Same Old, Same Old: The Unbearable Lightness of Being (Hillary or Some Other Current Candidates)

As the nation recoils at the Bush legacy, and ponders the drawbacks of dynastic government control, its useful to consider just what we'd say if the shoe were on the other foot. Are we honest enough to denounce "legacies" whether from the other , or our own side of the aisle?

If we condone such familial "right" to succeed, can we honestly admit to ourselves the real legacy of their predecessors? And, are we going to demand candidates who say and do what needs to be said and done, rather than what's safe and temporarily expedient (for them, but not the nation)? Will we tell those who care more about running for president than doing the right thing, to take a hike?

Three worthy columns emerge for our consideration: Commentaries by Scott Ritter, David Michael Green, and Robert Borsage.

Ritter's is here.

Green's is here.

Green said:

You know what? I’m not interested in Ms. Clinton’s apology. I wouldn’t even be interested in it if it was half-way sincere. What kind of people can sacrifice the lives of so many others in order to fulfill their personal dream? It’s no more OK to forfeit thousands of people’s lives to become president than it is to burn down villages to become a rock star, if that is your dream, or to poison people on the way to becoming a famous chef. And, anyhow, why in the world would we choose such a person – even after a legitimate apology, let alone before – as the one among 300 million of us to carry our standard? Can’t we do much, much better than that?

Robert Borsage weights in here.

Links:
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0303-23.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0302-31.htm
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/03/05/whens_the_idea_primary.php