In humble attempt at casting this in the tradition of Socrates, a (slightly altered) quote:

"The unexamined vote is not worth casting."

Thursday, February 7, 2008

Two Families + 25 years = Too Much

Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush—Clinton, Clinton? An old point now, to be sure, but is it not valid? The reality being discussed by many is that Bill Clinton would play a significant roll in the presidency (not hard to imagine given his prominence in the campaign thus far). What's a term limit then though? Perhaps I can understand allowing it legally, so as not to tell any American that they cannot run for president, but on another level, it’s entirely disconcerting.

Sure Bill had his strengths, and significant ones, but the monarchical feel to a repetition of families such as this is unsettling, to put it mildly. What's the count? That would be...four for George Sr., eight for Bill, eight for Bush Jr., and four to eight for Hillary. So 24-28 (long) years of two families running our country (and with our behemoth sway globally, one must consider the ways these two families have "run" the world as well). On the conservative side, that's one year short of a quarter century--and one quarter century too long for two families, in my opinion. So much can happen in 25 years! What more can one say?

2 comments:

soc said...

I agree that it is troubling that two families could have so much power for so long, but I did like Hillary's comment in the last Democratic debate, that it took a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, so maybe it will take a Clinton to clean up after the second. I think it would help voters if she clearly defined what Bill's role would be in the White House if she were president. My first preference, however, is to avoid this problem altogether and get Obama in there.

Brendan said...

I'm with you in terms of your first preference.

With her comment in the debate, it's catchy, but honestly, what does it mean if she lacks judgment on issues of war, if she will be divisive, and if she will possibly lose the White House soon after arriving (if she could overcome her divisiveness and get elected)--marking a short run for a progressive agenda.

I for one am siding with my sage of a grandmother on this one, i think that, while clever, it was probably something they had rehearsed beforehand to deliver a punchy comeback to a likely question.

Thanks for the comment though!