Does anyone else have the following rationale for leaning away from Hillary:

[Obamarama]

I love Hillary to pieces. I think she has been an effective senator, I think she has some good ideas, and I think this country is ready to have a woman govern it since testosterone in the White House, I'm finding out, is probably far overrated.

But here's my sticking point, and it's not neccesarily directly about Hillary's ability to govern, becuase I think she is more than capable. I think she would make an excellent president.

But, if she were to take 2008, at the end of her term we would have had 24 years of governing by individuals from two families. Say she got re-elected in 2012. That would be 28 years of governing under the control of two families. Two political views.

I just think we need something.....fresh. New blood. New perspectives. New visions. And I'm not saying Hillary doesn't have some of those or all of those. It's just that ultimately I look at the potential of having power rooted in just two families over the course of a whole generation of Americans and it makes me uneasy. I don't beleive our system of government can ultimately be optimally heatlhy if it becomes a system of familial political dynasty. It just starts to feel like monarchy to me and it makes me a tad uneasy.

Anyone else have these same concerns? Do you think they are valid or not?

[TwilightGardener]

1. Why, yes--that's why I support Obama. The blood don't get any fresher than him.

[AmBlue]

25. And partly why I support Edwards.

It's not just about fresh blood. It's about who's best for the job. Edwards is the best of the top three in many ways and he's going to WIN Iowa.

[Warpy]

2. A lot of us dislike dynasties and with very good reason

However, my own problems with Clinton are her position on war(s) in the Middle East and her healthcare plan.

Her voting record in the Senate is ample reason for me to vote for her if she's the nominee, but those two major positions need work, a lot of it, to make her a good candidate instead of just a passable one.

The dynastic problem is a very distant third.

[Tesha]

3. Yes. And one could argue that since GHWBush was veep under Reagan...

> Anyone else have these same concerns? Do you think they
> are valid or not?

Yes. And one could argue that since GHWBush was veep
under Reagan, we could add another 8 years to the
Bush/Clinton dynasty. And it's all too easy to see
Jeb Bush replacing Hillary Clinton, too.

Tesha

[MrCoffee]

4. Personally, the dynasty argument doesn't hold water

I think the dynasty label gets slapped on by the media as a convenient tag for politically focused families. Hell, Al Gore could be tagged with that label as well (the Tennessee Senate Gore Dynasty).

I don't know...for me, the dynasty argument is contrived.


Edited to add that I'm not supporting HRC in the primary, but not because of the dynasty.

[civildisoBDence]

21. Would you rather see Hillary in the White House

or another Republican?

I don't think Obama or Edwards can win...

Newsprism

[mark414]

23. and you really think that one of these guys can???

[Bitwit1234]

5. What difference would that make...the reasoning is stupid

Did John Adams and his son ruin America hell no. bush did because he came from a corrupt family to begin with. LOOK AT PRESCOTT BUSH....THAT SORT OF GREED, MAYHEM, CORRUPTION, MANIACAL BEHAVIOR IS INHERITED.

President Clinton even when he was having consentual sex was never maniacal. And besides Hillary is not related by blood, she just married him.

[Obamarama]

12. You have no room for saying that reasoning is stupid....

If you can't see what difference it could make.

[Ken Burch]

17. John and John Quincy Adams did not ruin America, this is true...

However, there is an important distinction between there situation and this(other than the fact that, unlike "number 41 and number 43" neither of them was a blithering idiot, of course):

There was almost a quarter-century between the terms of the elder and younger Adamses(Adamii?)

Also, since both were relatively weak presidents, both losing after a single term(and the younger Adams having won in the Electoral College after losing to Andrew Jackson in the popular vote), they had far less ability to do any harm(the younger Adams wasn't too bad as president, but the elder does bear the shame of having imposed a state of emergency on the U.S. during his term, by signing the Alien and Sedition Act).

John Quincy Adams was, in the end, a far better Congressman than president. He was one of the first major figures in American politics(another being the young Abraham Lincoln)to speak out against what he saw as an unjust war, the Mexican War of the 1840's
(a war in which, let us remember, the U.S. stole HALF the territory of Mexico via brute force. Which should also temper anyone's opposition to undocumented Mexicans working in the Southwest. After all, they aren't moving IN, they're moving BACK.) John Quincy Adams also spoke out passionately against slavery and represented the Amistad defendants in their trial.
All in all, one of the most "progressive" conservative politicians the country has ever seen.

[MadinMo]

6. Dynasty

I also want something FRESH in the whitehouse. I loved WJC, and I think HRC has proved she is a good politician. But let's have a new democrat in the whitehouse. This is why I am not thrilled that the MSM is pushing her at us so hard.

[Marrah_G]

7. That is a concern for me also and I like her alot

I think at this moment and at this time in the history of our country we need someone very special to take the Oval Office. I don't see her as that person and frankly I don't see any of them as that person.

I will fight for whomever gets the nomination, but I do hope another choice is added before it is to late.

I am not Anti- Hillary, nor am I Pro-Hillary. If she gets the nod I will fight like a cornered raccoon for her.

[TahitiNut]

8. I'd put it differently. It's redolent of CRONYISM. Isabel Peron.

The elephant in the room is that participation in our self-governance has the prerequisite of being 'connected' and 'making your bones' ... being a crony to one of the establishment 'families.'

I think it's bad enough to have a "two party system." Acting as though it's a "two family system" puts us even more into the category of a banana republic. Personality cultism. The politics of 'who' instead of 'what.'

"Don't cry for me Argentina!"

[Captain Hilts]

9. Um, no. We have a grueling electoral process, Argentina doesn't. 'Nuff said.

People have plenty of opportunities to vote against her in the process.

[Captain Hilts]

10. Hell, she ain't even Corneila Wallace. HRC has a tough gauntlet to traverse. nt

[supernova]

11. I think similar to you KzooDem

I personally like Hillary, though I'm very much to the left of her politically. She has a lot of positive attributes we at least pay lip service to admiring in this country. I would be pleased as punch if we had a woman president next.

But, I sincerely don't like the idea of two families trading the presidency back and forth. Not only is it not a good idea for these two families, it sets a bad precedent for more families in the future to develop into dynasties, exactly the problem our FF were hoping to avoid.

I don't want ANY FAMILY in this country (or political party for that matter) thinking that they are entitled to the presidency based on expectations and connections, both familial and professional.

I kinda feel badly for her because to me she represents sort alike the right persona, perhaps at the right time, attached to the wrong family.

[durrrty libby]

13. I think Hillary is the best one for the job. Period

She's not blood related to Bill. This line of reasoning is goofy

[Obamarama]

14. No, it's not goofy. I'm not talking about blood, I'm talking about ideology.

Too much of the same political ideology - on the right or the left - is probably not the best thing for our country right now.

[Maine-ah]

15. that's my main reason

and I have others. K&R

[applegrove]

16. I think she influenced Bill quite a bit. And he was a great leader. But he made

some mistakes and notably was always engaged in the details of an issue, so much so that decisions came more slowly. I don't think Hillary has that problem. So she may turn out to be the best President of the both of them.

[Emit]

18. Yes. There's a pattern here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1944999

Mo Rocca resurrects his ... "Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton ... Who Needs Elections?" piece.

Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton ... Who Needs Elections?

Posted Sep 28th 2007 10:11AM by Mo Rocca
Filed under: George Bush, Mo's Videos, Hillary Clinton, Mo Rocca

Suddenly - and FINALLY - people are talking about the problem of presidential dynasties here in America. The possibility of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton (up to 28 years of 2-family rule) is looming with Hillary on the rise. (Add to that 8 run-up years of Bush the Father as VP to Reagan.)

I hate to sound like a smarty pants. But why not? Here is a commentary I taped for CBS Sunday Morning a year and a half ago on this subject. (Hence the references to Jeb Bush as candidate.) Forgive the over-enunciation and the annoying billowy shirt. I was new on the job...


Video at link
http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/09/28/bush-clinton-bush-clinton-who-needs-elections /

[Breeze54]

19. Spot on and also the DLC and her votes for wars in Iraq and Iran.

She isn't cutting the 'Mother Earth' custard for me.

Leaving a really bad taste in my mouth and I hate custard!!

I like variety!! :P

:kick: & Recommended because I think people are just complacent.

Drifting down the MSM lazy river of indifference....

[LittleClarkie]

20. Gee, I don't know what you mean...

(whistles nonchalantly and points at sig pic)

[Breeze54]

22. How do you feel about Bush/Clinton Two-Family Rule? (AOL Poll)

http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/10/01/the-bushes-and-clintons-how-do-you-feel-about-presidential-dyna/">How do you feel about Bush/Clinton Two-Family Rule?

1.) I love Two-Family Rule! I hope that one day Chelsea marries that hottie George P. Bush
in a royal wedding, and that the two of them rule forever!!

2.) I only want Bush family members in the White House.Since the blond twin is getting married,
I think the other one should get to be President first! Fair is fair.

3.) I only want Clintons in the White House. And forget term limits. Hillary should be President
of the U.S. and Empress of India!

4.) I want new blood in the White House: Is there a Kennedy available?

By a vote of 70% ----

5.) I want the Bushes and Clintons to follow the example of George Washington and release
the reins of power. I want them to quietly return to their respective farms and lives as
private citizens - and leave us the hell alone.

----------------

http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/09/28/bush-clinton-bush-clinton-who-needs-elections/">Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton ... Who Needs Elections?

Mo Rocca has appeared on a bunch of shows, including 'The Daily Show,' 'I Love the 80s,'...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr0TkxReKuk

Suddenly - and FINALLY - people are talking about the problem of presidential dynasties
here in America. The possibility of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton (up to 28 years of 2-family rule)
is looming with Hillary on the rise. (Add to that 8 run-up years of Bush the Father as VP to Reagan.)

more.....

[mark414]

24. that is one reason among a small handful that i have

it seems that people want to try to completely wipe these last 7 years clean from their memories and take a time machine back to the 1990's...

that would be fairly nice, as the Clinton years were mostly good for a good number of people.

but that, IMHO, is a very bad decision. we can't try to pretend like nothing happen and just go back to the clintons...something serious has happened, and this stain on this country is the end result of the general culture that surrounds our political leaders and has for awhile.

and while i don't think hillary is a republican or incompetent or anything like that, i am still actively campaigning against her nomination. we don't need and we cannot stand politics as usual in this country. the crisis we face now requires an utterly new and completely different way of thinking, from somebody with a kind of background and experience that has never been seen in a presidential candidate before.

barack obama.

and to hell with all that talk of "no experience." dick cheney's been in government for 40 years and look what all of his experience got us. abraham lincoln's experience was 8 years in the Illinois House and 2 years in Congress - and look how he turned out to be.

i'll take somebody with good judgment and common sense over "political experience" any day. you can have all the experience in the world and still not see the forest for the trees...

[Hosnon]

26. To me it's only a valid concern if the Clintons and Bushes are getting

elected primarily because of their name and not because of their policies.

If one family happens to field the best, so be it. That is highly unlikely but I don't have any real problem with the current situation.