One quartter of Americans have only had a Bush or Clinton as Prez in their lifetimes...

[elehhhhna]

...if Hil the Pill is s-elected, at the end of 2 terms it will be one-third.

Creepy.

I read it in the Harpers Index last night.

[Bill McBlueState]

1. I saw that too

As a twenty-something, it freaked me out to consider that a quarter of Americans were born in 1989 or later.

[AndyA]

2. No time like the present to break the grip they've had on government.

We need CHANGE.

And change isn't going to come wearing the same old face, carrying the same old baggage, and making the same old promises.

[Benhurst]

3. It's actually even worse thant that, since Poppy was pulling the strings

through James Baker for a good bit, if not most, of the Reagan Administration as The Gipper succumbed to Alzheimer's.

[Beausoleil]

5. Probably since Oct '80

Since Poppy was pulling the strings for the October Surprise. And don't forget the Bush/Hinckley connection.

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. Beat me to it -

I've said for years that Bush1 was re-elected in '88.

[T Wolf]

4. As much as I despise hereditary dynastys, and am not particularly fond of Sen.

Clinton's policies, this line being pushed by the media is another example of the Dems being out-manuevered by the pukes. Now that their dynasty is finishing (for now) America should not continue the practice.

It is the same crap of "now that we have done it, it's tme to switch the rules" approach the republicons are pushing for a "return to bipartisanship for the good of the country."

I certainly hope the Dems do not continue to fall for that shit. Now is exactly the time to stomp on the throat of the Bushistas and their supporters and permanently remove them from the scene.

Sometime in the past year, I read a posting here that stated that now (then) was precisely the time for a PROGRESSIVE push to the left by the Dems. The time was ripe and the country more receptive to this kind of sea-change. Instead, they are moving even further to the right to attempt to woo those middle-of-the-road wusses who will abandon the party as soon as they can.

I do not really have any hope that this country will be the impetus for positive global change. We have lost (thrown away) that opportunity.

[dbackjon]

6. Bravo!

If the Democrats think that Hillary is the best candidate, she should win the nomination. Regardless of her last name.

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. Hillary is NOT a change from those policies - you yourself said

you don't care for her policies. If she was the strong progressive who would stand against the record of the past 28 years, what is the problem with her policies?

End it NOW. The policies AND the dynasties. Get a populist progressive in there who will fight the powers that be, not compromise with them.

[Toots]

7. That means that quarter won't be able to vote for several more years

I wonder if they have even paid attention to who the President is and if there has been a difference. That statistic also means those folks have known only war and deficit for half their time alive..

[LittleBlue]

8. That includes me.

I know no politics outside of Bush Clinton

[Solar_Power]

11. That percentage will increase dramatically during 8 more yrs of Clinton admin

[elehhhhna]

13. AS I mentioned, the % would then be one-third! TOO MUCH

[Cha]

12. I'm bored with the whole

bushclintonbushwhatever..I want fresh blood. Not the same ol' recycled shit.

[wuushew]

14. Since she is only is a Clinton by marriage it is not a true blood dynasty

The fact that she does not play up what seems to me a perfectly usable maiden name does not score any feminist points.

[Raine]

17. yeah plus

whenever she is in poll trouble she trots out Bill. x(

[KoKo]

15. Well...that leaves 3/4th's who KNOW BETTER...so just leave the election up to

the REST OF US...and don't worry about it. :D

[DemGa]

16. I've never understood why two sorry-azz Bushes

from the Bush crime family, makes two Clintons seem bad or "creepy." I see this a lot, but I don't judge the Clintons in regard to the Bush crime family.