Think of this incredible fact: if Hillary is elected, we'll have 36 years of either Clinton or Bush

[DuaneBidoux]

As either VP, or President, a Bush or Clinton will have continuously served in one of the two offices for 36 straight years if Hillary is nominated and elected twice.

Bush SR. VP 80-88
Bush SR. President 88-92
Clinton, Bill. President 92-00
Bush Jr. President 00-08
Clinton, Hillary? President? 08-16

Total years: 36

[Capn Sunshine]

1. although this is a wingnut meme

I expect to see it 25/8 if Hillary is the candidate.

[DuaneBidoux]

11. I don't inherently see it as serving just the needs of wingnuts.

Yes, they'll use it if they have the chance--but I absolutely guarantee we'd be using it if we were facing a run by Jeb.

For a really far out scenario just imagine Jeb elected in '16 and going for 8 years. By then I think the Bush twins, or even Chelsea, will be old enough to pick up and run with it!

I'm sorry, but even if Chelsea were the most wonderful Dem in the whole world by then even you must admit it might be a bit spooky.

[bunkerbuster1]

30. Actually, by 2016 Chelsea will be old enough to run.

born February 27, 1980, she'll be 36.

We don't need no stinkin' rotten John Ellis Bush (please, please, don't call him by his folksy nomme de bullshit "Jeb")

[roguevalley]

36. I guess we are officially Rennaissance Italy with the Medicis and the

rest fighting over our serf bones. God, I am sick of this.

[KoKo]

38. Great....Sign us up Chelsea....QUEEN CHELSEA...because we will be a

MONARCHY long before then and she will just inherit. It's okay...it's the way it's going. No Constitution...just shredded.

[Fridays Child]

2. Just curious: do you think the Clinton part of that formula is a bad thing?

[DuaneBidoux]

No, I like both Clintons. But it would be, you must admit, an amazing fact.

I doubt if anything in American history has ever happened like it.

And, although I like the Clintons I am a little uncomfortable with dynasties of any stripe.

[Fridays Child]

15. I agree that it would be amazing but I'm not worried about the so-called dynasty...

...aspect of the issue. I really think that's just another meme manufactured by the right wing to undermine the candidate who most intimidates them. And it's not only a cynical scare tactic but it's disingenuous as hell, too (what a surprise, eh?) when you consider that they somehow neglected to raise the issue when Poppy's boy was running for the White House.

By the way, I'm not a Hillary supporter but, like many here, I will vote for her if she gets the nomination.

[Cosmocat]

29. Bingo ...

WHY the freak on earth is it NOW a problem, when you have the potential to have a COMPETENT president when it wasn't an issue with these freaks 7 years ago when a moron was in line ???

Like because this clown is a disaster we have to rule out someone who won't be a disaster ???

[AntiFascist]

47. Maybe you should be a little worried....

the "wing-nuts" who point out Iran-Contra connections don't seem to be too big of fans of the Bushes either. The major concern is the role of the CIA and what is happening in our foreign policy.

http://www.ncoic.com/clinton.htm

Gee, I wonder how this relates to what is going on in Iraq, Iran and our support of other big oil dynasties?

[onenote]

27. and how exactly do you define a "dynasty"

[kurth]

3. We need new blood

This country has ~300 MILLION people to choose from.

[MGKrebs]

17. Bring it on.

[SaveElmer]

4. So...

Are you saying there was no difference between Bush and Clinton...

[Mojambo]

5. The founders would be dismayed

Except maybe the Adamses.

[rodeodance]

6. and?------but at least it will end on a high note (with a Clinton).

[wyldwolf]

7. ok, a prediction of the replies you'll get

some rubbish about dynasties.
a call for new blood.
who's next? Jenna or Chelsea?
Not it Gore gets in!

[Alamom]

44. Oh...we got better this time. I think we're on Candid Camera with this one,

with some replies.....decide for yourself. :rofl:


edsp

:rofl:

[tridim]

8. Hillary isn't a Clinton

She's a Rodham.

It'd be different if Chelsea was running. ;)

[DuaneBidoux]

13. But as Faux "News" repeatedly pointed out--she wants no part of Rodham.

[ElizabethDC]

21. Not true, actually.

I'm aware that Fox has been reporting this (thanks to the Colbert Report) - but on campaign fundraising letters (I got one as recently as last week) and thank you notes, the return address says "Hillary Rodham Clinton" in really big letters, and the heading at the top of the page says "Hillary Rodham Clinton" and it's signed "Hillary Rodham Clinton" (actually it's just signed "Hillary" but typed underneath it says "Hillary Rodham Clinton").

So that rumor, courtesy of Fox News, simply isn't true.

[mitchum]

22. Hillary is a Clinton by insemination (n/t)

[DemSoccerMom]

28. NICE! Good point. n/t

[Cameron27]

9. It doesn't bother me.

I don't have a candidate yet, but the bush/clinton/bush/clinton thing doesn't bother me. She's a different Clinton, but even if Bill could go for a 3rd term, it wouldn't bother me. FDR did ok.

[Arugula Latte]

10. Reason #317 to work against Hillary's nomination ...

x(

Ugh. The thought of that depresses the hell out of me ...

[Tellurian]

20. They have medication for that-

[Wwagsthedog]

12. I think I'm going to be sick. nt

[mckeown1128]

14. This bothers me...

I also have a problem with the Kennedy's. We shouldn't have dynasties. It bothers me for example when congressmen get elected because their father was a well liked governer or senater.

[ElizabethDC]

16. I'm shocked! No one has mentioned this on DU before.

Well, not today anyway. Did you just realize this? :shrug:

[DuaneBidoux]

23. No. I don't spend every day glued to DU

[Alamom]

42. Oh surely it was. You must have missed it. It's on at least 3 times a day, somewhere.

And it's making such a change in what people think. :sarcasm:

[TeamJordan23]

18. Don't forget Jeb Bush in the future

haha.

[oasis]

19. The white male dynasty must continue.

:patriot:

[Alamom]

43. Yes Sir. They've done such a fine job so far, Sir.

:) :patriot:

[LanternWaste]

24. If she is as able a leader as her husband was...

If she is as able a leader as her husband was, I've got no problems with it.

(Caveat: I have made no decisions concerning the Democratic Primaries yet)

[Nedsdag]

25. Oh, I've mentioned that constantly.

It doesn't matter to the sheeple who support her.

It's too bad someone else can't run for public office instead of those two families.

[onenote]

26. "its too bad someone else can't run for public office"

On the planet where I live, lots of people are running for public office. In fact, out of the dozen and a half people running for president, only one is from one of "those two families".

I'm not even an HRC supporter, but this is one of the stupidest arguments against her candidacy imaginable.

I'm curious about the people who find this to be a concern: are they married or have children? Do they think that they are completely interchageable with their spouses or kids -- that their relatives, blood or otherwise, are incapable of independent thinking or decision making but rather follow the "family" line of thinking on all things?

[Nedsdag]

31. If she was Hillary Rodham.

Who wasn't married to Bill Clinton and running as an independent, then yes, I would think about voting for her.

But do you actually believe Hillary would change course after the two of them have been politically meshed for over 35 years? This isn't Mary Matalin and James Carville we're talking about.

[BlueStater]

32. Please. Hillary would never be considered a serious candidate if not for her husband

She's just like the current White House idiot and his daddy in that respect. Hillary is obviously a trillion times more intelligent than that monkey and accomplished a lot of things on her own but her White House bid is being fueled by her relation to Bill.

[LanternWaste]

33. Don't interrupt...

Don't interrupt the current, trendy and edgy "dynasty" theme the RW is putting out, dammit! Critical thought just gets in the way...

[truebrit71]

34. Thank God it won't happen then...I'm done with BOTH of those families...

.

[ananda]

35. daawwgg

I didn't realize.. sobering.

[juajen]

37. Gee, what an original post!

I've never heard it put that way before.

[LBJDemocrat]

39. Don't be fooled

Dynasties don't mean anything. The president isn't really in charge - the top contributors are. They can do with or without a dynasty.

[illinoisprogressive]

40. People are such chickens they stay with them dysfunctional people time after time.

[highnooner]

41. This is the reason why I believe Hillary can't win

[BenDavid]

45. This is silly! Why? You

associate the Bush's record with Clintons (Bill). HRC is everything like Bill when it comes to politics and once she wins we will have 16 years of peace and prosperity and the 12 years of the bushes cannot even be compared to the Big Dawd's 8 years.....
In another poll on this forum the question was asked, Would you vote for a candidate like a Bill Clinton? The poll thus far had 66%. Well, excuse me but if anyone is gonna be like Bill it is HRC. The poll goes against the grain in this forum because you have so many HRC haters they would rather buy into the right wing spin and believe HRC cannot win.
Yes, why don't you all get so fired up and go against HRC with everything you have and if she does happen to lose the nomination then we will lose the 08 election.
Do you honestly believe that the right wing racists are afraid of Obama? Hell no! They would use every dirty trick in their arsenal. So I will stay with a fighter. A winner and someone like a Bill Clinton.....
I do thank you
Ben David

[1932]

46. That is not a sign of a healthy democracy.