He knows what his plans for Ireland are. ;P

... the Clintons are disgusting.

the implication that further Constitutional limits are needed to prevent two families from hijacking the entire two party system, which we know now is entirely possible; hypothetically, if I were a rich neocon imperialist, and I wanted to control the political system, my only chance for a permanent monopoly would be to have influence on two families that trade back and forth the White House every few years.  I do not wish to get into a long debate about whether such a co-opting of the two major parties by corporate interests is happening now or whether it has happened before; just the fact that such an enticing possibility exists to be taken advantage of should raise serious red flags to anyone concerned with preserving our democracy.

It is difficult for codependents (like Bill) to recognize their own pathology.  

Bill is as addicted to fame & attention as he is to illicit sex; that is why he is so obsessed with winning at any cost.

Dem party be damned, Bill must get his fix. Bill is pursuing a Hillary victory like a junkie pursues his dealer.

Apart from booze, he's got a horse in all of them starting with the "Co-Dependent Some More" thing we're watching right now. He'd fit right in with a solid handful.

This is from someone who always liked the guy. I read his bio when he was a new face in the early 90's and saw Adult Child written all over it. Not a bad thing, just is.

Bill would be the secret go-to-guy, which is what Bill desperately craves.

It was, however, not constructive; I'll agree with you there.

Read for yourself: http://www.dailykos.com/...

there's no logical reason to disqualify someone automatically just because a relative previously held the office

It is the appearance of impropriety that is important to avoid. This is the measuring stick for most ethical standards, isn't it? People aren't stupid, although they may be shallow and myopic. Hillary doesn't deserve to be president because her husband is fondly remembered by a large percentage of people who have been traumatized by eight years of Bush Cheney.

Since you brought him up, FDR was an example of how a multi-term President could be a blessing.  However, instead of thinking only about the benefits of such a system, Americans also contemplated how such a precedent could be hijacked in the future by those with less honorable intentions.  Indeed, humanity and history teaches us that such things are over time inevitable, and our Constitution itelf is a testament to how many careful rules and balances must be in place to prevent a potential power grab by SOMEONE at SOME POINT; the further amendments to our Constitution are further testament to that fact.  None of those concerns came out of fear, they came out of wisdom.  

A further amendment to prevent a two family monopoly like the one we have experienced would not curtail freedom any more than the two term limitation that came as a result of FDR, but is equally important in preventing a potential power grab of our government in the future; the possibility, however small it may seem, is unacceptable, if we are to adhere to the standard the Constitution's framers agonized over to make everything as airtight as they could at the time.  

Lastly, I don't get your bitter shot; if you're trying to imply that I'm elitist, I should inform you that I'm a metal guitarist in a band whose one child household makes a combined income in the 30's - not exactly your profile of a latte sipping snob.  I know the Clintons and McCains like to stand behind their tens of millions of dollars and call people with a fraction of that wealth "elitist", but really, it's nothing to emulate.  I mean, I guess I appreciate the implication in such a statement that my posts are eloquently written, but if we want to label all intelligence elitism, we end up with Presidents like Bush; let's leave this line of attack to the Republicans, please.