Mr. Seles

Unfortunately, voters somehow figure out their own criterion for why they cast a vote one way or another. I would not cast a vote for an alcoholic, dope smoker, gambler, or womanizer----of any party. I just don't think these people can keep their eye on the ball and do a good job. Politics is a very consuming occupation. Probably up there with astronauts. I decide the criterion--and I have that right.

So unless you have a mechanism to take my vote--and the votes of people like me--away, then accept that your admonishment/intimidation is not going to have much effect.

And I do not see any political upside for the Democratic Party of 1999 to have not convicted Mr. Clinton. Maybe they feared losing the "promiscuous voters," but where would these voters go? To Mr. Bush?

By taking the high moral road, the Democratic Party would have not lost votes from people like me. The 2000 election would have been decisive enough in the D direction, such that hanging chads and Supreme Courts would have no effect on the outcome.

Instead the Democrat Party only proved that it is more interested in itself than the nation. And this attitude contributed to the result of 2016.