Reading “Hillary would bring four more years of Bill” by Jim Chiddix (letter, June 25), I was reminded of just how much I disliked Bill Clinton as president. That being said, I also realize how much better off our country was during Clinton’s eight years in office versus the disastrous eight years of his successor, George W. Bush. In politics, we rarely (never?) have the option to vote for a perfect candidate.

Neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump would be my first choice for president. However, to conclude that “voting for one to prevent the other from winning is not rational. We should all vote for ‘none of the above'” is, well, irrational.

Let’s face it, “none of the above” is not going to occupy the White House next January. Like it or not, either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton is going to be our next president. The rational approach to this situation: decide which of the two candidates will be most likely to preserve (and hopefully enhance) positive gains already made while being the least destructive to our country.

Clinton and Trump represent two different political parties with two very different agendas. Which party, Democratic or Republican, wants to protect voting rights? Raise the minimum wage? Protect the social safety net? Safeguard the environment? Respect minorities?

Finally, the most far-reaching issue of all: the next president will nominate two or even three new justices to the Supreme Court, setting its course for many years. Donald Trump has promised nominees in the mold of Antonin Scalia.

I agree with Bernie Sanders: we must do everything possible to ensure that Donald Trump does not become president. I intend to vote for Hillary Clinton. Anything else would be irrational.

John R. Merrill

Augusta