Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Are the Clintons really a "dynasty"?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
mwb970 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 04:13 PM
Original message
Are the Clintons really a "dynasty"?
There is this meme about that if Hillary wins we will see an America alternating between political dynasties for its leadership: Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. Tucker just used the d-word on his show, for example.

But it seems to me that the Bush family is a true political dynasty (like the Kennedys), with Jeb and the Chimp in this generation, then Poppy, Prescott, etc., whereas the Clintons are just a married couple, not even blood related. How is that a "dynasty"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 04:16 PM
Response to Original message
1. I agree w you. Hillary is Bill's wife, not his daughter -- this is just more noise EOM
Edited on Wed Feb-07-07 04:16 PM by emulatorloo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 04:17 PM
Response to Original message
2. I'm not certain they should even be seen as a partnership.
Two different personalities, two different political philosophies despite a shared party, two sets of goals. A dynasty implies something that is being perpetuated. On the contrary, I see Hillary as inadvertently eroding Bill's legacy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 04:18 PM
Response to Original message
3. You're right.
I wouldn't consider the Clinton's a dynasty. Now if Chelsea has political aspirations, althought there is nothing wrong with that, then the Clinton's may be considered a dynasty. I always wonder why repukes didn't mention this dynasty business when shrubnuts campaigned?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 04:28 PM
Response to Original message
4. No - it is just the usual garden variety female bashing.
Do you think for one moment if a woman had been President and then her equally qualified (or better qualified) husband wanted to run for the WH this dynasty crap would ever come up? Of course not.

I am amazed at the number of people who post on DU that see husband and wife as the same as multi-generations of Kennedys and Bushes. Its just Hillary bashing by fools who think they are clever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dos pelos Donating Member (224 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
5. They are a "wannabe" dynasty......
Edited on Wed Feb-07-07 04:31 PM by dos pelos
Thats why they experience so much abuse from the established old school power elite.They are grubbing new arrivals at the scene.They want to join the club.In Hillary's' case her ambition for this is very transparent and strong,and off putting.
The USA should be able to produce a more vibrant,more diverse offering for political leadership than the few political families we see all the time,Bush,Clinton,Kennedy.
The widening gap between have and have not,the concentration of wealth in the USA is mirrored in the phenomenon of the concentration of political power in fewer and fewer hands.We are forming an aristocracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllegroRondo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 04:33 PM
Response to Original message
6. no, but "dynasty" has a negative connotation
so the right uses it to describe Hillary. Notice that they never used it to describe the Bush family until AFTER the shrub was elected, and then only in context with the Clintons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GumboYaYa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 04:36 PM
Response to Original message
7. Yes it is a dynasty in the making.
It is a dynasty built on the ability to raise massive amounts of money.

What will be interesting is watching all the special interests groups line up behind Hillary to get some of that money and power regardless of whether she is the best candidate to represent their interests.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donald Ian Rankin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 04:57 PM
Response to Original message
8. "Dynasty" is a convenient shorthand, even though it's innaccurate.
I think one can say with a reasonable degree of confidence that neither George W. and Jeb Bush, nor Hillary Clinton, would have attained their present degrees of political seniority had they not been the children/wives of former presidents - the degree of coincidence that would imply is breathtaking.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quinnox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 05:01 PM
Response to Original message
9. that's a good point
I think it is a tactic used by people who don't like Hillary to try and compare the Bush's which is a political dynasty with the Clintons.
But lets say the Clintons were a dynasty. Is that automatiacally bad? Of course not, there can be good and bad dynastys.

What about the Kennedys? They are a dynasty.

The "beware of another dynasty" is a bashing tactic that is quite simple minded IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dyedinthewoolliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 05:22 PM
Response to Original message
10. Dynasty?
That's a hoot. In relation to the ruling elites here in the USA the Clintons are trailer trash......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
11. No.
Just verbiage being used to bash Senator Clinton. Methinks its because she's a woman that the people saying it use this as an 'excuse'. Who knows? Maybe they even believe their own lies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formerrepuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 05:33 PM
Response to Original message
12. Hardly a dynasty- Bill C. had *very* humble beginnings...relied on
nothing but his drive and intelligence to get where he did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 09:05 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC