One reason not to vote for Hillary: No more political dynasties!

[Ignacio Upton]

Even if you like Hillary, consider this:

If she becomes President, then the Presidential sequence will run: Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. A Bush or a Clinton will have been on the Presidential ticket for 28 years straight (that includes Bush Sr. was Reagan VP.) It was rare in and of itself to have the son of a former President get into office, but to have another relative to another former President follow is just insane. We are NOT a monarchy, and the White House is NOT the personal fiefdom of the Bushes or the Clintons. So, who will replace Hillary in four to eight years, Jeb? After that, maybe Chelsea will run if she's old enough, and then after that it will be George P. Bush. After that, it will be who ever Chelsea gets married to, and then it will be Pierce Bush. Get my drift?

[ccpup]

1. are we to deny someone

the chance to make life better for all americans simply because their father, their mother, their husband or wife or brother or sister or uncle was also a politician? perhaps we should look at the person's intelligence, their plans, their history, their legislative agenda instead of their family tree.

[Ignacio Upton]

4. Well in the case of Dubya and Hillary

They feel that they are entitled to the White House based on who they are. And Hillary may be decent on some issues, but she's only spent the last six years adjusting her positions on things like the war to fit in line as much as much with what is popular at the moment.

[ccpup]

9. Watching her work for the State of New York

I've never gotten the sense she feels entitled to anything. It's easy to sit back and say she does this, but I have no idea where you're getting your proof other than your gifted imagination. It's not like she sat in the Governor's mansion, worked from 9 - 11 and then spent the rest of the time playing with her PlayStation.

[nebenaube]

10. that's how we got NAZI SUPPORTERS in the office ..... arrrgh n/t

[ccpup]

17. So,

let's say we have the son of a former Politician. He's brilliant, sincere, has amazing insight into what people need with the drive and support to give it to them, yet ... he IS the son of a former Politician. So, we deny him the chance because he was born the son of a man who held elective office? Despite his brilliance, insight, sincerity and drive, we withhold support because of who his dad is? Where does that make sense? Sounds downright idiotic to me. Talk about shooting one's nose off to spite your face! (or something like that)

[Marr]

13. In a word, yes.

There are plenty of viable candidates. There is no need to compromise, and no need to allow even the appearance of nobility or monarchy.

I honestly thought people would be turned off from Bush Jr. back in 2000 for nothing more than being the son of a former president. I thought we had more of a aversion to such things in this country.

[MonkeyFunk]

2. Nah

that's the weakest argument against her.

Why should she be denied because the Bush family had two guys in office? Makes no sense. Massachusetts has elected Kennedies for far longer than that, and nobody complains.

[ronnykmarshall]

14. There you go again Monk ...

Reason, reason, reason.

So common!

[northzax]

21. that's a state, not a country

I find this to be a ermarkably persuasive reason to not support Senator Clinton (who is a terrific Senator, I have no bones with her about that) we have always had dynasties in the House and Senate, how many sitting senators and reps are the children of other senators or reps? and governors as well?

I am 32. The first presidential election I had the oppprtunity to vote in was 1992. my oldest cousin is 36. This means for the entire poltical life of my generation in my family, we have had either a Bush or a Clinton as president. If Senator Clinton wins, I will be 38, and most likely 42, before having a president who is not a Clinton or a Bush. in a country of 300,000,000 people, where wealth and power is being increasinly concentrated in the very few at the top, is is not a good thing to have two families in power for an entire generation. it reinforces the idea of the lack of parity, it reinforces the idea of the rule of kings.

[applegrove]

3. I have no doubt she will be a talented President ..and her own man.

I don't think dynasty applies to the Clintons because they are both Presidential..unlike King George.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. One of many reasons.

Tho' the one that is lowest on the list of good reasons not to vote for her. Which I won't.

[Ignacio Upton]

7. It's not the only reason, but it's worth nothing

Especially considering the "Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton" sequence.

[SaveElmer]

6. Of all the reasons not to vote for someone...this to me is the most inane...

I do not want my choices limited because of someone's last name....

Just an arbitrary criticism that has no basis in anything...

[Emit]

8. For a good visual of this

see Mo Rocca's video posted earlier:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3163591

[jobycom]

11. Yeah, cause that second Roosevelt was horrible

:sarcasm:

I'll make my decisions based on the candidate, not some lame bullshit psuedo-logic.

Besides, there has never been a Rodham as president before.

[emulatorloo]

12. Bush Jr and Sr are father and son. Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton's daughter

She isn't really related to him.

[Nedsdag]

16. She's running as Hillary Rodham CLINTON

Not Hillary Rodham. Not Hillary Smith. She's running on her husband's name.

No more political dynasties. This is not a banana republic where a couple of ruling families run a country.

[ccpup]

19. that's just a blatantly stupid statement.

banana republic where a few families rule? gimme a break. you make it sound like Hillary hasn't worked a day in her life and expects the Presidency to be handed to her because of her last name. she has 6 years of being a successful Senator from an important State behind her. 6 years where she's done some great work on behalf of her constituents. and the people of NY agreed, sending her back with overwhelming, historic support. she also has her history as one of the most proactive First Ladies (both as the wife of a President and Governor). yet you make it sound like she has nothing but her husband's last name to run on?! get real.

I hate that threads like this make me support Hillary -- 'cause I'm not a lockstep supporter of her by any means --, but the childish stupidity of some on DU just makes me wanna scream. let's decide on someone based on ONE issue (then tear them down later)or let's NOT decide on someone because they were born into a family of politicians or married to a politician (despite their gifts, talents or intelligence ... and then tear them down later).

DU can be a damn silly, exasperating place sometimes. don't people THINK anymore?!

[CBGLuthier]

15. Sounds like a sound RW meme to me

To be spread amongst the democrats as we eat our own.

Can't have no more of them Clintons.

Well here's some news for those too young to remember.

THE CLINTON YEARS WERE GREAT!!! Except for letting the goddamn republicans run congress.

8 more years of Clintons. Please for god or fucks sake let it happen. Hell, I will turn the whole damn country over to Chelsea and whatever spawn she has because compared to the fascist pig-fucks we have now it would just have to be good.

In fact, the thought of a Gore-Clinton ticket in 20 years makes me tingle. That's Kristin and Chelsea.

Somehow I doubt Hillary will have trouble keeping her dick in her pants so she already beats bill by a mile. Plus she will have one hell of an advisor on hand, the afore-mentioned zipper challenged brilliant fellow best president of the last 30 years.

[Raydawg1234]

26. sure, anybody who disagrees with you is a RW'er.

Sadly, it is inevitable that Hillary will become the nominee. I forget who said this quote but it goes something like this, "We choose the nominee and graciously allow people to vote for them."

Hillary has already pre-ordained by the political elite, I'll bet my house on it.

Lets not forget that Clinton signed NAFTA, and we all know how that worked out.

[CBGLuthier]

29. No, not really

But this bullshit in particular sounds like something we will be hearing from the RW as the campaign plays out.


Let me explain this again, very slowly for you.

The right wing does not believe in choices. They believe in restricting rights.

The left wing believes in choices, including NOT RESTRICTING who we can vote for.

As I have said in later posts, I do NOT want this woman to be president. But to follow this idiotic line of reasoning is wrong, un-constitutional and just plain fucking ignorant.

Got that sunshine?

[Inuca]

18. 100% agree

I find the idea of dynasties offensive. Hillary has qualities and had faults, like everybody else. But how many people (not to mention the MSM pundits) would consider her a front runner if her last name was not Clinton? What makes her more qualified than for instance Dodd, that barely anybody is talking about?

[liberal renegade]

20. I don't believe our founding fathers ever intended for

the lands highest office to become a family dynasty. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[ccpup]

22. Our Founding Fathers

probably intended for those who occupy the Oval Office to be intelligent, well-read, knowledgable about what the American People need and, above all, willing to TRULY serve those they represent. Being the wife of, sister of, brother of, husband of, daughter of, son of, uncle of, whatever of should not preclude someone with those qualities from having the chance to lead this country.

Let's not punish future generations of talented politicians for the Bush Family's odious mistakes and nightmarish parenting skills.

[CBGLuthier]

23. amazingly you are both right and wrong at the same time

Plain and simple, they never intended any restrictions other than natural born citizen and age of 35.

It's in the constitution.

If you are so hung up on what the founding FATHERS thought I imagine they didn't think a woman should do the job either. Good thing they didn't put that in the constitution.

And honestly who gives a damn about the founding fathers. They left slavery in half the states and set us up for near destruction 100 years later so I wouldn't exactly praise them as being far-sighted.

[liberal renegade]

24. George Washington warned us about a a presidential

dynasty. He considered himself qualified for prez because he didn't have a son. What we have with the BFEE clan is exactly what he warned this country about. There should be no dynasty allowed in this most powerful position, regardless of your qualifications. IMHO

[CBGLuthier]

25. John Quincy Addams didn;' screw us up too bad did he

And FDR was one of our truly great presidents.

What I really hate about this is the fact she was his WIFE. Somehow saying a man's wife shold not be allowed to do the job he did smacks of something quaint, old-fashioned, and damned ignorant.

Personally, I don't even really like the woman and she is way down on my list of candidates.

But this line of "reasoning" is garbage and bullshit and WILL be used by the RW. Just wait.

Besides, none of this matters. This country has always been ruled by an elite class and always will be. Until the revolution anyway. And then we will be like every other third world junta filled country.

And so it goes.

[hollowdweller]

27. Royal Families I don't like them

I like Hillary and while I wouldn't vote for her in the primaries she wouldn't be a bad president.

However I think voting based on the family name(and it helped W the most) subverts democracy and I have seen it really in play at the local and state level.

I don't like it. I wish there would be a nepotisim ban at all levels of gov't.

[BeHereNow]

28. One more reason-

her financial backers.
Follow the money.

BHN

[CatWoman]

30. Right on, IU

great minds, eh?

:hi: