'Superficial' 

Editor:

I've long enjoyed Judy Hodgson's editorials but not her latest ("Ready, California?" Feb. 20). One rule of editorializing is to demonstrate you know of which you speak and Ms. Hodgson's opinions were uninformed start to finish. Her opinion on each candidate made clear to me: She completely lacks an in-depth knowledge of them. 

She cheered for Warren and Klobuchar because they seemed the most qualified. She gave no indication that Warren's changed her mind on nearly every stand she has taken. First she loves capitalism, then she realizes that was not politically wise and modifies her stand. She has taken every issue that Sanders supports but has softened them sufficiently to keep the corporate interests giving money. 

She dismisses Sanders based completely on how many bills he has succeeded in getting passed but ignores all of the huge list of issues he's supporting that is inspiring people everywhere. She acknowledges Hillary had some involvement in the happenings of 2016 but seems oblivious to the involvement of the Democratic party elites in what happened just as they are working to do again. She just blames Sanders.

Most horrific was her support of Bloomberg based on all the lovely things he was promising to do. Bloomberg has a long history of supporting fossil fuels as well as racism all of which is why he is a billionaire. He's as ugly as they come but Ms. Hodgson did not look below the surface. She says she was still open to Warren as her health care solution was evolving. Evolving? Warren patched and re-patched that and still hadn't got it together because her goal was to look progressive while keeping centrists happy and giving money.

Judy Hodgson, so much information is out there about these candidates but you presented a superficial analysis that lacked all pertinence and depth.

Sylvia De Rooy, Eureka