Earth to disgruntled Hillary supporters: There IS no Kerry dynasty!

[beachmom]

Some people, who are mad, because their candidate is about to lose (and really, I understand this is a tough day), are talking nonsense, so this forces me to explain what the meaning of the word Dynasty is:

Dynasty:

A dynasty is a succession of rulers who belong to the same family for generations. A dynasty is also often called a "house", e.g. the House of Saud or House of Habsburg. In the histories of Europe, much of Asia and some of Africa, ruling and noble houses have usually been patrilineal; inheritance and kinship being predominantly viewed and legally calculated through descent from a common ancestor in the male line. Often, however, if the male lineage died out, descendants through females (and sometimes the females themselves) were recognized as entitled to inherit the dynasty's realms and/or wealth.

The Bush family is a dynasty. The Kennedy family is a dynasty. The Clinton family is a dynasty.

As to the Kerry family, here are all the leaders in the "Kerry dynasty" who have been a succession of rulers (or any elected office):

John Kerry

I will apologize immediately if you have inside info that Vanessa Kerry is now running for office -- she is a smart cookie, a doctor, and even went out to Montana in 2006 to help get Jon Tester elected to the Senate. But last I looked, neither Vanessa nor Alexandra are interested in running for office, and Teresa Heinz isn't going to either. Maybe some day one of the Heinz boys will, but they really are part of the Heinz family, not the Boston "Kerry dynasty" (LOL). So, as of yet, as flattering and attractive as the idea sounds, there is no Kerry dynasty.

Oh, and if you turn on CSPAN2, Kerry is speaking about global climate change right now on the Senate floor.

[jobycom]

1. No idea the reason behind this post, but the Clintons are not a dynasty by your definition

You have Bill Clinton, and that's it. If Hillary won, she would be the same generation as Clinton, and not descended from him or any other Clinton, thus, no dynasty.

[beachmom]

2. Hillary is a senator. So under democracy, any family with multiple members in elected office is a

dynasty.

And, seriously, this is what spurred this on:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6241152

[jobycom]

12. That post didn't say Kerry was a dynasty.

It pointed out the hypocrisy of opposing one candidate for controlling an office for a length of time while not opposing other candidates. It called the Kennedies a dynasty, but that's not disputed.

[JVS]

3. One could argue that a senator or congressman also rules the country

[beachmom]

6. Exactly. nt

[jobycom]

13. Well, then, Kerry would be a dynasty.

Or part of his wife's dynasty, since she's now been married to two senators. At least as much as the Clintons are.

[EFerrari]

4. lol

:)

[sui generis]

5. nothing like generalizing an argument

personally, my telepathy went out when I was eight and never came back on.

Since that time I am no longer able to tell other people what they are thinking, and have had to rely on the question-answer format, and even then the answer turns out to be unique to the individual.

I miss my telepathy. :pout:

[blm]

7. Basically, a few HRC supporters are shifting their attacks from Obama to Kerry since he used his

national political organization from 2004 for Obama to access and did so long before he publically endorsed Obama. It helped Obama outorganize the longtoothed Clinton team and he hit the ground running.

TeamClinton knows this and now some of them want to work against Kerry in Mass.

[EFerrari]

8. You caught this really early. n/t

[blm]

9. It's actually popped up before. Usually after Kerry makes a round of tv appearances as a surrogate

for Obama. All the signs are there - and the usual suspects never fail to pop up.

[sui generis]

10. thank you for noting the "some of them" part of that

I'm not a team clinton member myself but we all have an uphill battle ahead of us to unify and rationalize rather than separate and reject. The easy negative path is downhill and seems to pick up momentum too easily until like a bad relationship argument we make it worse with "always" and "never" and attempts at verbal mutual destruction.

This primary has been like a bad highschool football game. No great principles or talent to discuss, not many real reasons to be fighting to win, just yammering on about the execution of timeouts and strategy with winning for winnings sake taken for granted.

It could be better - and ultimately one or either or both of the candidates are going to have to stop and really listen to the street.

[goldcanyonaz]

11. Who?