DogonVillage.com - Think back before the Iowa Caucus…a time when we were challenged to dare to hope for a better America. When Iowa responded it inspired the rest of us to reach for a bold new vision and we began to believe in our collective ability to do better, to be better. Hope was in the air.

We began to look for leadership among the narrow self-selected choices and a most unlikely candidate emerged the front-runner. His powerful voice and timely message resonated across party lines, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents paused for a closer look. Unlike other candidates he spoke of national unity: One nation, Indivisible, with Justice and Liberty for All.

His opponents worked like elves to co-opt change and portray hope as shallow rhetoric rather than the profound call to action that converts faith to movement. Their mission is to reduce “peace” and “prosperity” to fairy-tales and dreams using a few choice words and nonstop spin. If that does not work, then by all means play the race card. Better still, make it appear that he played the card designed to divide the nation into petty little interest groups driven by culture, history, innuendo, ignorance and fear.

As an American I believe in the Constitution and the vision of its framers. For 150 years presidents limited themselves to two terms in office. George Washington believed so much in the separation of powers that he refused a third term establishing a pattern that was made law after FDR defied this custom and served 4 consecutive terms from the Great Depression through WWII. The 22nd Amendment was passed to guard against the threat of tyranny by codifying the previously self-imposed custom of term limits and to minimize the potential for corruption and cronyism so inimical to a thriving democracy.

The Founding Fathers never imagined women voting, far less running for the highest office in the land. Had they envisioned such a scenario I believe that they would have viewed husband and wife as a team thus limiting the pair to two terms. Legally, I don’t think that either can be made to testify against the other and most religious vows unite the two as one. We must think critically about what it means for the wife of a former, living president to run for office. The issue is not about gender, even though we should also be very cautious about setting an exceptional, if not impossible, bar for future female candidates. In their first bid for the White House the Clintons made the two-fer argument and we accepted it understanding that we elect both a president and his or her spouse. At a minimum we should examine the implications for the future.

The critical question right now is why is there no discussion about the potential impact of a spouse circumventing the intent of the 22nd Amendment, not to mention the long-term effect of two families controlling the presidency of the greatest nation in the world for 20 years and 28 if the Clintons are elected to third and fourth terms?

Just as President George Washington had the wisdom and statesmanship to put the best interest of our nation ahead of personal ambition, we must strive for the same standard. This is a critical time and our democracy is far more fragile than many realize. We cannot afford to upset the delicate balance based upon any superficial or self-centered interest. Some of us are Democrats, some Republicans, some Independents but all of us are Americans and we must vote in the absolute best interest of our nation.