To all those who desire a Hillary presidency ...

[Ian_rd]

Edit: fixed date (Thanks, wli)

Just a simple question of principle:

In 1988, America elected George H.W. Bush. In 1992 and '96, America elected Bill Clinton. In 2000 and 2004, America elected(?) H.W.'s son, George W. Bush. Do we really want to try to elect Hillary?

If that could even conceivably happen (it can't), we would have, in twenty years, had a father and son as president, and a husband and wife. Does that sound like a healthy democracy to you?

The talk about a Jeb Bush candidacy makes this all even more ridiculous. We could be the first democracy in history that VOTED for a monarchy.

- Ian

[StayOutTheBushes]

1. You are really good with dates.

[JDPriestly]

2. It would be a complete betrayal of the dream of the Founding Fathers.

Did Laura get her crown motif installed in the Lincoln Bedroom? I heard she was planning to remodel it to add that motif. I wonder if she really did it. What a bunch of . . . .

[GracieM]

6. Adams and Adams....

Roosevelt and Roosevelt...

Family dynasties have been around forever. Even the founding fathers.

Hell, George Washington's son probably would have been president had he existed...

As long as we could say that the elections truly represented the will of the people, I don't think the Founding Fathers would mind.

Unfortunately, we have Diebold...

[JDPriestly]

20. The Roosevelts were related, but not that closely.

That was no dynasty. As for the Adams, John Quincy is not critcized, but also not viewed as a great president. So much for that dynasty. A husband and wife would just be too much.

[Montauk6]

27. Regarding Washington's son, it would've been quite a bold, progressive

move for America at that time.

(You figure it out)

; )

[wli]

3. you say that as if the elections aren't rigged

Also, G. H. W. Bush was 1988, not 1998.

[Ian_rd]

4. I was careful to include the obligatory "(?)" after "elected"

[MrModerate]

5. I'm not exactly a Hillary fan, but . . .

The relationship to a former president is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. It's not as if the Clintons are a "political dynasty." And while the Bushes are, the father-son connection between the Georges is much less important than the machine that got them into office. The same machine could put Carl Rove or Zell Miller in next time, if we let 'em.

It's not the (wo)man, it's the machine.

[quiet.american]

7. Tend to agree with you. n/t

[wyldwolf]

8. uh...

It could conceivably happen...

Yes, it does sound like a healthy Democracy (except the part of "W" being "elected" in 2000.)

[ChiciB1]

9. Just For A Little Fun, If You Haven't Seen This

I posted this at the other site too. I found it HILLLLAAARIOUS!

http://i.euniverse.com/funpages/cms_content/6660/20081.swf

[MintOreoCookie]

10. Hillary

I do not want Hillary to be our nominee. She is not a winnable candidate. Personally, I don't like her.

[ChiciB1]

11. I'm With You...

She's gone too far over that invisible line!

[liberalpragmatist]

12. That's actually exactly why I'm against her candidacy

Personally I think Hillary could be a pretty good president. If we didn't have two Bushes I might be willing to consider her. I actually tend to think a lot of the attacks on her on the internet left are a little over-the-top - she's very much within the mainstream of the Democratic Party and calling her Republican-lite IMO is a BIG exaggeration (even though I'm to the left of her on some major issues).

But ultimately I don't think it's healthy for our democracy to become reliant on big names and dynasties. SOME dynastic families are one thing, but the same two families trading the family between them over a period of 24 or 28 the presidency between them.

Now, if she's the nominee, I'll vote for her, but I'm probably not going to vote for her in the primary for that very reason.

[Child_Of_Isis]

13. I'll drop over dead

if a woman is ever elected during my lifetime! I'd like to see it happen, but I don't think it will!

[Kipling]

17. You can hear it from any Brit: female heads of state are not all good.

[Alcibiades]

21. Elizabeth I and Victoria

enjoyed probably the greatest reigns of any monarchs in British history.

I grant you, Thatcher was rotten.

[emulatorloo]

14. A great argument against a Roger Clinton or Chelsea Clinton presidency!

maybe not such a good one against a Hillary Rodham presidency. . .

Just my opinion. . .(and not a big Hillary for president person)

[WI_DEM]

15. I don't think there are too many on DU who want a Hillary presidency

[Ian_rd]

16. Why she can't win ...

Family dynasties aside, Hillary can't win.

The Right has been equating her in the minds of millions of Americans with the Anti-Christ everyday for 13 years! While Hillary may flirt with slim majorities every now and then, the sad truth is that she would start with a huge percentage of Americans that would never even consider her candidacy because of their mental conditioning. (ditto-heads)

Think of the popularity of The Truth About Hillary. It's all lies, but people have been trained to hate her so much that they are beyond reason and will assume the worst about her without question.

[Pepperbelly]

19. So?

Haven't you figured it out yet? They will do that same tired shit to anyone we run. ANYONE. Just like with Hillary, they will make up the most scurrilous, vicious, sociopathic lies about our nominee. I, for one, do not intend to let that kind of bullshit go on forever.

Fuck them. Their maligning of Democrats will not be a factor in my choice in the primaries and I sure as hell won't let it make diddle shit to me in the general election. Your fears are groundless. Why? Do you think that any of the ditto heads will vote for the Democratic nominee anyway?

Fuck these rotten sons of bitches.

[election_2004]

25. That's true....

But putting Hillary in the White House will give the corporate media whores 4-8 years of a pre-packaged three-ring media circus, which will distract the public's attention away from the REAL issues.

The Democratic Party needs a more stable and wholesome candidate to serve as its new national face.

[Imagevision]

18. Look, if Jeb Bush runs? he'll win, if his dumber brother can do it

I'm sure they'll just fire up them "Diebold's and the rest will be history.

See, repugs have more power, if they tell ya Jeb Bush won?, the wimpy Dems will do what they're told. They already did it to us twice and by the way...when they said that a rogue faction of the CIA played a role in assassinating JFK -- they sure as hell weren't Dems they were referring to.

[DrFunkenstein]

22. Doesn't Outweigh Chance For First Woman President

I'm hardly sold on her and her triangulating ways, but it would be something to have a different set of chromosomes running the show.

[election_2004]

24. Then why not take a look at Blanche Lincoln

http://www.lincoln2008.com

It's not like Hillary is the ONLY Democratic woman who could run!

[UDenver20]

23. NO!!!

It is not reflective of a healthy REPUBLIC!!!

Just because someone is someone else's Brother/Father/Son/Husband/Wife/Daughter/etc. doesn't mean we should elect them.

In a country of 300,000,000 there HAS to be a better option than nepotism.

[Jersey Devil]

26. OK, so should we wait for Chelsea? How about John Adams XXIII?

Hmm, seems this has happened before. John Adams, John Quincy Adams. That was it though, no other Adams since.