The Bush-Clinton Dynasties

[ProSense]

January 30, 2007

The Daily Troika: The Bush-Clinton Dynasties

Keying off the NH Union Leader's announcement that ex-Presidents Bush and President Clinton would deliver a joint commencement address at the University of New Hampshire on 5/19, political sicentist and Hotline friend Dante Scala is quoted as saying that "The more Bush-41 and Bill Clinton appear together, the less vulnerable Hillary Clinton is to very vitriolic Republican attacks."

Which may be true. But arguably, it serves to reinforce what may be her biggest problem: Americans may be fed up with -- and will vote actively against -- the perpetuation of political dynasties. Without Pres. Clinton, Sen. Clinton would not be able to claim eight years' worth of White House experience. Without his father's connections, Pres. Bush might be a brush-clearing rancher. Forget the psychodynamics of sons or wives fighting their father or husbands' last battles: voters in presidential elections tend to be retrospective. Will they want another eight years of the Clintons? Or will they want -- after 24 years -- something new? Incidentally, political parties don't like dynasties either because they often privilege parochial concerns (family legacy, personal revenge) over party-building, ideological purity and substance. One reason why Sen. Clinton has so much trouble with the netroots today is that they blame Pres. Clinton for failing to build the Democratic Party and for undercutting the party's major constituencies -- think NAFTA and labor -- when it was politically convenient.

more...

[wyldwolf]

1. There is an inherent problem with this

Americans may be fed up with -- and will vote actively against -- the perpetuation of political dynasties.

There is ZERO indication of this. It certainly gets preached a lot on the internet, but doesn't appear to have taken hold in any meaningful way with the American electorate.

[lancdem]

2. I haven't seen much of it either

And Bush II's failed presidency makes Bill Clinton look even better in comparison.

[ProSense]

3. There is every indication of this.

The Clinton people sabotaged the Kerry campaign to give us Bush! You see, if Kerry was in office now, Hillary would have to wait until 2012 and face stronger competition.

[wyldwolf]

4. You use pure conjecture that isn't even related to the point

I stress again, there is ZERO indication people are concerned about political dynasties. Some odd conspiracy theory that the Clintons sabotaged Kerry's campaign is not even related to that.

[ProSense]

5. Hotline has it right!

People are leary and Hillary is not yet the nominee.

[wyldwolf]

6. Are you trying to hijack your own thread?

[ProSense]

8. Hillary Clinton and her team take a

backstabbing approach to campaigning. Are you going to respond with a relevant comment?

[wyldwolf]

10. the direction you're trying to veer the conversation off in isn't relevant to the OP

I understand YOU don't like the Clintons. I understand YOU and some fear "political dynasties." However, there is NO indication the electorate is concerned about "political dynasties."

[ProSense]

13. Yes it is!

The sabotage was to set up the dynasty. This is not a one-dimensional discussion.

[wyldwolf]

14. ok. let's just assume "sabotage was to set up the dynasty."

Where is there any indication the American electorate is concerned about political dynasties?

[ProSense]

18. Clinton fatigue

Snip...

Last June, at a convention of liberal activists, Clinton was booed. In contrast, Obama was cheered by the same crowd, even though he has also hewed to the center on Iraq. Clinton's apparent status as a lightning rod of criticism may speak to her long tenure on the national stage and careful positioning on a range of issues that makes some progressives skeptical (though not unwilling to vote for her in the general election, many say, if she wins the nomination).

"Clinton fatigue?"
One of the many hurdles Clinton must face on the road to the White House has been dubbed "Clinton fatigue." Wrapped into that is her husband's turbulent eight years as president, including his marital infidelity and various investigations. In the White House, Hillary Clinton quickly established herself as the most powerful and controversial first lady in history, setting up shop in the West Wing and taking on the assignment of crafting a plan for national healthcare reform that failed to get off the ground.

Adding to the sense of fatigue is the years of speculation that Clinton may run for president herself some day. Now that she has jumped in, the political world can move to the next phase, an actual publicly announced campaign - as can she. But the arc of her effort may be hobbled by the fact that she is hardly a fresh face.

Then there's the family dynasty issue. Some voters may resist the idea of a succession of presidents that goes "Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton" - especially since the second Bush presidency has struggled so profoundly of late.

link

[wyldwolf]

19. OK, quick examination.

Clinton being booed at a convention of "liberal activists" does not translate into Clinton fatigue among the general electorate - an electorate that gives gives Bill Clinton a 70% approval rating.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh-hstry.htm

Among Democrats, Bill Clinton's approval rating is 88%! Hillary Clinton's is 75%!

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh-hstry.htm

Among "liberal activists," the Clinton have NEVER been popular.

But even your article doesn't give any proof that the American electorate is concerned about political dynasties in any meaningful way.

[ProSense]

22. Who is running Bill or Hillary? n/t

[wyldwolf]

24. That would be Hillary. But "Clinton fatigue" refers mainly to Bill in your quoted piece

That would be Hillary. But "Clinton fatigue" refers mainly to Bill in your quoted piece which, I repeat again, doesn't show the American electorate is concerned about political dynasties in any meaningful way. In fact, based on the polling data I cited, there is no Clinton fatigue among Democrats in regards to Hillary, and she has higher approvals than other Dems in the race.

[wyldwolf]

23. That would be Hillary. But "Clinton fatigue" refers mainly to Bill in your quoted piece...

... which, I repeat again, doesn't show the American electorate is concerned about political dynasties in any meaningful way. In fact, based on the polling data I cited, there is no Clinton fatigue among Democrats in regards to Hillary, and she has higher approvals than other Dems in the race.

[eddiemunster]

7. You WILL be concerned about dynasties...

when Jeb announces his candidacy for 2012.

[wyldwolf]

9. not at all.

[eddiemunster]

11. Something about...

this dynasty thing that gives me the creeps. That isn't what this country is about.

[wyldwolf]

12. this country is about electing who gets voted for.

[oasis]

15. White Male Dynasty

Gender, Race, Bloodline. What to do, what to do? :shrug:

[Cascadian]

16. America was not meant to be a dynastic-run country.

But I suppose considering we are crossing over from being a republic to an empire, I guess maybe we'll have to get used to having dynasties. Maybe after Hillary or Jeb we will have George P. Bush or Chelsea.



John

[wyldwolf]

20. checking the constitution... nope! Don't see anything about it in there.

[Cascadian]

17. The other thing that bugs me is the fact that Bill is too chummy with the Bushes.

Even Monkey Boy conisders Bill "like a brother". I don't think I have ever seen two former presidents from opposite parties be so damn close. Even they were friends, I don't think Jimmy Carter was too chummy with Gerald Ford. People ought to raise questions on this issue. Bill is just too close to the Bush family.


John

[eddiemunster]

21. You noticed that too?

That truly creeps me out. Do they have some kind of "understanding"?