The George W. Bush presidency was basically over by the end of 2005.
Not that there weren't more disasters and indignities to come for America before the Halliburton Cabal mercifully relinquished the reins of power, but before the first year of its second term was up the country had had enough. Already it was clear that the Democrats would take back Congress in 2006, and most likely, the White House in 2008.
At that time, so it seemed, we would be given two options in 2008: Another Bush, or another Clinton. Meaning, another Republican who would carry on warring and torturing and terror-alerting and Jesusing while accomplishing nothing domestically for another four years; or, Hillary Clinton.
Well, we all know how that worked out.
I felt at the time, and have always felt, that the nomination and eventual election of Barack Obama in 2008 was America's way of ordering off the menu. We didn't like the choices we were given -- another Bush, or another Clinton -- or perhaps we simply didn't like the fact that we were only given these two choices and expected to accept them, so we went and made our own choice. For better or for worse. Obama was still, for many, an unknown commodity, but still far more appealing than the retreads we felt we were being offered.
Another Bush? Another Clinton? Umm, we'll take what's behind Door Number Three.
I'm really not here to discuss whether we would have been better off over the last 6 years with another Bush or another Clinton instead of the man we elected. I'll leave that to the reader and the comment thread, if so inclined. But it seems now, with less than a year to go until the Iowa caucuses, we're being given the same choices again for 2016.
Another Clinton, or another Bush.
Are we OK with this? Or will we order off the menu again?