To the Editor:

In what has become the most divisive election in our lifetimes, voters are faced with two choices as to who will occupy the White House for the next four years. One being the winner of the Republican primaries, during which he outpolled 17 other candidates, convincing the voters that he was the best choice to represent them. The other was hand-picked by the social justice warriors who control the DNC, and whose motto is "We know what is best for you, so do as we say."

My question to the voters of New Hampshire is: "Which candidate represents the ‘will of the people,’ the survivor of the Republican primary, or the one pre-selected by the DNC and presented to their voter base in the context of "Here is who we want to be president, we don’t care if you like her, or agree with her, just do as we say and get out there, support her and vote for her." This singular state of affairs would have continued unabated, had not Sen. Sanders jumped into the race. While I disagree with just about every one of Sen. Sanders policies, I do applaud him for having the integrity to challenge the status quo, for which he paid a heavy price.

The media coverage of Trump and Clinton has been unique to put it mildly. They have delved as deep or deeper into Trump’s past than any other candidate in recent history. About the only thing I have not seen him accused of is chewing gum in grade school and then putting it on the underside of his desk. Compare that to their coverage of Clinton, which in a throwback to the days of yellow journalism, paints her as the second coming of Mother Theresa.

If the media were to be truly objective in their coverage, as they are supposed to be in a free and open press, we would see Hillary Clinton described for what she is, someone who is a consummate liar, consumed with an overwhelming sense of her self-importance, and who has nothing but disdain for 99.9 percent of the citizens of our country as evidenced by her "deplorables" comment.

Tom Humphreys

Brookline