I think it would be unhealthy for our democracy to have 28 years of the same two families

[calteacherguy]

occupying the White House.

It's not the America I want to live in. It smacks of privilege and elitism. It's narrow and Undemocratic vision for our counrty.

[mike_c]

1. agreed 100 percent....

Not to mention that neither of those two families has been especially good for America in the first place. Why would ANYONE want to keep them in power?

[MethuenProgressive]

69. Letting voters decide who they want to vote for is "Undemocratic"?

That thinking is 100 percent Republican.

[JackORoses]

77. forcing Hillary upon the voter is undemocratic, yes

[MethuenProgressive]

78. "forcing"? The MSM hates her. The GOP hates hers. Almost all of DU hates her.

What "forcing"? Where?

[JackORoses]

79. yet we are continually bombarded with Hillary's 'inevitability' and 'experience'

[Jersey Devil]

2. Roosevelts included?

How about Adams?

[calteacherguy]

4. This is unprecedented.

It's unprecedented in American history to have the potential for 28 consecutive years. At this point in history we ought to be moving beyond privileged families. It's the 21st century.

[Jersey Devil]

10. So you would automatically disqualify blood relatives?

I am not a Hillary supporter but if someone appears to be the best candidate why would I give a hoot that their spouse/father/brother, etc., also served as President? Are you suggesting that Hillary or others related to presidents do not have the independence of mind to make decisions that would be different than their related predecessors?

If not, then wtf is your point?

[calteacherguy]

16. I am telling you that it makes a difference to me.

That's my f****** point.

If it doesn't to you, fine. But it makes a lot of difference to a lot of people.

[Jersey Devil]

38. Sure, it makes a "difference" because you oppose Hillary

That's the "difference" it makes. Would have opposed RFK for the same reasons? I doubt it.

[calteacherguy]

54. We are talking about 28 years! nt

[RichGirl]

67. 28 years!

So what! We've had hundreds of years of white guys!!! That is way more disturbing to me.

Besides...it is shallow thinking when you lump them together. Two Bush presidents = bad. Two Clinton presidents = good. We had 20 years of Reagan/Bushs. That's bad. Hillary may or may not be our candidate. If she is, are you going to vote for Huckabee, or whoever????

Whatever arguement anyone has against any of our primary candidates...check yourself. Would you continue with the same arguement in the general election??? Might make you rethink it.

[Selatius]

72. The First Clinton was a mixed bag at best.

He was no friend of labor.

[The River]

40. What Are The Odds

that the "best" candidate just happens to be a
wife,(spouse) brother (sister) or son (daughter) of a recent President out a
country of 300 million people ????

On principle alone it's an affront to Democracy. (thats his point, imho)

The best qualified people (with few exceptions) don't even bother to become
candidates for national office. They know the system won't allow them to get elected.

I see 2 types of people who do run for office.
The genuine idealist/crusader who wants to help make things better and
people with HUGE egos who only seem to be in it for the power and prestige.
Our current field seems split between the 2 types.

(on edit to placate the PC Policepersons)

[Jersey Devil]

42. How could it be an "affront to democracy" for people to vote

for someone they believe is the best candidate? Of course "best" is subjective and it always has been.

I don't get it.

[The River]

49. You Sure Don't

[Sean Stuart]

51. Well said.

I like to say that we're the first democracy in history to vote for a monarchy.

[bigmonkey]

75. It makes a difference because families represent specific interests.

Social circles, friends, business partners, debts and debtors, obligations, patterns of behavior. Yes, there is some difference among the generations, but basically the same interests will be addressed by members of the same family. That's my concern, that the interests represented by those families get too much influence on the society when those families stay in power.

Aristocracy has its proven problems.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. Privilege

Bill Clinton's mother was a nurse...He probably comes from more modest circumstances than any Democratic president since Truman...

[calteacherguy]

20. That's completely irrelevant to the topic. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. You Brought It Up

It's unprecedented in American history to have the potential for 28 consecutive years. At this point in history we ought to be moving beyond privileged families. It's the 21st century

-calteacherguy

[calteacherguy]

56. This is a country of 300 million people

not two families

[DemocratSinceBirth]

62. You Still Haven't Offered

You still haven't offered an iota of evidence to support your assertion that Bill Clinton was "privileged" but I'm not surprised...

Do you use the ipse dixit method to teach your students?

[ConfidentialStatus]

37. George Bush was VP in 81

He didn't have the title as President... But? If Hillary takes two terms - 2016. Then another Bush family member, common sense tells me something isn't right.

By the People for the People... I say horse crap.

[Kucinich4America]

82. Poppy Bush was the same type of VP as Cheney

He had a lot more to do with what was going on in the White House than Reagan, the "acting" president did. If I remember correctly, only Don Regan and Ed Meese were actually Reagan appointees. The rest of the cabinet were Bush Crime Family loyalists.

[Kucinich4America]

81. The Roosevelts were two different parties

Although Teddy, the Republican would be preferable to the DLC "Democrats". At least he'd bust up the mega corporations again.

[OhioChick]

3. Ditto. n/t

[Crabby Appleton]

5. I agree completely. nt

[opihimoimoi]

6. Why would it be Unhealthy?? The reasons stated are not valid..This is BULL SHIT

[calteacherguy]

7. It would be unhealthy for the very reasons I stated plainly in the OP.

The idea of schoolchidren growing up in America believing they would have to be related to a President to be President sickens me. Doesn't it sicken you?

[opihimoimoi]

25. Are you nuts....them reasons are not real reasons....you sound like a PUB

[calteacherguy]

27. Oh, forgive me. They are not "real" reasons because....

you say so, right?

:eyes:

[opihimoimoi]

34. Sarcastic answers are so revealing.....you sound like Carl Sheeler....

[Jersey Devil]

13. Not just bullshit, but refined, homogenized, pure bullshit

Even "unhealthy".

[Armstead]

57. Opi I luv ya -- but you're wrong on this one

I believe seven consecutive terms held by either a father/son or husband/wife of just two families is unhealthy.

[opihimoimoi]

58. Love ya too, but ....Reason and Logic is on my side....and Odds too I might add..

Aloha

:toast:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. If Bobby Wasn't Shot And Ted Didn't Have A Car Accident That Took Someone's Life

We Could Have Had Successive Kennedy Administrations....

I don't think anybody here would be complaining...

[Scriptor Ignotus]

24. good point

I suspect most Americans just don't like the Bushes and Clintons, for different reasons of course.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. There Was A Time When Nobody Thought The Kennedy Presidency Line Ended With John

And it's a fair question if Ted Kennedy would be a senator today if he wasn't the president's brother...

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

9. Well, if HRC is the nominee, you can help avoid that dire fate by voting Republican! Wheeee!

[AtomicKitten]

11. Agreed.

[elizm]

12. Absolutely agree. nt

[sufrommich]

15. How would Clinton being elected to POTUS

be undemocratic?Voters would obviously be choosing to put her there.

[calteacherguy]

18. It's Undemocratic in a wider sense.

Media manipulation giving certain candidates and advantage based on name recognition and family ties.

I don't like it.

[sufrommich]

22. Media manipulation?

She doesn't seem to be the media darling to me.I'm also pretty sure the general public are aware of the other first tier candidates by now.The fact that you don't care for her front runner status is not proof that she is being"forced" on us.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. If It Was Up To The MSM Hillary Clinton Would Have A Terminal Disease

They hate her that fucking much...

[panader0]

17. Cue "Jaws" music: JEB IS NEXT!

[intheflow]

26. ..

:spray:

Unfortunately, I'm afraid you're right about Jeb, or (God help us) Neil. :( It was the Jaws theme that made me spit on my monitor.

[Sancho]

19. Would it be more healthy...

to have the first woman president or a war-mongering, skirt-chasing glorified puppet of the repubs?

Hmmmm....Hillary vs. the ghoul is no contest, and the first woman president is a healthy revolution. Only her unique circumstances allowed Hillary to be where she is because our society hasn't allowed women the chance. If Hillary is president, you'll see the door open for qualified women from now on and the pool of candidates will change dramatically.


:kick:

[ConfidentialStatus]

23. You may be right

It might open the door for Laura Bush to run for President. :) Or better yet Juanita Bush (I hope that is Jeb's wife's name)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. Her Name Is Columba

DSB

[Sancho]

59. You forgot Chelse Clinton!

Equal opportunity daughters...

[faithfulcitizen]

74. Fortunately, right now we have more than just these 2 choices. nt

[Maven]

21. This is nothing more than ipse dixit

disguised as an argument.

[SecularMotion]

28. I'm more concerned about avoiding 4 more years of

republicans in the White House. Either Hillary, Obama, Edwards, or any other Democratic candidate that gets the nomination, gets my vote.

That being said, John Edwards is my first choice.

[Imagevision]

30. This is even more reason for Obama to step in and break this BS. up!!!

[MonkeyFunk]

31. Well

Bush 1 as VP for eight years doesn't count as running the country.

And I expect you'll probably recant this in a weeks - you don't have a great history of consistency. Was this not a concern a few weeks ago when you supported Clinton?

[H2O Man]

35. Valid concern.

It's a point that deserves attention.

[paulk]

80. why?

what if HRC turns out to be the best President we've ever had?

the whole "28 years of the same two families" is the weakest argument against her.

[H2O Man]

83. I do not think

it is an argument against her. I think it is an argument against having individual families that run the federal government. If you are interested in some of the reasons why, I would recommend Kevin Phillip's book "American Dynasty." It's a serious book that provides good reasons for people to be concerned about the concentration of power in a few families. More, it is not an "attack" on Senator Clinton.

I invested a lot of time and money campaigning twice for Bill Clinton for president. I have also donated money and supported Hillary twice for NYS Senator. Met her twice, too, and I really liked her. But I still think that it is a valid topic, and hope that democrats can be objective enough to recognize it is a serious concern, even if they are supporting Senator Clinton in the primary. The people who dismiss it as only a cheap attack on one politician miss the point.

[jgraz]

36. It would be even more unhealthy to continue the 28 years of conservative rule

We've been circling the drain since Unca Ronnie took over in 81. We can't afford another corporate conservative as president.

[SaveElmer]

41. You didn't think so last month...more gems from the OP...

“Whatever your opinion of Clinton, one thing is for sure: she's a master of the game. Personally, I'd be more comfortable with a master of the game facing the Republicans than a relative neophyte.

We can't make progress unless we win.” -calteacherguy...

[ChiciB1]

43. Basically... It's LACK Of Vision! A Truly Bad Idea!! I Don't Understand

why we let this stuff happen to ourselves! But all you hear is Hillary and it's because of "who she knows" IMO!!

[Perry Logan]

44. Is this the lamest argument yet against Hillary, or what?

[WA98296]

45. TOTALLY AGREE and Recommended Post. Thanks!

[Bitwit1234]

46. That's only because you'all don't support Hillary

and you want Obama to be president. Hillary is not really a Clinton she is a Rodham....

[ellacott]

66. Why do you assume that everyone who is not a HRC supporter is an Obama supporter?

That's not the case. One of the biggest problems is that this race is only defined by HRC vs. Obama. There are more people and issues involved in this race.

[suston96]

47. In other words.......

The voters are pretty dumb and need to be protected from making these mistakes over and over again.

Any suggestions on making sure the voters elect the right kind of leaders?

[Sean Stuart]

52. They could start by pulling their head out of their ass. nt

[ClarkUSA]

48. Amen, brother!

Funny how the same people who bemoaned the dynastic presidencies of Bush I, Bush II and retched at the mere thought of Bush III
is now okay with the thought of Clinton II.

[unblock]

50. i think this is a ridiculous argument, and a ridiculous basis on which to choose our nominee

hey, look, this is politics. you use whatever leverage you can, whatever celebrity you can. actors can leverage their fame into politics, so why not family members or former first ladies or former cabinet officials (remember that hillary was more like a cabinet member than a traditional first lady, and would have been a cabinet member had there not been post-rfk laws about that).

besides, why should WE limit our choices when THEY don't?

this argument made sense for stopping shrub, and might make sense once we've had equal share, but not now. i'm not a fan of unilateral disarmament.


there are good reasons to choose hillary, and also good reasons not to choose hillary.

this is not a good reason for either.

[_Wayne_]

53. There's just one problem with that opinion

Bill and Hillary support policies that eliminate "privilege and elitism."

Who cares about our President's last name? Who cares who they're related to?

Your opinion, calteacherguy, judges the worth of a President by who their family is, which is itself elitist.

[calteacherguy]

55. We are a country of over 300 million people.

Not 2 families

[sufrommich]

60. And those 300 million are free to vote

for someone other than Clinton.I hope you don't teach logic.

[July]

65. And Bill and Hillary weren't born with the Bushes' privilege and wealth.

They accomplished a great deal through their own talents and efforts. We could say that Hillary also gained some benefit from Bill's accomplishments, but she achieved on her own first.

[TankLV]

61. I don't like it as a general principle, but it depends on the individual and family...

Adams - NO.
Roosevelts - HELL YES.
Bushes - FUCKING NO FUCKING WAY EVER AGAIN.
Clintons - We could do a lot worse...
Kennedys - Still hoping...

[Freddie Stubbs]

63. So, so if the votes make a choice you do not agree with, it is undemocratic?

:shrug:

[Hippo_Tron]

64. Getting to the White House is all about privilege and elitism

Every single candidate with a serious shot at the White House has that shot not because they've earned it or because they're the best qualified, but because they have the connections to be there. It just so happens that Hillary happens to have the most connections.

You have to judge candidates independently of where they are and how they got there. If you like Hillary's politics it's a matter of good fortune that she is so well connected and will have an easier time being elected because of it. If you don't like Hillary's politics then it is unfortunate that she is so well connected.

[William769]

68. Back to this meme are we?

How about we let the voters decide. Thats my America.

[txaslftist]

70. Well, according to Zogby, the top five Republicans can all beat Hillary

in the general election. So it's a cinch we'll nominate her. She's our only chance to lose.

[DutchLiberal]

71. Like in Greece, where two families are in power for the last 45 years?

[ElizabethDC]

73. Did this not occur to you during the few weeks that you were supporting Hillary?

Or did you just realize it today?

[mitchtv]

76. Not the quality of argument that would dissuade me

IF I supported Hillary. Try something else

[rufus dog]

84. I disagree for a couple of reasons

If it was 28 years of good leadership it is not a problem, the problem is the 8 years of horrible bush leadership.

Reason two, rightie talkies use it. If Jeb was running it would be a non issue. And I just heard Fucker Carlson state that he doesn't think sex scandals should be an issue in 2008. How fucking convenient, other than the potentially far fetched Hillary/staffer encounter all the sex and fidelity issues will be on the Repub side.