Joseph Kennedy lll in 2020
Gray hair is not a prerequisite for the president, neither is orange hair but I digress. His earnestness, fundamental decency, and commitment to liberal values is evocative of his grandfather, Robert Kennedy. He offers the promise of his uncle Ted without the baggage of Chappaquiddick , womanizing, and hard partying. "His reputation as a teetotaler earned him the college nickname Milkman."
= new reply since forum marked as read
& that is what they said about him.
have expected to find it, with life stories or characteristics that party conventional wisdom at the time deemed "unelectable", is not "the same argument". Not at all.
Rather it's a vindication, to my mind, of both the best values our party aspires to as well as actual American meritocracy in action.
But, I digress. I assure you I have no interest in punishing this young man for his last name. He doesn't get any bonus points from me for it, either, but I'd certainly give him just as much chance as I would anyone else. Hey- If he can lead, fucking AWESOME.
I admit I get a bit frustrated, around here, with this sort of magical thinking infecting some in our party that if we just could plug in the right set of variables, we could staple together the ideal Democratic Candidate, like Frankenstein's monster assembled on a slab. You know, the exact right percentages of looks and connections and geography and... whatever. Add to that the sort of almost OCD idea that having a magic last name on the ballot will translate into electoral victory.
To my mind, you don't list the requirements and then go searching for the perfect homunculous to slap up there on the stage and cash in the requisite votes. Leadership is an organic phenomenon. We need someone who can inspire, who can lead, and that may end up being a Millennial Kennedy or it may end up being the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, with the funny name. I don't know.
But I promise, if it comes up, I will give this dude a chance. While I'm not a fan of the one who is on the anti-marijuana legalization crusade, as a general point of politics I harbor no ill will towards the Kennedy family, believe me. 
I have no doubt that everything else you say is true- certainly leaders need to be able to work with others and compromise. If your takeaway from my prior post was that the ONLY thing we need in leaders is the ability to lead, that is an oversimplification. Obviously they need to be able to delegate, administrate, compromise, and understand how the system works.
But that wasn't really the point under debate; rather, it is about the concept of political dynasties themselves, which frankly to my mind seem to echo our human history of monarchal rule, or maybe it reflects something even deeper in the primate/mammalian social group heirarchy, where we're wired to think that the offspring of the pack leader will somehow do a similar job.
Either way, to your point, if "the ability to listen is often lacking in young, male, politicians", is the argument here that it's somehow any less lacking if the young male politician's last name is "Kennedy"?
Because that was really the only point of discussion in the the subthread from my perspective. Look, I don't want to debate this round and round, in fact I think I can make my sole, singular dynasty vs. meritocracy point here perfectly effectively using only three words.
Clinton. Bush. Obama.
I rest my case.
Makes as much sense as your statement as if "the ability to listen is often lacking in young, male, politicians", is the argument here that it's somehow any less lacking if the young male politician's last name is "Kennedy"?
Straw man much? I think you are lacking in your comprehension of my positions - that experience is neccessary in a leader, despite their age or their last name. I don't think young Mr Kennedy is ready for the WH, because of inexperience, and I'm certainly not going to dismiss him when he gets some experience because his name is Kennedy.
It's as pointless to dismiss HRC or Chelsea because of her last name as well. When the last name determines if you support them or not as a leader, that is as much folly as supporting a candidate because he is a man, or because of their religion.
Is that clearer?
To battle against--- Should be a giant red flag.
"so you're saying that--" "I'm assuming that--"
Maybe go back and read my actual posts, you know, the words, and look for where I said anything about a "list of those that merited office". i didnt put FDR on that "list", either... does that mean I think the new deal was a bad idea?
No, rather than making any sort of comprehensive "list of those that merited office", I was merely comparing the three presidents we had, immediately prior to the cheetoh nightmare we've got now. Two came from scrappy, anonymous, middle class obscurity, and one was the product of a political dynasty.
Understand, now?
You seem desperately to want to have some other, unrelated fights here, for some odd reason. Maybe you should do some thinking as to why, exactly, that is.
I must have missed when you did.
if we fast-track this young man in the express lane to a prominent place of party leadership, as some here seem to be suggesting--
how, precisely, do you think such a thing will play to Mr. and Mrs. Ralph and Alice Middle America, when the Republicans come around telling them that the Democratic Party is a "private club run by a clique of insider elites, that you could never hope to belong to"?
Perhaps you are mistaking me for someone else?
... as if he's come down with some sickness. 
