And no, I don't mean to imply that women in general or Hillary Clinton in specific are as incapable of governing as a dog. My point is that there are certain people, male and female, who have no business being president. George W. Bush is one. I happen to be another one. While he and I have many fundamental differences, we share similar traits that make us similarly unsuited to the job of president, such as a hot temper and a tendency to hold grudges, or an unwillingness to listen to criticism of ourselves of the people we care about. Despite what some essentialist pyschologists might say, these traits have nothing to do with our respective sexes.
But I digress. I was speaking of Hillary Clinton. It's not that I think she would be a bad president. I think she's probably capable enough to be a good president. It's just that, if she's elected president and barring any sort of domestic upheaval between her and her husband, Bill Clinton will be back in the White House. And she'd probably want to give him something to do while he's there; I know I would if I were her, because idle hands are free to grope interns. And that, to me, almost seems like cheating, almost seems like giving him another chance to be president by proxy. Maybe I'm not being fair; I don't mean to imply that Hillary Clinton doesn't have her own thoughts and her own mind and her own agenda. On the other hand, a married couple is a unit, and this particular unit already spent eight years in the White House, and we have term limits for a reason. Term limits are protection of minority rights within a majority rule. Term limits say to the minority, "Even though you're hopelessly outnumbered and may never succeed in getting your candidate of choice, at least you're not stuck with the same creeps you voted against in perpetuity." I believe in term limits and I think they ought to be applied across the board, in the Senate, in the House, and in the state governments. Again, I digress, but whether it's intended or not, Hillary Clinton for President seems to me to be flouting the Twenty-second Amendment.
In a similar vein, if we elect Hillary Clinton, that means that the last four presidents will have been Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. If we're just going to elect dynasties of presidents from the same families, then what's the point of having elections, or indeed democracy, at all? We might as well give up and go back to monarchy.
Maybe it's not fair to say that no one related to a former president should be president. Maybe such a person might have some good ideas and their relationship to a former president is incidental and would have no bearing on their fitness to be president. Some might even say that it's anti-democratic to suggest such a thing, that the president should be the people's choice, and if the people keep choosing people from the same family, then that's democracy in action (although it strikes me more as democracy inaction). I don't necessarily mean to suggest that no one related to a former president should ever be president ever; I don't necessarily mean to suggest that we have a constitutional amendment to that effect (that'd be quite a headache to draft, because you'd have to decide how close is too closely related). But I do think that our democracy is languishing, and I think that to revive and revitalize it at this point we need an infusion--a transfusion, if you will--of new blood. And that is why I don't support Hillary Clinton for president.