On the Clinton Candidacy

Moment of clarity for me today. I would, against all my populist instincts, vote for the immediate family family member of an exPresident for the that office if they represented one of the following, in the order of importance:

1. Stood for expanding the interpretation of individual rights enumerated in the Constitution or certain other "rights" that may or may not be implied in the IX Amendment that I would like to be treated as absolute. Abortion "rights" are not among these. Mrs. Clinton, the co-sponsor of an anti-flag-burning amendment does not qualify.

2. Stood for reducng the power of the Federal Government in relation to the States, other than as a guarantor of the expansive protections in the 14th Amendment as interpreted of citizen's rights in the States, including the overweening influence exercised by the earmarking of Federal funding to State policies.

3. Stood for reducing the power of the Presidency in the 21st Century in relation to the power of the Congress, especially the use of force abroad, as well as primary responsibility for the first detailed draft of the Federal budget.

I will not vote for that immediate family member even if I were to agree with their stance on the prosecution of a war abroad by volunteer forces; the return of the fiscal discipline of the (Bill) Clinton years; a more progressive and transparent tax code; or even a significantly more pro-environmental stance. Not that Ms. Clinton stands for all these things. I would, of course, vote for a different Democratic candidate who espoused these ideas even if he or she didn't embrace my favorite 3. The only political aristocracy I will accept is one in service to my idea of liberty.