A good article explaining the frustration some of us have been voicing for awhile: Are there only two families capable of producing presidential candidates? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070928/ap_on_el_pr/bush_clinton_fatigue_2
Don't worry, Dubya destroyed any other Bush's chances. I'll take another 8 years of peace and prosperity under a Clinton though.
What difference does it make if you replace one member of a political party with another? Do you really expect them to behave any differently? It might as well be Bush or Clinton, do you think you would get different policy from Kerry, or Gore, or Guiliani?
I agree. I think that the federal government is simply too large, too cumbersome to change ....or it takes so long to change that it's only felt decades later. It's like trying to stop a huge locomotive or a speeding 747 ....you can stop it, but the consequences might not be exactly what you want. I'm honestly beginning to see signs of civil war in the USA. And if not that far, perhaps states seceding from the union and forming their own nation. I just don't think it can continue as it is, unchecked. Baron Max
Republicrates and demicans, two sides of the same coin. Left and right used in combinations can do far more damage than just one side throwing punches. Oh, who is getting the shit kicked out of them? The public.
I think we are seeing the development of a political aristocracy of sorts, and it's not just among the Clintons & Bushs. It's easier to get elected mayor of Chicago if your last name is Daley or Governor of Ohio if your last name is Taft & if your last name is Kennedy you can get elected almost anywhere. I think it's in part because name recognition is so important in politics--the other area of endeavor where you see this trend is in the motion picture industry where (not suprisingly) name recognition is also very important as are family connections & money (two other things that make a big difference in politics).
The Bushes are a dynasty, a major part of the fascist wing of the ruling class in US politics since before WWII. Compare Barbara Bush's role with Clinton's mother. Or compare Chelsea's behavior with the Bush or Kennedy scions of privilege. The Clinton's are new, not even part of the Texas or California billionaire uprising - that newness, that lack of ruling class connection, was an important source of the strangely intense anti-Clinton hostility among the US power elite. Gore would be a dynasty continuation - his family is well rooted in the US ruling class. If you wanted to worry about dynasty and aristocracy, the W/Gore campaign would have been the one to worry about. Kerry would have been a little bit of new blood. I don't see the dynasty problem with Hillary - she's just one of a married couple with a reputation for competence derived from performance. edit in: I wonder about anyone who has been watching the past fifteen years of US politics saying they don't think it makes any difference who, or even which party, is in the White House. The lesson has been the exact opposite - even the character and associations of the Vice President can be critical. Are these the same people who were saying how gald they were it wasn't Gore responding to 9/11 ? How comforting it was to have one of their own kind in charge, that day?
Energy independence, universal health care, international cooperation...what a nightmare that would be.
I actually like a sense of aristocracy. As much as I hate the type of person hilary Clinton is(a bitch), deep down I hope she becomes the next president.
