An Eerie Thought About 'President Hillary'
On the occasion of Hillary Clinton's announcement that she is, indeed, running for President, I'm struck by something that the pundits haven't been saying about her "historic" campaign. Namely, what a horrible message it would send about democracy to have another Clinton in the White House at this point in history.
Before I go on, let me say that I haven't decided who I'm backing yet for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Out of the contenders so far, I think Barack Obama is the only potential Democratic nominee who could possibly beat John McCain in a general election. "Maverick" McCain would lock up the independent vote (and would attract many moderate Democrats), which would mean the Democratic nominee would have to go into new territory to beat him. Obama, who can talk about faith and religion with the ease of any Republican, could appeal to many Christians, who have been traditionally turned off by McCain.
That said, I'm not sure who I'm backing yet. McCain is far from a sure thing and there's so little out there about most of the declared candidates.
One thing I DO know is that a Hillary Clinton presidency, while better than any possible Republican administration, would be very depressing in terms of our democracy. Upon Hillary's election, the Presidency of the United States would then be controlled by just TWO families for 24 years (28 if she gets re-elected). Bush I for 4, Bill for 8, Dubya for 8 then Hill for 4 (or 8).
How could we continue to point to our "democratic system" as the best in the world when a Hillary presidency would mean a de facto oligarchy for two or three decades? It just creeps me out to think that we have the potential to have distilled power into the hands of so few in this country. While I'm only vaguely anti-Hillary at this point, due to the fact that she's such a centrist, "Republican-lite" type, I'm not completely opposed to her (like I was to John Kerry). The thought of three Bush-Clinton decades, however, does give me pause.
Before I go on, let me say that I haven't decided who I'm backing yet for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Out of the contenders so far, I think Barack Obama is the only potential Democratic nominee who could possibly beat John McCain in a general election. "Maverick" McCain would lock up the independent vote (and would attract many moderate Democrats), which would mean the Democratic nominee would have to go into new territory to beat him. Obama, who can talk about faith and religion with the ease of any Republican, could appeal to many Christians, who have been traditionally turned off by McCain.
That said, I'm not sure who I'm backing yet. McCain is far from a sure thing and there's so little out there about most of the declared candidates.
One thing I DO know is that a Hillary Clinton presidency, while better than any possible Republican administration, would be very depressing in terms of our democracy. Upon Hillary's election, the Presidency of the United States would then be controlled by just TWO families for 24 years (28 if she gets re-elected). Bush I for 4, Bill for 8, Dubya for 8 then Hill for 4 (or 8).
How could we continue to point to our "democratic system" as the best in the world when a Hillary presidency would mean a de facto oligarchy for two or three decades? It just creeps me out to think that we have the potential to have distilled power into the hands of so few in this country. While I'm only vaguely anti-Hillary at this point, due to the fact that she's such a centrist, "Republican-lite" type, I'm not completely opposed to her (like I was to John Kerry). The thought of three Bush-Clinton decades, however, does give me pause.
Labels: Hillary Clinton, politics, presidential candidates
posted by Sam at 3:12 PM
1 Comments:
Hi Sam,
So, I gave up on Hilary when she voted for the Senate referendum in favor of the Iraq War in 2003. Of course, I kinda gave up on the democratic process when Bush (who had fewer votes) stole the 2000 election from Gore (for whom more people voted). So 28 years between two families? I'm past outrage and much closer to acceptance. If we're going to have a war-waging monarchy and a parasitic aristocracy, why not just go with it? Chelsea Clinton should be married off to Prince William (or Harry if William's taken) in a lavish, taxpayer funded wedding in the National Cathedral to cement our alliance with the Brits; when Bush the First dies, his embalmed body should lie in state and be venerated in the Capitol Rotunda, permanently; and the President should be the titular head of the Church of America, if he isn't already. A monarch, responsible to God for his compassionate reign, makes a lot more sense than a President who's only nominally responsible to the people, don't you think? God's paying attention a lot more of the time. :-)
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home