Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and “Change”

Shortly before the expiration of her husband’s tenure as President of the United States, First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton decided that she was going to run for the available New York seat in the United States Senate. She relocated to the average community of Chappaqua, NY, in order to fulfill her residency requirements, and in the 2000 election she defeated Congressman Rick Lazio to succeed Daniel Patrick Moynihan as the United States Senator from New York. Though extremely popular in our state, there were a good number of people who felt at the time of the election that Senator Clinton was merely using New York as a stepping stone towards the presidency. Fast forward seven years.

Senator Clinton is running for president. Go figure. I have no problem with this – Senator Clinton should be allowed to run for the presidency. However, I do have something that I would like to ask; a question that I would like to pose.

If Senator Clinton is elected president, that would mean that between the years 1981 and 2013, there would be a Bush or a Clinton in the White House. That’s thirty-two years, with an option for four more. If she wins, at least 13% of our nation’s history would see the Executive Branch of the federal government (at least partially) controlled by only two families. So, my question is this: in a presidential race where the word “change” is thrown around so frequently, wouldn’t Senator Clinton’s election to the presidency simply be more of the same?