For the first time in 28 years, there will be no Bush or Clinton in the executive branch

[SoonerPride]

How many remember Washington DC without a Clinton or Bush in power?

I do, of course, because I'm old and wrinkly, but I suspect many of our fellow DUers may not know a world without a Bush or Clinton in power.

[Blu Dahlia]

1. or Dole :)

[SoonerPride]

2. Glad to see the Dole name banished as well.

:)

[ipfilter]

3. I was 8 in 1979

Bushes have been in power for most of my life.

[leftofcool]

8. OMG! I have shoes older than that

The Clinton years were good ones

[kennetha]

4. But Hillary Clinton will be a major player in the Senate

She is a phenomenally good Senator and would have been a phenomenally good president.

[valerief]

13. Yeah, that's what I was thinking. When did the U.S. senator from New York become a powerless

position?

[SoonerPride]

18. I was just talking about the Executive Branch,

The Clinton name is still in Washington and she will be a force in the Legislative Branch, of that I have no doubt.

[valerief]

20. And who knows, Chelsea may follow in her parents' footsteps. nt

[leftofcool]

5. My life and pocketbook were both fabulous during the Clinton years

and I'd give my old wrinkly right arm to have a Clinton back right now

[SoonerPride]

21. Really?

That is an odd thing to say.

[SIMPLYB1980]

6. Glad to be rid of Bush, and glad the Clinton's will be around for a long time.

[RoyGBiv]

7. Bush is the key there ...

Truly the line about dynasty that included the Clintons was just that, a line that worked for political purposes but doesn't mean much practically. Bill actually interrupted a pattern briefly.

As it pertains to the Bushes, however, it means a lot.

The Bush family has been a major controlling influence on our nation for far, FAR too long. We need to go back the Prescott to see the true scope.

We also need to expand it beyond the Bushes into the whole cadre of criminals that worked closely with them. Except for the Clinton years (and even then in some back offices) we've had the same people running things since at least Nixon.

That, it is to be hoped, is the true source of the change we have undertaken in the election of Obama.

[JohnnyLib2]

9. or a Reagan, Nixon, Eisenhower, Roosevelt, Taft, Adams, etc.

Sorry, I just don't think those two names are in one category, other than ex-president.

[southpaw]

10. I would have supported Hillary had she won the primaries

Hell, I voted for her in the AL primaries.


Still, the thought of the presidency being passed back and forth between the same two families made me feel a little funny.

[izzybeans]

11. The Clintons' where great but I've known nothing

but an Oligarchy my whole life and that saddens me (with exception to a few years of Carter when I could barely walk).

It's why I did not support Hillary for President in fact. My democratic principles forced me to say to myself that enough was enough it's time to move on.

[Beacool]

12. Yeah, but no one can predict the future.

Maybe there'll be a Clinton back in the WH after Obama finishes his term.

:D

[quickesst]

14. Caught in the middle

Bill Clinton, who by the way, is the only Clinton to occupy the White House as president, belongs in the group below. To categorize the Clintons as part of a "dynasty", or oligarchy is, in my opinion, easily discounted. The proof is in the simple fact that the Clintons are caught up in the negativity because Bill Clinton happened to be elected(by the people by the way) to two terms as president in the middle of what one using great imagination, could describe as a mini-dynasty, Big George, and little george. With some small effort it should be no stretch to understand where the Clintons are in history, and much of the animosity they receive is logically, not deserved. Even those who approve wholeheartedly of Clintons, but think of them in the context of belonging to some super-club formed by them and the Bush bunch, is also wrong. I present Clinton's peers. Thanks.
quickesst


Thomas Jefferson 2,922 2 Served two full terms.
4 James Madison 2,922 2 Served two full terms.
5 James Monroe 2,922 2 Served two full terms.
7 Andrew Jackson 2,922 2 Served two full terms.<1>
18 Ulysses S. Grant 2,922 2 Served two full terms.<2>
22/24 Grover Cleveland 2,922 2 Served two full terms, not consecutively. Not reelected on first try for a second term. <1>
28 Woodrow Wilson 2,922 2 Served two full terms.
34 Dwight David Eisenhower 2,922 2 Served two full terms.
40 Ronald Reagan 2,922 2 Served two full terms.
42 Bill Clinton 2,922 2 Served two full terms.

To equate the two names other than as two-term presidents when jr's reign is done, and that's a stretch(appointed, or stolen elections), is distorting history. In easy terms, if Clinton's presidency, and successes had occurred at any time before the Bushies, these type threads would be non-existent.

[Richardo]

15. For the first time since 1952, no Bush or Dole in federal gov't

...and about time, too. :grr:

[WhollyHeretic]

16. Wait. I thought the vice president was in charge of the senate, not in the executive branch.

The vice president gets down in there (I'm not quite sure where there is, maybe and underground bunker) and helps make the laws.


:crazy:

[mmonk]

17. Has Senator Clinton been ruled out?

[Arugula Latte]

19. Finally! A breath of fresh air.

[politicasista]

22. LOL!

:rofl:

Yes, it's nice to have a president with a unique name that represents the face of America. :)