Yeah, I wouldn’t use “obscure” to qualify it, either. I have heard it enough to think it surprisingly common. Irrelevant and WTF?ish, sure, but obscure? Nah.
It’s totally obscure, I’m not about to pretend otherwise. I’m just not comfortable with the executive being fought over by two families. And the next Bush would probably be Jeb, not Jenna. Maybe in another 16-20 years she’ll get her shot.
It may be an irrational concern, and you’re certainly free to make that argument. Something about it doesn’t sit right with me, even if I’m at something of a loss to articulate exactly what that is.
Edit: I read bigdruid’s use of obscure not to mean uncommon, but rather unimportant or vague, and it’s almost certainly the latter.
It should be a concern. I’m less worried about a war of succession than the inordinate amount of influence that gives particular families with generally less than noble goals. But that’s already true in many places in the marketplace, so what’s the matter with letting it happen in politics? shrugs That, Hilary’s hawkish nature, and concern over her medical plan gives me pause to vote for her, but between her and the republicans, I’d take her any day. Voting republican this time regardless of the candidates sends the wrong message to the party system.
You don’t need the South to win the Presidency.
It helps a lot. Espcially if the West-minus-California breaks Republican, as it usually does.
Hillary won’t swing to the extreme left once she wins the presidency (which she will), because she’s not an extreme leftist. In college, Hillary was a registered Republican, and I believe she was even president of the Campus Republicans, although I don’t have documentation of that handy at the moment. She’s running as a moderate because she is a moderate. If anything, she’ll run slightly to the left of where her positions really are and swing back towards the center once elected.
Sure, possibly in 2000, when a talentless ex-drunk ex-draft-dodger who has made his fortune riding his daddy’s coat-tails is running for office, and whose brother happens to control the deciding state in the election. Odd that I didn’t hear anything about it back then, huh?
But in 2008, when a self-made woman from a middle-class background is running for president? I mean, we’re talking about the Clintons here, not the Kennedys.
It just stinks like something ripped from a “stupid talking points for right-wingers trying to discredit Hillary” blog.
I heard she was a Marxist in college. Seriously.
I wish the rumor mill would get their story straight.
George W would never have been a candidate for president without the help of the influence and connections his father made in government (particularly as president). Hillary probably wouldn’t be a serious candidate for president without the influence and connections from Bill’s years as president.
I think it underlines the fact that you need powerful political connections to have a serious chance of becoming president, and family connections are the best kind. It would be healthier for voters to be extra-skeptical of candidates who are closely connected to past administrations.
That just means she’s interested in class struggle and historical materialism.
Trying to expand on it a bit more:
The underlying concern is really about consolidation of power and influence. The idea of a narrow very group of people maintaining executive power over long periods of time strikes me as anathemic to democracy. Under our current electoral framework the monied and the privileged will always have a fundamental advantage, and that’s OK with me, even if I don’t like it exactly, and it’s not that I have a problem with Hilary becoming president or something (as I said, I’ll vote for her, probably with more enthusiasm than most, as I actually quite like her.) It’s more that so few people seem to have a meaningful shot at the presidency as is, and it seems like there are signs that the field is becoming even narrower, and I believe that’s ultimately harmful to the electorate.
Yeah, this is more or less what I’m trying to drive at.
This makes sense to me. It seems like having connections to people with political power makes it much easier for people to attain high office regardless of their own abilities.
I think that it’s a rather poor argument against Hillary, though - of all the negative things you can say about her, saying she’s unqualified to be president is a stretch.
Anyhow, people had the same vague concerns about the “Roosevelt Dynasty”. And yet, somehow, the Union endures.
Well in 2000, I wasn’t a big Bush dynasty fan, and I heard plenty of grumbling conspiratorially about foul play and Jeb. Then again, I live in California.
Yeah, but neither Roosevelt fucked up as badly as Bush 2.
I trust this isn’t directed at me, since at no point have I suggested that Hillary is not qualified to be president. Either way, the argument is not against Hilary, rather a commentary on what I see as a discouraging trend in presidential elections, which she currently exemplifies. I realize I’ve done a poor job of articulating that, and I’m sorry.
Anyhow, people had the same vague concerns about the “Roosevelt Dynasty”. And yet, somehow, the Union endures.
I’d like to think the US is capable of something more than mere endurance, but the last bits of idealism haven’t been crushed out of me yet. Give it a few years.
I know I’m going to get flamed for this but I’d really like to see the first woman get elected. Yeah, nobody’s perfect, but at least you know where she stands.
Let’s not go over the he said she said about the war, the facts were presented in a nice package by Collin Powell who even the democrats respected highly. That was the Administration and I don’t hold that whole “You voted for the war” thing against them at this point.
Yeah, I agree. Everything Bush said he stood for during the 2000 election doesn’t even come close to what he’s done the past 6+ years.
It’s not that I hold it against anyone, but insight and political courage are good qualities for a Presidential candidate to have. I’m therefore impressed by any candidate who spoke out against the war when most Dems either couldn’t see where it was going or were afraid of being labelled unpatriotic.
Not that I have a vote or anything…
England, India, Germany too I believe. Singapore maybe? Or was it Thailand? There’s also Chile, and so forth.
If I’m no mistaken, it was said that Nancy Pelosi might not be strong enough to be Majority Leader, what with being female and all.
DIALECTICAL materialism, Dirt. Man, it’s like you don’t even care.
Not if what i hear about HH is at all correct