Trying Desperately To Hold Onto Power vs Becoming an Inportant Statesperson after Serving

[Rilgin]

Although not the biggest problem causing distance between Hillary and the population, the dynastic aspects of Bush and Clinton have to cause cognitive dissonance even amongst her supporters.

We are not supposed to have royalty in this country. I think some early presidents took government jobs after serving but it does not happen in the modern era. The transition should be, like Carter, from president to statesperson. Trying to hold onto power and continued ambition is troubling in assessing character. Hillary has not been president herself but has been at the center of power in the Democratic Party. People with such power are expected to give it up in the American System. They are not supposed to stop living or stop doing good works but they are expected to give up power. Basically, what is good for our society is for people to have power to give up that power, do other things and keep their public role to being states people. Her favorable would have gone through the roof if she had just done that in 2008 when she lost. She had the choice of doing good things and becoming an important voice as a states woman but went the other way.

I believe this bubbles under the surface for a lot of people.

[Jefferson23]

1. That is a fair observation, I think. I don't know why she wants to be POTUS, it's

hard to tell.