S/SW blog philosophy -

I credit favorite writers and public opinion makers.

A lifelong Democrat, my comments on Congress, the judiciary and the presidency are regular features.

My observations and commentary are on people and events in politics that affect the USA or the rest of the world, and stand for the interests of peace, security and justice.

Friday, October 05, 2007

Bush or Clinton dynasty a problem?

The words "Clinton dynasty" seem to be on the lips of many people these days. A search on those words at my Bloglines feed aggregator turned up 1740 posts on the subject. Not to mention a few from the "Matching News" list:
Liberals Slam Hillary Over Dodge Tactics from the Republican National Committee
The Clinton Coronation, by -- guess who -- William Kristol
The Clintons and the Bushes, from Newsvine
Of presidents and dynasties from the LA Times
You know what? It will not be a problem for me. The opinions of the likes of Bill Kriston and the RNC will not swing any votes away from Hillary Clinton anyway. So they can just sputter as much as they like.
China also worries about America's trend towards dynastic rule. And that does bother me in one way. Because the Bush dynasty second incarnation has been devastating to the United States. The dynasty angle was not the problem; George W. Bush himself was the problem. The story comes from China Daily (9/29/07). It carries a great headline: "Bush, Clinton, Bush ... Clinton?" To quote:

Forty percent of Americans have never lived when there wasn't a Bush or a Clinton in the White House. Anyone got a problem with that?

The Clintons and Bushes, he [David Gergen] said, have built up strong "brand" recognition for their names -- just as the Kennedys did in an age of promise cut short by assassination -- making it harder for newcomers to compete.

But sometimes, people just want to try something new.

An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll taken over the summer found that fully one-quarter of all Americans said that the prospect of having at least 24 straight years of a President Clinton or Bush would be a consideration in their vote for president in 2008.

The dynasty question that must be settled by Democrats is whether to worry about the possibility that one-quarter of all Americans might not vote for another Clinton. What if she were to run as Hillary Rodham? How would that work?

Cross posted at The Reaction

Technorati tags: news and politics


TXsharon said...

Is that your dog and cat? What a precious picture.

Carol Gee said...

txsharon - no they are not mine. I got it in one of those voluminous "forwards" that we all get from friends. Usually with such things, the origins are lost in the mists of time. Thanks.

The Future Was Yesterday said...

I think the word "dynasty" is one overplayed by the MSM. Just as in sports dynasty's, one team is very different from the last. Bush I and II demonstrated this clearly, when Bush I stopped his Iraq efforts, when it became apparent any further war action would be genocide, Bush II considers genocide to be "winning."

I don't mind if I'm "ruled" by the "Plumbers Dynasty" (ten plumbers in a row), as long as all ten read, understand, and obey our constitution.