Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, Bush

Is it inevitable? If Hillary wins the primary, and wins the general, and then gets reelected, will the pendulum swing far enough that the only realistic candidate the next time around will be Jeb Bush?

And what then? Is Chelsea showing any interest in continuing the dynasty? I certainly don't see how the Juggernaut will be stopped. Bill Clinton and HW are good buddies now, will Bill and George Jr. be drinking pals after this little bit of messiness is over?

Come on people, get on the train.

Dynasty, it's what's for dinner. (TM)

•  Tips for smartasses writing their first diary?

  Next one will be better, I promise.

  by young montana voter on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 12:42:41 PM PDT

  •  three fifths there already.

    by Salo on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 12:44:29 PM PDT

  •  You need more substance

    Montana diarists are all about substance. That's why half the state is comprized of writers.

    by Ed in Montana on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 01:20:01 PM PDT

    •  I liked it----I thought it was "just right".

      Sometimes you don't need a bunch of words to make a salient point.

      by dotster on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 02:34:55 PM PDT

      •  Tastes great!

        Only 10 calories! Maybe we could get a category of Diaries-Lite.

        by Ed in Montana on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 03:26:42 PM PDT

  •  Better?

    I think this one is pretty darned good. This old Alabama voter agrees with you 100%.

    by Mooncat on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 03:45:08 PM PDT

•  Please I hope not.

  Jeb Bush would be a nightmare.  He's just as evil and sleazy as Dubya, only he's smart and charismatic.

  by meldroc on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 12:46:24 PM PDT

  •  Charismatic...? Really...?

    I guess if chubby, pasty white guys are what the kids are into these days....;)

    by cometman on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 01:04:48 PM PDT

    •  Compared to Dubya,

      he's frickin' Fred Astaire...

      by meldroc on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 03:35:09 PM PDT

  •  Charismatic like a crocodile. n/t

    by manwithnoname on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 02:11:15 PM PDT

•  With any luck, just the name "Bush"

  will effectively disqualify him...

  by meldroc on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 12:47:09 PM PDT

•  The Clinton part. . .

  sounds great.

  by LarryInNYC on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 12:49:10 PM PDT

  •  Yeah, for 50% of us

    The other 50% can get Bushes half the time.

    The dream of equality will finally, at long last, be fully realized.

    Plus it is guaranteed to keep Fox in business in perpetuity, and really, who can argue with that?

    by young montana voter on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 12:51:08 PM PDT

    •  Nah, it's more like less than 16.5%

      Half the people don't vote and among those who do, a third are GOP, a third DEM and a third IND or other.  As voter turn-out for primaries are lower than those registered in the Party or live in primary crossover states, the nominees are chosen by a minority of voters.  The rest of us show up in November and vote for the "lesser of two evils."  Which frequently boils down to nothing more important than the current price of gasoline.

      The Democratic faithful swill down the Clinton Cool-Aid and the Republicans swill the Bush boonshine.  And the big money boys sell whatever is most marketable every four years.  Doesn't matter to them which product they sell because either way, they make the big bucks.  

      by Marie on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 01:17:39 PM PDT

•  in a true monarchy...

  you gotta go with primogeniture. which one is older- jenna or not-jenna? at least with chelsea we won't have a succession crisis. is barbara bush the dowager empress? she looks like it.

  by campskunk on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 12:49:13 PM PDT

  •  you know I thought the same thing at first but

    then I realized how unfair that was to her as a person in her own right.I then decided to listen with open ears to all candidates and scrutinize their ideas and platforms.I am almost a polar opposite from my husband of 29 years so I sure would not want a person to judge me by his tastes or opinions.I am anti death penalty he is pro  death penaly in certain cases.Listening is free and the only thing that may happen is you may learn something.Call me all ears for a while longer.

    by kittycago on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 12:57:04 PM PDT

•  You have correctly drawn the lines

  between economic privilege, social position and political interest.  Now all that must happen is that more people draw those lines.
  I noted that Andrew Meyer did not get tazed when asking about impeachment or the election.  The tazing happened when Meyer brought up the social connection between Kerry & Bush, that is, the fraternal society skull & bones.
  While skull & bones is not evil in itself, the connections made through it show the lines of elite political and economic interest in sharp relief.

  by vivens fons on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 12:55:50 PM PDT

•  Poppy Bush's 1992 loss was avenged by W.

  Therefore, "fat little brother" Jeb isn't compelled to run in the future.

  by Pazuzu on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 12:56:48 PM PDT

•  This dynasty argument is

  the height of foolishness.  Sort of like looking for bumps on people's heads and forecasting their future.  Besides, HRC is a Rodham and would break the blood family dynasty claim.

  If your argument is that members of both families reflect a certain political perspective, then I welcome the good old days of peace prosperity budget surplus a "Clinton" represents.

  by redlief on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 12:59:13 PM PDT

  •  Don't forget NAFTA

    The Clinton years were better than the Bush years, but we need to move forward.  I'm convinced that a lot of GWB's problems -- like invading Iraq -- have been exacerbated because he's in competition with his daddy.  It clouded whatever judgement he had. I doubt that Hillary would be immune to the impulse to do Bill one better.  Close family members succeeding each other are not a healthy thing.

    by Mooncat on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 03:50:37 PM PDT

•  What about the 43 consecutive white male

  Christian presidents? Huh? I never hear anyone writing about that dynasty.

  by DemocraticLuntz on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 01:02:20 PM PDT

  •  Not that it's a fair reason to oppose

    Edwards, Dodd, Gravel or Biden (Kucinich is exempt because he'll be the first leprechaun president)

    by DemocraticLuntz on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 01:18:44 PM PDT

  •  Good point.

    My first choice isn't white, FWIW.

    by young montana voter on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 04:22:28 PM PDT

•  A Bush will never ever be elected again.

  That must be obvious to the most mentally challenged but I suppose it's one of the last remaining "arguments" from the anti Hillary crowd. Must also making for some interesting chemistry between Jeb and his older and much stupider brother.    

  by otto vb vs on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 01:03:32 PM PDT

  •  But look on the bright side ...

    At least now we know how The Godfather would have turned out if Fredo had ended up in charge, instead of Michael.

    by section29 on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 01:09:28 PM PDT

  •  It's even obvious to Bush Sr

    That another Bush will never be in the WH.

    by skohayes on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 02:37:13 PM PDT

•  It's sad when you think about this:

  With all the talk about political dynasties, only one Kennedy ever served as President.

  by Greasy Grant on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 01:25:06 PM PDT

  •  for like a half a term, too

    by AmericanHope on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 01:39:24 PM PDT

•  Yawn

  Next!

  by Alegre on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 01:32:24 PM PDT

•  not really a diary

  and too bad we have something called "elections" in this country. People choose who they want, not last names.  It might give you a stage, but the votes are what count.

  by rigso on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 01:50:17 PM PDT

  •  And since I live in Montana

    I essentially don't get to vote in presidential elections.

    The Electoral College is great!

    by young montana voter on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 02:33:40 PM PDT

    •  i live in mass.

      and i feel the same way, no good primaries, and in this day we're certainly one the BLUEST states, which means I don't feel a great imperative to vote because i'm 99.9% sure the dem candidate will win in senate, prez, mayor, everything. I've met very few republicans in this state,.

      by rigso on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 02:40:47 PM PDT

•  this diary is so lame

  by NY Writer on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 02:20:08 PM PDT

•  150 million eligible citizens

  and somehow just 2 families get (s)elected lately. And this is supposed to be the #1 democracy in the whole world? Can someone find another democracy where 2 families have ruled for 20 years? Do you really want to make it 24?

  by minorityusa on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 02:50:42 PM PDT

•  Devolution.

  It's not so much that we keep getting bushs and clintons, it's just that the deterioration of the product lines is evident.

  by Inland on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 02:50:56 PM PDT

•  Every time I mention this....

  the comments I receive range from sexist (LOL, I'm a female) to fascist (Everyone has a right to run for President) so I stopped bringing it up.

  by Nedsdag on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 02:55:50 PM PDT

•  Hillary will have alot of trouble

  getting people under 30 to vote for her. They are sick of 2 families running the country for eternity. The instant Hillay is annointed the gop nominee will make the camopaign about dynasty politcs and turning the page from both Bush and Clinton. The reason why Rove is trying to anoint Hillary is becayse they knwo the 2nd act of this play, trick americans who don't pay attention tto thinking voting republican is voting for change. Dems are stupidly falling into the "experience" trap once again.

  by nevadadem on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 03:16:56 PM PDT

  •  I agree.

    I teach at a community college and my students are ambivalent about her. In fact, there are those who'll vote for Giuliani over her.

    It seems as though the Democrats go for a safe candidate more than a change candidate. Well, safe doesn't always win.

    by Nedsdag on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 03:33:55 PM PDT