The War Of The Roses version 2.0

I miss that cliche that was "2.0". I was scanning through the front page of Media Matters today and read a headline from commentator Larry Sabato that said, "That every President from 1989 to 2017 may be a Bush or a Clinton is a national disgrace." I didn't read the article but I will say he is exactly right. Our forefathers fought a war against the British so that they would not be ruled by a hereditary monarch, and we have happily re-instituted it ourselves smiling and willing. George H.W. Bush was a dedicated public servant, and Bill Clinton brought untold prosperity to the United States. After this we re-elected Dubya because we thought Kerry was creepy, and he's such a bad President that we as a nation are looking seriously at electing a former First Lady. The Sunshine Empire editorial board is certainly not going to walk down the road of investing the competency needed to be the leader of the free world in a person based solely in a person's last name. I am sure Senator Clinton would make an able leader, and I would certainly vigorously support her if she faces Rudolph Guliani in a general election, but it is still sad that it has come to this. The framers wanted the job to attract those like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, farmer politicians. People who felt the need to serve, then leave. Having a modern day War of the Roses across thirty years on the White House lawn is not what they intended.