, there are facts to be checked and more information to be gained.
Philosopher Herbert Spencer is believed to have said, “There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignoranceÌı—Ìıthat principle is contempt prior to investigation.”
The investigation is not over, as there are two more debates. As Election Day approaches, an open mind will gain knowledge that overcomes ignorance and makes a more informed voter.
Merlyn Karst,ÌıDenver
It is so interesting to watch Hillary Clinton remain a true politician, saying what she thinks the voters want to hear and saying the same old promises that the Democrats have never kept. Especially to the poor and immigrants.ÌıOn the other hand, it is refreshing to watch the frustration and passion displayed by Donald Trump.Ìı When you are frustrated and passionate, you don’t always make the case you intended, but you show you love this country, not for yourself, but for all of us.
Judy Robinson,ÌıCastle Rock
After watching Monday night’sÌıdebate, and watching Donald Trump’s immature, bullying, ADHDÌıstyle of “debate,” I am ashamed to even live on the same planet as this narcissist. Oh, and never mind the facts. He is a self-promoting Elmer Gantry who will make us a hated disgrace internationally. God, how can you Trump supporters be so blind?
Dan Johnson, Aurora
Re: Sept. 26 news analysis.
According to Joanne Ostrow, there was not a “knockout blow†in the debate. Maybe not a knockout, but Donald Trump certainly would have “tapped out†midway through had he had the chance. Ostrow’s closing comment says it all: “If you were only half-listening, he seemed like a contender. If you were testing the truth, Clinton scored a big win.” This is a presidential debate, after allÌı—Ìıshouldn’t we all be “testing the truth†for the next commander in chief?
Larry Ellingson,ÌıEdgewater
Submit a letter to the editor via or check out our for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
