Another Clinton White House bad for democracy
(U-WIRE) LOS ANGELES – I think politics ranks just above hangovers on a list of the favorite activities for college students; however, sometimes it can be hard to avoid.
Recently, the unconquerable hype machine of American media has begun its lame posturing for the 2008 presidential campaign.
Democrats hope they can find a better candidate than the listless and ineffectual John Kerry. The party would like to believe they have a new direction, a new promise for Americans. But voters should be wary of one candidate in particular: Hillary Clinton. She does not deserve to be president of the United States.
I will not waste your time by citing her political experience or credentials. Honestly, that’s not what American politics is all about anyway.
Much of the hype surrounding this candidate stems from her sex. The sex of presidential hopefuls is rarely discussed at all, but Clinton insists on challenging such time-honored traditions as male dominance.
“I didn’t even know she was a woman until I saw her on television,” said a confused sophomore. “And I’m still not convinced.”
But I don’t suggest we should reject Hillary because she is female. We should reject her because of her name. Why, in the name of all that is unsacred, would Americans want to have President Bush then President Clinton then President Bush then President Clinton?
George Washington warned that for our wondrous democracy to flourish it must “never be in danger of degenerating into a monarchy, an oligarchy, an aristocracy, or any despotic or oppressive form so long as there is any virtue in the body of the people.”
We must not let our most important office cycle between family members. As much as I would love to see Bill Clinton back in the Oval Office, I dare not dream of the resulting nightmarish pseudo-monarchy. If Jeb Bush decides to run one day, the nightmare will be complete.
Clinton claims on her Web site she “was raised in a middle-class family in the middle of America.” She would have you believe she’s like you and I: what a terrible deceit. She goes on to chronicle her years as first lady. In this section she never once mentions the escapades of her husband.
She has no problem discussing her history as “an attorney twice voted one of the most influential in America.” But this diversion does not succeed in distracting from the obvious omission.
I plead to the sensible college students of America: Is this the woman you want to be president? A woman who ignores such an important issue is worthy of neither attention nor votes.
It would be better to forget this presidential candidate now. The 2008 presidential election is far off, and I heard there is some sort of student election going on this week. Maybe you should check that out instead.