to the editor: it seems impossible, absent new revelations of egregious behavior in donald trump<u+2019>s past, that there is anything new to discuss in this campaign, and further rehashing of what we already know can only exacerbate the coarseness of this race. given this, hillary clinton has almost nothing to gain and much to lose by continuing this mud-wrestling match. beginning with wednesday<u+2019>s final debate and going forward, she should simply focus on her policies and the justifications for them. how powerful a message would it be for mrs. clinton to say: <u+201c>i<u+2019>m not perfect. i<u+2019>ve done some things in the past i would do differently today. i<u+2019>ve apologized for them, and now i am thinking about the future. cast all the aspersions you want. it<u+2019>s time to move forward.<u+201d> then she should look mr. trump in the eye and smile. howard m. wiener scarsdale, n.y. to the editor: re <u+201c> melania trump rejects women<u+2019>s claims that her husband groped them <u+201d> (news article, oct. 18): in defending donald trump<u+2019>s sexual assault ranting in the <u+201c>access hollywood<u+201d> bus tape, many have claimed that he<u+2019>s now a changed man. his wife, melania, said in a recent interview on cnn, <u+201c>that is not the man i know.<u+201d> the sex rant that was taped took place in september 2005. donald and melania were married in january of that year, and in september she was pregnant with their son. so melania was married to donald for eight months and was pregnant when mr. trump boasted of sexually assaulting women. when exactly did he <u+201c>change<u+201d>? did melania marry an unchanged, <u+201c>original<u+201d> donald? her defense of her husband fails the believability test. leonard malkin troy, mich. to the editor: melania trump is quoted as saying: <u+201c>sometimes i say i have two boys at home: i have my young son, and i have my husband.<u+201d> but does the country need a 70-year-old boy in the white house? anne seppala-holtzman flushing, queens to the editor: re <u+201c> clinton pushes into bastions of the g.o.p .<u+201d> (front page, oct. 18): i am greatly relieved by your report that the clinton campaign is now making a concerted effort to help down-ballot democrats. while it is absolutely necessary for hillary clinton to win the presidency, that is certainly not sufficient to end the republican obstructionism that has plagued president obama<u+2019>s tenure. the republican base has as vitriolic a dislike for her as it has for mr. obama. moreover, if the democrats do not make noteworthy down-ballot gains, republicans will surely claim that it was only the tarnished donald trump and not their party<u+2019>s ideology that has been repudiated by the voters. for her to accomplish much, the democrats have to win a majority in the senate and at least enough gains in the house to alarm republicans that a policy of obstructionism will further alienate the public. otherwise congressional republicans, once again intent on sabotaging a democratic administration, will either block her from accomplishing anything or force her to accept undesirable compromises. russ weiss princeton junction, n.j. to the editor: re <u+201c> protest of trump hits sensitive spot: his brand <u+201d> (front page, oct. 18): your article on the effects of the trump candidacy on his brand did not mention an important constituency <u+2014> children. my son and his friends have all stopped using the trump-branded attractions in central park. while they miss skating and riding the carousel, they are too horrified by his evil comments to patronize his businesses. i wholeheartedly support this and hope that new york city will give serious consideration to canceling these concessions. our children<u+2019>s recreation should not profit a bigot. lisa mogull new york a version of this letter appears in print on october 19, 2016, on page a22 of the new york edition with the headline: as the final debate approaches. today's paper | subscribe
as the final debate approaches
noauthor