Is America ready to accept dynasty politics?

By Nicholas D. Kristof

== Before I get to the "but," let me say that Hillary Rodham Clinton would make a terrific president.

She has spent decades wrestling with public policy questions about poverty and health care. She is smart and pragmatic on foreign policy. And while it would be tough for a liberal or centrist woman to be elected (it's much easier for a conservative like Margaret Thatcher), the rising Democratic tide increasingly makes her look electable.

But there is another issue at stake, one that goes to the heart of what kind of a nation we are. If Clinton were elected and served two terms, then for seven consecutive presidential terms the White House would have been in the hands of just two families. That's just not the kind of equal-opportunity democracy we aspire to. Maybe we can't make America as egalitarian and fluid as we would like, but we can at least push back against the concentration of power. We can do that in our tax policy, in our education policy - and in our voting decisions.==

http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_5843768

Reagan-Bush
Reagan-Bush
Bush-Quayle
Clinton-Gore
Clinton-Gore
Bush-Cheney
Bush-Cheney
Clinton-?
Clinton-?
Bush-?
Bush-?

(perhaps George P. Bush or Chelsea Clinton would be running by 2024...)

By 2008 we will have had a Bush or Clinton occupying the presidency or the vice presidency for 28 consecutive years. It is not much of a stretch for eight more years of Clinton II followed by eight years of Bush III. Do we really want two families to rule the White House for 36 consecutive years and occupy at least one of the top two offices in the nation for 44 years?

Adams', Roosevelt's, Kennedy's, Rockefeller's, Bushes & possibly the Clinton's.

Dynastic political families has been a long tradition in the US.

This is a whining hit piece.

The Rockefellers never ascended to the presidency, the Kennedys had the White House for one term, FDR and TR were only fourth cousins, and J.Q. Adams became president a quarter century after his father left office. What we have going on right now is swapping of power between two families, between father and sons and husband and wives. This is completely different than the other examples you mentioned.

Dynasties at the state and local level have always existed. The Bush dynasty is the first true national dynasty given the proximity in terms of office between Bush I and Bush II. He is almost a direct successor to the throne. A similar thing is at play with the potential second dynasty, the Clinton dynasty, with only eight years separated the potential assumption of the throne by the second Clinton.

No more trading on a family name
whether you inherit it or marry it.

and didn't do a damn thing for the State, you'd have a point. Fact is, you don't have a point. She doesn't trade on the name (unlike *) -- although the Clinton name-recognition opened doors her intelligence and political skill helped keep open -- and she works hard for her constituents (I live in NYC). It sounds as if you've decided what the facts are based on your own personal animosity to her and neglected to support it with any info. Care to elaborate on your hypothesis or ... ?

Would she have become a Senator from a state that she never lived in until she ran for office and then become the front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president almost overnight (when she was included in polls she led in 2003)?

and I don't claim she would have been. The Clinton name opened doors and, like I said, her intelligence and political skill PLUS her ability to get the job done, has kept those doors open. Love her or Hate her (gee, wonder what camp you fall into?), if she was someone just trading on her name and not doing her job well, NY would not have voted her back in in 2006 with almost 75% of the vote.

was installed by the Supreme Court because the Repug party couldn't effectively steal Florida. And if you're attempting to compare * to Hillary Clinton, you may be way off-base. One is a dumb as a rock, the other has proven herself to be very intelligent. One spent his days playing GameBoy as Gov, the other is infamous for her work schedule and actually keeps her promises to her Constituents.

The comparison is unfair and smacks of over-reach.

she would be nothing, right? I mean, gawd knows that no woman ever accomplished anything without a man.

And would Bill have been where he is without Hillary?

Sheesh.

She would have been very successful even without him but it is irrational to think she could have parachuted into New York, be handed the nomination on a silver platter, and then win the general election in a state she did not even live in prior to 2000 (in reality she did not even live in NY in 2000-she was in DC). Could she have made it to the Senate without Bill? Possibly, but then she would have had to do it the old fashioned way. She would have had to work her way up the political ladder. She would have had to vanquish other similarly ambitious people in order to win the nomination. She would have had to then win the general election on her merits. Could she have done all of this without Bill? I think so. Could she have risen to the level of a presidential candidate without Bill? I think so. Would she have automatically vaulted into being the Democratic front-runner and had the establishment behind her without Bill? I don't think even her biggest supporters would make that claim.

been living in New York? What mystical powers do you have that lets you know exactly how her life would have turned out without Bill?

Of course not. If so numerous politicians from outside NY would be lining up to take a Senate seat from the second most important state in the nation.

:shrug:

what does that have to do with my point?

He came to New York and ran there because they had the most lenient residency requirements. So did Clinton.

You're dancing around all sorts of points here. Let's just get it out in the open - do you oppose multiple people from the same family holding political offices?

If yes, just say so and we can discuss that. If not, then why did you start this thread?

I don't know, was some guy named Kennedy president around that time or something?

==Let's just get it out in the open - do you oppose multiple people from the same family holding political offices?

If yes, just say so and we can discuss that. If not, then why did you start this thread?==

I've answered that about 2-3 times in this thread. What are you having trouble grasping?

I'm afraid your answer isn't very clear.

You seem to think it's OK, except if the name "Clinton" is involved.

And the title of your post would indicate to most English-speakers that you are opposed to the idea.

I'm sorry, but your view is not very clear.

==You seem to think it's OK, except if the name "Clinton" is involved.==

Apparently you did not read the article and my comments on the name "Bush" as well.

oppose Hillary Clinton becoming President because of the "dynasty" argument?

The answer is clearly no.

then this whole thread is pointless.

pointless ... unless it's a boring night and it's fun to have a bit of a blog war.

I'm hankerin' for a mojito.

:toast:

tacos.

and, not living here, I think you'd agree.

Hillary had to travel county by county and convince very hard to convince Repugs in small cities (villages, more like) that she was up to the job. People who were predisposed to revile her based on what they knew of Bill (from FOX, no doubt). And yet, somehow, on her own, without Bill by her side and with just her intelligence, her thoughts on each county's problems and her plans to fix them (which she's done, by the way), she convinced largely Republican counties to vote for her.

Not because of Bill Clinton (and I know that'll burst your balloon, so I apologize), but because SHE traveled county by country and convinced people herself. And then she went and did her job which led to those same counties re-electing HER (not Bill) in 2006.

Her name undoubtedly opened doors, but it was the thousands upon thousands of hand-shakes, speeches, question and answer sessions and problems solved that enabled her to keep her Senate seat.

Imagine that! :shrug:

Why don't other Democrats go to heavily Democratic New York and run for a Senate seat there if any random person from out of state can parachute in and win the nomination? To win a Senate seat in NY you have to actually be from NY--unless your brother or husband was president.

Do you really think HRC could have been able to parachute into NY in 2000, clear the way for the nomination, and then win easily if her name was Jones?

Even if her name is Clinton

and she did everything "Hillary Clinton" did, then, yes, perhaps it could have happened. The road would have been a lot tougher, but most of the repuglicans who voted for her certainly didn't do so because her name was Clinton. They did so because she was obviously intelligent and had workable plans to fix the problems each county was facing. Poor Ricky Lazio was completely blown out in that Senate Race in 2000, so repugs were CERTAINLY voting for her and it wasn't because of Bill.

Please! :eyes:

but do you actually believe she went county by county and paid people off to vote for her? That's pretty low, even for you.

democratic opponent. I don't trust HRC for a New York minute and I'm FAR from alone. ;)

do tell. I sincerely want to hear about these questionable behaviors. Really!

Do tell... sounds fascinating!

then she set about solving the problems faced by those areas.

she went to many areas of upstate ny that had never been visited by a ny senator.

:crazy: This is just sad, like people on the edge of their seats to see WHAT HAT the Queen was wearing each day she was in America. :eyes:

couldn't actually be working for her constituents and doing her job. god forbid she actually be good at something. if she was, then your whole anti-elite belief system might crumble!

I'm disgusted with having bloated M$M know-it-alls touting suspicious polls - tell me HOW TO VOTE or to "not bother" because the Democrat most adored by the DLC has already been selected. Damn if I'll give up. I think they LIE. ;) Where large sums of cash is involved, too many people/organizations can be bought. :thumbsdown:

"suspicious"?

Polling companies have one product to sell - accuracy. You think they compromise that for the vague, unidentifiable possible future promise of... um... what?

What do they get in return for corrupting themselves?

Has anyone told you not to vote? Has anyone barred your path to the voting booth? Or is that just your shortnfiery take on things. Until the Democratic Party says "shortnfiery, you can not vote in this election", you're anger against the "elites" might be misplaced.

but sadly they do set the agenda. They also tend to keep the vote down in some cases.

What has Hillary done for us?
What has she done that a retarded ocelot couldn't do?
How did she get the job, other than through carpetbagging and name recognition?

Do tell...

she's a very effective legislator, respected and admired by her peers, and certainly by her constituents.

I don't think people really want to know that! It ruins their "facts"!

Instead she will continue to vote to finance Bush's war instead of using her legislative skills to end the war.

legislation -- within the last couple of days -- with Senator Byrd that takes a forceful step toward ending the Iraq War. I apologize if I don't have the details at hand, but you may want to do a cursory search and read for yourself what she and Byrd are doing.

She will continue to support financing the war instead of using her legislative skills to build support for de-funding Bush's war.

The Byrd bill will simply be vetoed. The only way to end the war right now is to stop funding it. Congress can do that. Congress controls the purse strings. Will HRC use her legislative skills to end the war? She will not even vote against funding the war.

where is the defunding bill from Obama? From Kucinich? From Dodd, Biden or any of the 535 legislators?

And btw, all budget bills must originate in the House.

Kucinich's office and ask where his defunding bill is as they have to start in the House.

a bill to rescind the war authorization. Perhaps you missed that news.

Her bio page here talks a lot about what she's done as a senator: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/about/senator/

There's also info on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton#United_States_Senator

aren't a dynasty. You should look up the word.

Now if Chelsea became President, and then her (future) kids, you might be onto something.

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

dy·nas·ty (dī'nə-stē) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. dy·nas·ties

1. A succession of rulers from the same family or line.
2. A family or group that maintains power for several generations: a political dynasty controlling the state.

The Clintons certainly qualify.

I assume you'll be asking for Andrew Cuomo's resignation as NY State Attorney General? Or does the No Dynasty Rule just apply to the Clintons?

if we're gonna be strict about it.

shoulda never run for office, what with daddy being a Senator.

snap!

:spray:

a marriage constitutes a dynasty, but a father/son succession does not? Odd.

It is odd to see people commenting in a thread about an article that they apparently did not read.

Now can you answer the question - should Andrew Cuomo resign?

The article says we should factor in the dynasty issue but that it should not be the sole reason for opposing a candidate. As far as Cuomo, I am not from NY, don't know much about him or the candidates who opposed him so I can't comment on whether he merits being the Attorney General of New York (a position Mario Cuomo never held).

As I said in another post, local and state dynasties have always existed. The Bush dynasty is the first national dynasty and the Clintons are attempting to become the second national dynasty. There is a difference between a son succeeding his father as mayor, for instance, and two families rotating the most powerful office in the world.

with someone who believes something as ignorant as "the Bush dynasty is the first national dynasty."


Does the name Adams ring a bell?

I pointed out the distinction between J.Q. Adams being elected 28 years after his father was elected in 1796 and the Bushes and Clintons.

if enough time elapses?

You're just thrashing, now.

"yes, if enough time elapses, it's not a dynasty."

So tell me what the time limit is.

you're more than willing to excuse the Cuomo Dynasty but not the "Clinton Dynasty". At least it's nice to know where you stand.

(I voted for Andrew Cuomo in 2006, by the way, and believe he's highly qualified for his job. But, with your No Dynasty Rule, we New Yorkers would have been denied an Attorney General who knows what he's doing and is very good at it. Just like we might be denied someone who's a really good President whoever that is and from whatever Family Tree they were born into, which they have no control over, by the way.)

excuse me for my creative writing skills. I so deeply apologize for bringing some zip and levity to an otherwise tedious conversation. I'll try to stick to the facts, ma'm. (oops, got creative. sorry)

Based on your earlier Posts, one could get the sense you're against Hillary running because she was married to Bill Clinton who was President in the 1990s, correct? And this, in your mind, constitutes a Dynasty (although since 7 years has passed, it might not?), so, therefore, she shouldn't be allowed to run.

But Andrew Cuomo is the son of a man who was Governor of a State that he's now Attorney General of and somehow that's okay, right? Or has enough time passed that it doesn't really count? Either way, Hillary Clinton = bad, Andrew Cuomo = good.

My head is spinning.

Making something up is hardly "bringing some zip and levity" to a thread.

==Based on your earlier Posts, one could get the sense you're against Hillary running because she was married to Bill Clinton who was President in the 1990s, correct?==

No one with basic reading comprehension skills could get such a sense.

==Andrew Cuomo = good.==

I said I didn't know enough about his situation to comment. That "equals" Andrew=good to you? That makes no sense.

no they don't.

Bill and Hillary are of the same generation, and their "family" relationship is a legal one, not a genetic one.

fam·i·ly /ˈfæməli, ˈfæmli/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, plural -lies, adjective
–noun
1. parents and their children, considered as a group, whether dwelling together or not.
2. the children of one person or one couple collectively: We want a large family.
3. the spouse and children of one person: We're taking the family on vacation next week.

Family plays an even larger role in HRC's case since she is largely running on Clinton I's record unlike J.Q. Adams or even Dubya.

here in NY where she won the last election based entirely on her record as Senator the previous six years? She was the one hitting each County and shaking hands and hearing concerns and keeping promises, not Bill. And one could accuse you (and I'm not, by the way) of having a sexist attitude thinking that Hillary would have to rely on her husband's record and not accomplish what she has on her own or win an election on her own. I don't think that's the case, but there is that line in the sand.

I sincerely doubt you'll answer the "should Andrew Cuomo resign" question. Either you're Against Dynasties -- and Andrew should resign -- or you're FOR Dynasties -- and the Cuomo family is safe.

What'll it be?

And here I was thinking that only Freepers twisted facts, ignored logic and decided what the truth was to support their assertion of What Should Be and What Shouldn't Be. Silly me.

Color me naive, but I'm thinking that Sen. Clinton would have done just fine on her own. But I guess DMC thinks she needs a man behind her.

The (Bill) Clinton record and his power?

She was re-electing in NY on merit but let's fact it. Her lead in the presidential contest right now is due to her name and Bill's popularity, not her record. Whenever her senate record comes up it is largely in a negative context as Democrats' decry her Joe Lieberman-esque voting record.

Sexist? Is it sexist to say Bush traded on his name? Or Andrew Cuomo? Or J.Q. Adams? Et al.

==Either you're Against Dynasties -- and Andrew should resign -- or you're FOR Dynasties -- and the Cuomo family is safe.==

Apparently you don't read posts either. I said that the dynasty factor should be just one of many factors that people should look at. It should not disqualify a candidate but it should be a net negative IMO. If the candidate is the best candidate overall, then it should not matter whether he or she is the son or wife of a powerful figure.

I'm glad to read that you believe it shouldn't be the only factor in choosing a candidate (and I do read Posts, Smarty Pants). And now the question becomes -- and forever will remain -- what makes the Best Candidate?

the fact that a woman married to somebody gets some power doesn't make it a dynasty. Multi-generational is inherent in the definition of the word.

Of all the reasons to oppose Clinton, this is the silliest one.

people will beat any dead horse to deny her a chance to run. I wonder what could be accomplished if that energy used to bash Hillary were to be directed somewhere else, someplace where it can actually make a difference in someone's life in their community?

We'll never know.

or:




for resurrection of really old dead horse material:


for group beating of dead horse material:

She's married to Bill, she's not his daughter. And the fact that two Bushes have been president recently is entirely irrelevant. She didn't make that happen.

I understand sincere disagreement with Clinton on issues. But stuff like this is just mindless bashing, especially when he doesn't even know who John Quincy Adams was.

Not next door neighbors or work colleagues. The last I checked a husband and wife consisted of a family.

Juan and Eva Peron weren't a genetic family but they were a family.

A generation is 30 to 40 years.

The Clintons do not qualify.



I don't believe our pResident is deemed a ruler. I know it seems that way with B*sh, but it ain't suppose to be that way.....

Our president is 1 of 3 branches of government which presides over the country.

and the inherited aristocracies. They love certainty and fear change.

It seems a slight majority are conservative and fear change.

That scares me.

equal opportunity on one hand and then deny the opportunity for someone to run for the Presidency because of their name or relation to someone who's held the spot before on the other. It's either Equal Opportunity for All or you start punishing, in effect, the descendants or spouses of those who were President before. And this is regardless of any special qualities, education, experience and insight they might bring to the job. You're slamming the door in the face of someone who COULD be a great President only because they were/are married/related to someone who already had the job.

I don't know about you, but that doesn't fair to me. If someone has the intelligence, experience, insight, support and desire to do what should be one of the toughest jobs in the world (I think * spends more time on his GameBoy than in the Oval Office, so he certainly doesn't count), they should be given the chance to have the Voters decide if that's who they want.

I'm just tired of the same two names running for the highest political job in the land.

I want new blood.

...has a lot to do with the enormous amount of money it takes to run. Loyal followers will pay huge sums for the pay-offs associated with the family. Completely public funding for elections would change the game I think.

work my A -- off to make sure it does not happen.

These horse's a**es in the M$M led by B.S. and disinformation spewed by Chris Mathews and Wolf Blitzer - make me sick. :puke: They are part of the political elites who now serve HRC like they did Bush when he was running. Why? Because they know the Republicans and HRC will serve the LARGE corporate interests and the health of the Military Industrial Complex through perpetual war.

These ELITES seriously underestimate the insight and future behavior of The American People. You know, us "little people" who don't like being ORDERED by whores in the M$M as to who we should vote for, i.e., because they imply that HRC has already won ... so why bother. :grr:

Bullshit! It's time for payback to the corporate whores: send these pigs back to their districts unelected and say "NO" to the continuation of Presidential Dynasties.

I despise these BLOATED know-it-alls who want to SUPPRESS our vote because "they insist" that HRC has already been anointed. Again, I say, "Bullshit! :grr:

And I guarantee if it were any Democrat with a last name not Clinton this wouldn't even come up.

Unless you are willing to push for an amendment to the constitution banning people with the same last name from running for President, the whole issue is meaningless..

People ought to be able to vote for who they wish...

The bottom line is you are complaining because some candidates are simply living off a famous last name...but you do not include the Adamses, Roosevelts, or Kennedy's for various arbitrary reasons...

Fact is, JQ Adams is not President without John Adams being President first...

FDR is not President without his relationship to Teddy. They were distant cousins, but were close personally, TR was FDR's idol, Eleanor was TR's niece, and he gave her away at their wedding...

RFK goes nowhere without JFK being President...

This is just another lame way to argue against Hillary...and frankly this is just about the lamest reason not to vote for her...

Or are dynasties okay only on the DEMOCRATIC side?

There is no Adams, Roosevelt, or Kennedy running for president. Neither family occupies the White House. What we do have is a Bush in the WH who succeeded a Clinton, who succeeded a Bush, that a Clinton is seeking to replace.

bush won fair-and-square on Election Night 2000 and wasn't helped by the Supreme Court. And it circles around again -- or don't you read Posts -- that Hillary isn't to blame for the Supreme Court deciding on Bush.

Why submit an OP on a subject you may or may not have an opinion over? I'm confused. Do you think it's okay for a "political dynasty" to be in power or do you not think it's okay?

Um, I believe this is a discussion board?

because his father was President. The people I knew who opposed him did so because he's a dumbass.

opposing someone because his or her father was President is only reserved for those Democrats who hate Hillary (whose husband -- and not father -- was President, but why quibble when there's hatred and vitriol to spread around?) and will pull any lame-ass excuse outta their hat to bitch, complain, whine, moan and belly-ache about it.

Has to do with him being a right wing nutburger with no talent...

your thread seriously. But of all the lame ass reasons to not vote for Sen. Clinton you had to wander into this bar.

Of course, I have a whole plethora of reasons to vote against her other than this important one.

and Blackwater, their Preatorina or Republican Guard might make this so.

only Freepers blamed Clinton for everything! Another reason not to be a Politician and devote one's life to helping others better theirs: even your own Party stabs you in the back when they stomp their feet and don't get what they want when they want it right away.

Hillary is not related to Bill by blood, that's what a dynasty is. She has her own qualifications, and her association with Bill is like Al Gore's - co-worker.

We have the freedom to elect whoever we want, including people who are related to or married to people who were elected before, anyway.

The bottom line is that even a Kennedy has to get himself or herself elected. So really the dynasty point is moot. Maybe they have connections, but you can have connections between people unrelated by blood.

And you're going to have couples like this in the modern world. No one can really say Hillary would not have been able to be elected Senator without a husband who used to be President - Pelosi and many other female elected officials did it on their own and there's no reason to presume Hillary could not have.

For me, HRC's run is a fantastic bit of American excess, and it sheds a glaring light on the sad falsehood that is her marriage to Bill. I don't object on moral grounds to the fact that she remains married to a man who publicly humiliated her many times over. I'm far more appalled by Bill than Hillary. No, my main objection is that Bill and Hill have little in common other than a love for power and money, and what could be more American than that?

Eight years in the White House wasn't enough for these two, they need 16. Bill has made $40 million in the past several years giving speeches and writing books. Hillary is a Senator from a great state...not enough. An aging married couple that had love for each other would, um, take some time to enjoy themselves together. Work jointly on a few good causes, and dedicate themselves to the Democratic Party, but mostly enjoy each other for the time that remains. But, no, it has always been, and always will be, about them as individuals; the marriage as a source of emotional fulfillment ended a long time ago. We are looking at an utterly bizarre situation. Aging careerists in a marriage of political convenience who need two shots at the brass ring. Part of me is in awe of the audacity of it all. Obviously, we are dealing with supremely talented individuals. But the selfishness and calculation of it all is over the top, and many Americans will object on principle, if and when the time comes.

Maybe you are wrong about them, and they actually are committed to each other...and maybe...just maybe...public service is what drew them together in the first place, so her running now is the natural thing to do.

It is just astounding how many here on a site supposedly supportive of Democrats are so willing to pull old and discredited accusations right from the right wing playbook when it comes to the CLinton's.

Enlighten us, exactly what inside information do you have into the Clinton's marriage that the rest of us don't have?

I have to say I always thought the no dynasty argument was the lamest of reasons not to support her campaign...but I was wrong...you are now the champ...lets not vote for her because we don't approve of the way they conduct their marriage!

Now, back to reality. It's sad that they are forced to play out this farce. Look at the French, who just had a presidential campaign with two estranged spouses, one whose wife is openly cheating on him, the other who had four children with a man she never married, and NOBODY cared.

Now look at the Clintons, forced to play the game by America's hidebound rules and, shame on them, PLAYING the game. Hillary should have told Bill to fuck off a long time ago, but that would have hurt the career, wouldn't it? Same for Bill, who should be happily banging his way around the globe with total impunity. But, no, they have to keep pretending, and, apparently, so do we. Seen the movie; don't care to watch it again.

Once more...what enlightened inside information on the Clintons marriage do you have that the rest of us do not?

on both sides; that is a matter of public record. The infidelities and Hillary's reaction to them, which has been to protect Bill and herself politically, first and foremost, and not deal with the basic issue of the marriage. The personal has long taken a back seat to power with these two. I think it's time we moved on.

What inside information do you have about the Clinton's marriage that none of the rest of us possess...you have no idea whatsoever what steps they took to deal with their marriage.

Simply another line of attack for people who dislike the Clintons...

I knew there was something I couldn't articulate in there, and you finally nailed it.

I do object to the dynasty because this is not just A wife after a husband. This is 28 years of the same two families.
It's all about the people surrounding those presidents.

I think we need new blood and a totally fresh start.

I understand the misgivings about dynasties but the complaint that electing HRC will mean "a Bush or Clinton for 32 years" is just absurd to me. They're NOT the same family, you know. Electing her means we get 16 years of Clintons, tops. Yeah, yeah, they're DLCers and centrists and all that but in many respects (SCOTUS nominations anyone?) they are light years apart.

DON'T VOTE FOR HILLARY! i know i won't. of the delcared candidates, i'm voting for obama. if you all do the same, so much for hillary...

With the Kennedy's you had 1 brother in office appoint his brother the AG with that brother as well as a 3rd brother later running for President.

And with the Bushes...well.