Critics Cry 'Dynasty!' Over Clintons, But Not Bushes

[TwilightZone]

On the campaign trail, one criticism frequently lobbed at Hillary Clinton is that her presidency would be the extension of dynastic politics. The political sequence of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton has left many critics, mostly conservatives, rolling their eyes and salivating with ire.

On NBC's Meet the Press, Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan said that such a run of political lineage is a "sickness" that "is giving so many people pause."

But is the critique fair? And, if so, where were these voices when George W. Bush ran for office in 2000?

Among Clinton supporters, the answer to those two questions are universally: "no" and "nonexistent." Clinton, they argue, is the victim of poor political timing - trying to follow one family's occupation of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave with her own. And George W. Bush was never regarded with the same dynastic skepticism.

More...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/23/critics-cry-dynasty-ov_n_82811.html

[TwilightGardener]

1. Uh, no--I screamed "dynasty" with Chimpy too. He would have been

a sorry middle-aged no-account drunk without his father. Oh wait--he was anyway. Didn't matter.

[babylonsister]

2. We've witnessed the damage done by the other dynasty; we don't want

to repeat it. Sounds about right to me.

[TwilightZone]

5. So, Hillary gets the blame for 12 years of Bush.

I see.

[rodeodance]

6. yup--so many are Peggy Noonan-types.

[TwilightZone]

7. It's a nonsensical assertion.

It's like saying "Carter shouldn't have followed Ford, because Ford was a poor president."

[rodeodance]

13. made sense to me.

[gorekerrydreamticket]

15. Thank you for nut-shelling the answer!

Hit it right on...

[Missy M]

3. How about the Kennedys.....

the Romneys, the Dalys in Chicago and so on.

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. A LOT of people have objected to the Daly dynasty, too.

But it did remain localized to Chicago.

The Kennedy's were more diverse, but there was talk of dynasty when it looked like Bobby was going to win 68.

Personally, I don't see the Clintons as a dynasty. I see it as a 2nd 2 year term for Bill. That's wrong.

[Occam Bandage]

4. I screamed "dynasty!" at Bush, as did many Dems. He would have been nothing without his father.

[oldtime dfl_er]

8. And his father would have been nothing

without HIS father.

In contrast, the Clintons come from middle class stock in Arkansas, with no history of political wheelings and dealings. Dictionary.com defines a dynasty (American Heritage Dictionary definition) as
"1. A succession of rulers from the same family or line.
2. A family or group that maintains power for several generations"

The Bushes fit. The Clintons don't.

[glowing]

9. I wasn't exactly thrilled with the notion, but now that it has been

Reagan w/ a Bush, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton the whole thing looks like a dynasty... and knowing that a few Clinton policies were absolutely devastating and that Poppy and Pres. Clinton are so buddy-buddy these days looks a bit like too much.

[BenDavid]

11. You obama people! you kept hollering about the 90's as if

the 90's were the worst of times in america. Hell compared to the president after clinton and the ones prior to Bill,(reagan and bush) I would say america is ready for the united states to become that nation once again....oh you say there was so many scandals in the 90's concerning Bill......well okay let me see.....HRC is and was the most investigate woman in america by the right and what did they find? NOTHING! NOTHING! In December 1995 Jay Stevens former assistant a.g. now lead attorney for pillsbury, madison, sutro reported to the senate there was no wrong nothing by HRC nor Bill Clinton....The media did not report this because the media wanted to keep this farce in the headlines, but it all came to an end in 98 when starr finally told the truth that we knew for the last several years, the clintons did not do anything wrong.....but of course the right continued the investigation even after their own investigators pillsbury, madison said there was nothing...and then of course there was monica and the fellatio...hell we clintons supporters of bill was pissed at him and still pissed for this stupid act....but the american people understood what was going on and they took were pissed at Bill....but the american public knew this man was their president and rewarded him in 98 99 200 with approval ratings ranging from the middle 60% range to a high of 73%.....

So what I am saying is elect HRC and you will see in 8 years the peace and prosperity the 90's brought us but without the scandals....That is not a bad deal it is the right deal.....it is the covenant with america we will have once again...

[dkf]

12. Republicans believe in dynastys. Dems are supposed to believe in a meritocracy

and be against nepotism.

[TwilightZone]

16. So, which is it if the voters select the president?

Via the electoral college, of course.

[TwilightZone]

19. ..

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. I'm an equal opportunity Dynasty hater. That goes for the TV show too.

[LanternWaste]

17. Seems inherently anti-democratic

Seems almost inherently anti-democratic to deny a qualified candidate his or her place simply because of blood and pedigree.

So to me, the Dynasty argument has been nothing more than another bullshit attempt to paint one more fictional, ugly mark on candidates.

BTW: I'd love to have seen a Kennedy/Kennedy dynasty.

[TwilightZone]

18. Agreed.

It's just another convenient excuse. No one can explain why Hillary should be blamed for 12 years of Bush. No one can explain why two non-consecutive terms constitute a dynasty. No one can explain how it's a dynasty if it involves actual voters.

The best one, though, is the claim that it's a Bush/Clinton dynasty and that they're all in it together. To believe that, one must believe that Bush intentionally threw the race in 1992. Yeah, right.

Agreed on the Kennedys. RFK would have made an incredible president, and Teddy is one of the most liberal Dems around.