All of the people who have given their names to US carriers have had significant connections to, or impacts on, the Navy. Hopefully that means that Clinton and Obama will never have a capital ship named after them.
The one outlier in that list is Harry Truman, whose administration cancelled the USS United States (would have been the first true super carrier) and who came damned close to buying into the theory that a Navy and Marine Corps would no longer be necessary in the nuclear age, the theory being that the Air Force would drop a couple of nukes and then drop off the Army to occupy the glowing mass.
That in part led to the fabled "Revolt of the Admirals" in 1949.
How badly screwed up a concept that was was shown decisively when North Korea kicked off festivities in 1950. The Air Force couldn't take on the kind of transport needed to get troops and supplies to Korea, and it fell to a very badly depleted Navy.
In some things I've read have led me to believe that the Navy only accepted naming a carrier for Truman because Democrats started playing hardball on appropriations for new carriers. In some way it was likely also a bit of retribution for the Navy naming a carrier after James Forrestal, who as Secretary of Defense had strongly opposed Truman's and the Army/Air Force cabal and supported the Navy.
