One of the arguments often put forth, as a basic reason for not backing HIllary Clinton, is this so-called dynasty issue. That George Bush is the son of his father, and that Hillary is the wife of her husband. On examination I believe this argument does not hold up.
When power is passed within a ruling family, then someone from within that family is chosen to be the successor. The Clintons are not a ruling family, they're a married couple, Since Bill doesn't control the Democratic party Hillary can't be credibly seen as someone to elect in order to keep power within the dynasty.
George Bush was always seen as a a light weight, the 'low expectations' candidate, and he got his party's nomination because they thought he looked electable - he was supposedly personable, and he was supposed to appeal to female voters. But his ace in the hole was his father, and sharing his dad's name, there was that assumption that his father would be the real one in charge, because he would have his own advisors helping the regent rule, and the father would be there to veto really stupid mistakes. In contrast Hillary is widely acknowledged even by those who don't like her as highly competent, and well prepared, and no one expects that Bill will really be calling the shots if she's elected president, either are the 'really true' president, or for his 'little lady' when she's in over her heard. And no one has ever accused Hillary of looking electable, actually, the reverse. Nor has she been seen by her detractors as a light weight. In fact, they appear to fear her.
Hillary's name isn't recognized just because she was the first lady for eight years. She made her own name well known, she was given work within her husband's administration, there was controversy about her, and while he was often given high marks, she had far more negative press, she wasn't seen as a Laura Bush, loved by all. In fact many were expecting her to fall flat on her face. New Yorkers at first resented her for moving in on the locals and trying to grab a senate seat. She had to win her primary and there is no way that could be purchased. She has her record in the senate. (It was easy for her to win the senate seat, she's a Democrat, after all.)
The dynasty question is more credible for the Bush's, because they're first and foremost business people, and they want the presidency for the influence and access the position affords. Just like any elected officials who quickly become board members or lobbyists when their terms are up, (or like Rudy start private security firms), they use the presidency for personal gain and to reward their friends with government contracts. Which is maybe okay if you're a Republican, that might be okay with their voters. So, from the business angle I guess one could see the Bush's as a ruling dynasty. But, certainly not the Clintons. Doesn't Bill make his money from speeches? Isn't he more like Carter, going around the world trying to do good?
It's time for this knee-jerk charge and specious equation with the Bushes, let alone third world dynasties, to be questioned. Does anyone really think Hillary will suspend the constitution and install Chelsea?