This is not hard. In a democracy, the people have the right to vote and decide how things will be done. Every citizen is entitled to make up his own mind however he sees fit. Each is supposed to respect the right of everyone else to do that. One citizen is not supposed to substitute himself for how another makes his decisions.

    A tenet of democracy is that information should be available about the things voters consider relevant. In the United States, this is enshrined in the First Amendment right of free speech, which prohibits government from putting legal restrictions on the free flow of information to citizens.

    The range of information that various voters consider relevant is highly diverse. People's opinions about what one should consider important in voting decisions are equally all over the place. It is constructive for citizens to debate what is important and what is not . Less laudable, some people ridicule and scorn how other voters make up their minds.

    Whether people engage in respectful discussion, or whether they mock fellow citizens, the principles of democracy and the First Amendment are clear about what is to be. Every citizen is entitled to cast a ballot. A vote is meaningful only if people have the right to make up their own mind. Information is vital to the decision making process. The government is prohibited from restricting information. No matter how strongly one group feels that another group of voters makes its decisions for inappropriate reasons, it is wrong to prohibit the second group from casting ballots or to keep information that group considers relevant from reaching them.

    While the government is prohibited from limiting voters' sources of information, private parties and politicians have a degree of freedom to take action that is at odds with citizens getting information they think relevant. Untruths are the main means. Whatever else it is, an untruth is against democracy and its tenets. If a politician is the sole source of information that voters consider important, an untruth from the politician denies the voters relevant information and thereby undemocratically supplants their decision making process. If not a sole source of information, politicians and private parties who speak untruths confuse citizens about what is true, and this also is against democracy.

    There are reasons why politicians and others spread untruths. In a few cases the reason for an untruth can outweigh the importance of democratic principles. Most of the time an untruth is for the purpose of advancing self-interest or advancing partisan interest. Also, if the truth of a specific matter is uncertain, statements on the subject cannot be rigidly categorized as true or false. In this case, purveyors of the statements are generally not depriving voters of relevant information in a way that is against democracy.

    On the other hand, if the truth of a matter in not disputable, the purveyor of an untruth is acting against democracy. The outright liar is deeply disrespectful of the democratic right of every citizen to make up his mind as he chooses and on the basis of accurate information about those things he considers relevant.

    It is easy for one set of voters to denigrate the basis on which another group chooses to cast their votes and to ridicule the things the latter consider relevant. It is easy for one voting group not to be overly bothered if information another group wants is impaired by politicians and others who disseminate untruths about subjects the latter group, but not the former, considers relevant.

    This democratic disrespect should be given short shrift. A country that takes pride in the fight for voting civil rights in the South in the 1960's cannot make second class citizens of voters who wish to make up their mind on the basis of whether a candidate uses drugs recreationally, or suffers from a mental illness, or has strong religious beliefs, or is highly promiscuous or is homosexual. To be contemptuous of voters who think those things are important is to invite opposing contention that various liberalizations in the voting laws have given persons the vote who are not sufficiently educated or responsible to be allowed to vote.

    Clinton's sin of lying was a public sin that was immensely disrespectful of principles of democracy that assert the right of every citizen to make his own voting decision as he chooses based on information he considers relevant.

    Not all of Clinton's untruths are known, and not all will ever be known, but enough is known to convict him of the public sin against democracy of lying. We know Clinton lied about Monica Lewinsky. It is almost certain that he lied about Gennifer Flowers. We do not know if Clinton lied about Paula Jones. If he did, and the truth had been known in 1996, it is possible Clinton would have lost the 1996 election.

    Those whose pride is the greatest in the civil rights battles of the 1960's may have only the greatest scorn for those whose votes would have been swayed in 1996 by whether the Paula Jones allegations were true. By the same token, those whose votes would have been swayed if the allegations were true may be most adamant that voting rights have been given to millions of new voters who should not be allowed to vote because they are not sufficiently educated or responsible. Various groups of voters may be contemptuous of one another, but the tenets of democracy are clear. Voters who would have been swayed if the Paula Jones story was true have a right to be swayed and not to have their decision making process supplanted by another who denies them information. If those voters do not have that right, then it is not wrong to deny voting rights outright to still others.

    Clinton's public sins were more than denying citizens their voting rights by lying to them and denying them information they considered relevant. Clinton also committed the public sin of putting his personal interests ahead of the country's interests (not to mention ahead of his Democratic Party's interests). In the midst of the Paula Jones allegations reverberating throughout the country side, and the potential adverse consequences for his governance of the country and for his Democratic party (e.g., Clinton and the Democrats might have lost the Presidency in 1996), Clinton ratcheted up the stakes by proceeding with Monica Lewinsky in and around the Oval Office. Clinton believed, if needed, all he had to do was "deny, deny, deny" and he would not be caught. Clinton's acting on the belief that he would not be caught is a reliable sign that he was wrongfully placing private interest ahead of public interest, and was doing so consciously and willfully.

    When Clinton started to get caught in January 1998, he repeated more egregiously the public sin of putting his personal interest ahead of public interest. Everyone except Clinton would have been best served by his being truthful in January 1998 and letting the chips fall where they might and as quickly as possible, in order that the full attention of the Presidency and Congress could be dedicated to carrying out the country's governmental business. Clinton calculated on the basis of personal interest that his best chance of saving himself was to lie to everyone in sight, which he did for seven long months. He did this, all in the hope that he could avoid being caught and in the face of the deep rancor and divisiveness he was causing the country and other adverse public consequences resulting from his choice of putting himself ahead of everything else.

    Then the blue dress really did show up. Clinton could no longer escape being caught, and his public sinning of putting self ahead of country was, one would think, undeniable.

    While caught in his public sin of wrongfully putting personal interest ahead of country, Clinton, ever thinking of himself first, calculated that he could hang onto the Presidency if he denied that he had committed public sins and called on the Democrats to agree that Clinton had committed no public sins. As obvious as the public sins were, if the entire Democratic Party denied that the sins were public, enough of the citizenry could be bamboozled for a time to enable Clinton to hang on to the rest of his Presidency.

    The Democrats were willing to accommodate Clinton. He had gained them the White House and power that was mightily lusted for, and the Republicans were viewed as a mortal threat. In this situation, the Democrats were willing to become enablers of Clinton in his denial that he committed public sins.

    There are two possibilities. One is that Al Gore was blind to the public sins and was not a knowing accomplice. In this case Gore should not be President because a person who is blind to public sin patently should not serve in public office.

    If Al Gore was not blind to Clinton's public sins, he did not speak out against them, and would thus be a knowing accessory and enabler in the commission of those sins. This second possibility equally disqualifies Al Gore from serving as President..