I've heard and read people say that to argue against Hillary Clinton based on the dynasty argument is sexist. Was it sexist when we rejected George W. Bush's presidential dynasty when we did it in 2000, or 2004?
What makes it sexist now?
Ruling dynasties were reviled by our founders for good reason. And we reviled them in the case of GWB for good reason. Dynasty brought us the return of Dick Cheney. Dynasty brought us the return of Don Rumsfeld.
While HRC does not represent a pure bloodline dynasty, she does represent the problems inherent in a ruling dynasty; familial preference for particular methods of governance, for certain casts of characters, and being prone to certain errors in governance.
Kevin Phillips has written far more thoughtfully on this topic than I could ever hope to. In his book American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush
Phillips perceives a dangerous, counterdemocratic trend toward dynasties in American politics - he cites the growing number of sons and wives of senators elected to the Senate as an example.
http://www.amazon.com/...
Phillips points out early in the book that the Kennedy family was a bit of a dynasty (and would have been one for certain had Robert F. Kennedy not been assassinated in 1968), and he acknowledges that if Hillary Clinton were to run and win in 2008 that would also constitute a dynasty.
A return of Clinton or another Bush to the Whitehouse does constitute a dynasty. It constitutes the restoration of one of two American families in the executive branch for over three successive decades.
http://www.buzzflash.com/...
Kevin Phillips: Well, dynasties are something that the United States came into being fighting against. We have George III in 1775 and 1776. I don't see any reason why, in the last 25 years, we should have George I and George II, and think about Jeb I and so forth. It's pernicious, almost, by definition of what America's all about. It's doubly pernicious when you start thinking about the legacy of economic politics and bias, the legacy of association with the national security state intelligence agencies, the legacy of involvement in the Middle East in a way that may send some horrible chickens coming home to roost. I just don't think there's anything good about a dynasty in this country at all.
I'm not rebuking Hillary Clinton as a person. In 2000 and 2004 many vehemently opposed Bush Jr. on the grounds that he was a Bush. History has proven that was the correct position. Why repeat the same behavior and expect a different result?