Ezra Klein: Bush Lays Out the Case Against Hillary

« Two Words to Make the Democrats Quake: Cindy Sheehan | Main | Katrina Throws Down »

January 29, 2006

Bush Lays Out the Case Against Hillary

Okay, he didn’t really lay out the case against Hillary, but he did lay out one of my basic objections to the thought of President Hillary Clinton in 2008:

President George W. Bush says Bill Clinton has become so close to his father that the Democratic former president is like a member of the family…

Bush jokingly referred to speculation that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former president's wife, will seek the Democratic nomination for the presidency. He had earlier referred to the former first lady as "formidable."

"Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton," he said, referring to how Bill Clinton had followed his father, and Hillary Clinton could follow him.

I have all kinds of reasons for not being thrilled about Hillary as the Democratic nominee, most of which are more substantive, but the thought that members of two families could be running the country for a minimum of twenty-four consecutive years (thirty-two, if you count George H.W. Bush’s vice presidency) is just ridiculous.

(And, in a broader sense, it is part and parcel of substantive issues like how power plays out in American politics and the primary process and other things, but generally speaking, it’s just sort of yucky.)

January 29, 2006 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d83470bc1453ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bush Lays Out the Case Against Hillary:

Comments

You left out Jeb!

I want to see Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush for a whopping 32 years of two family dominance (and it's 40 if you cound GHWB's Veep time).

Or maybe more, if we can undo the 22nd amendment.

Posted by: Quiddity | Jan 29, 2006 7:25:24 PM

Oy. Just oy.

Posted by: Shakespeare's Sister | Jan 29, 2006 7:30:52 PM

Funny, I broke out of my political-blogging-silence just yesterday to write about Hillary....

Posted by: coturnix | Jan 29, 2006 8:14:43 PM

Every GOP ticket since 1976 has had the name "Bush" or "Dole" either at the top or the bottom.

Posted by: Jules | Jan 30, 2006 5:09:01 AM

Every GOP ticket since 1976 has had the name "Bush" or "Dole" either at the top or the bottom.

Posted by: Jules | Jan 30, 2006 5:09:50 AM

Odd how American political development over the last 60 years seems to be the reverse of European political development over the past 100. We started from political elites, selcted by birth and vested with strong central powers, ruling profoundly unequal societies. We have now moved to social democratic states with social safety nets, political elites selected largely on attitude and aptitude (where the idea that Euan Blair might succeed his father with in 12 years is just funny, ditto Schroeder's children), running societies that have lots of rough edges and some racial issues but are not massively unequal. America seems to moving the opposite way. Weird.

Honestly, we tried this whole aristocracy thing - it sucks. There are some advantages to have rulers who are born to the job (easier acceptance, solid core skills and networks) but there are also some fairly obvious downsides. One of the less obvious ones is the sheer corrosive effect on the national psyche of knowing that key decisions are made by a group to which 99% of the population can never belong, due to accident of birth.

Posted by: JohnTh | Jan 30, 2006 5:14:47 AM

let's say she gets the democratic nomination, in spite of attacks from bedfellows george bush and you. do you vote against her?

i don't think we should be hobbling our own people. fight hard for the candidates you like best. but lay off other democrats. the republicans are spying on all of us, for chrissakes.

Posted by: jami | Jan 30, 2006 11:35:16 AM

let's say she gets the democratic nomination, in spite of attacks from bedfellows george bush and you. do you vote against her?

It depends on who my choices are. I've never voted for anyone just because they're a Democrat. I've also never voted Republican, but those were principled votes, not party-line votes.

i don't think we should be hobbling our own people.

I don't think pointing out something obvious is akin to hobbling a candidate.

i don't think we should be hobbling our own people. fight hard for the candidates you like best. but lay off other democrats.

Let me just introduce the radical notion that calling out a Democrat for bad behavior isn't hobbling them; the bad behavior itself does that. The Bush administration is hostile toward the media because they don't like when their bad behavior gets reported and want to continue to operate unethically with impunity. What you're suggesting is handing Democrats the ability to behave in the same manner, even though we find it distasteful coming from the administration. I have no interest in compromising principle for victory; I've criticized formerly principled Republicans and conservatives for doing the same.

Posted by: Shakespeare's Sister | Jan 30, 2006 12:33:18 PM

A revulsion for alternating dynasties is what turns me off of Hillary Clinton, even before considering policy & politics. Then again, I thought it was sufficient to limit Dubya to one term because it would strengthen the John Adams-John Quincy Adams parallel. (That, and it was clear by 2004 that he was a walking disaster.)

Posted by: Grumpy | Jan 30, 2006 12:52:30 PM

"I don't think we should be hobbling our own people. fight hard for the candidates you like best. but lay off other democrats. the republicans are spying on all of us, for chrissakes."

Agree completely. Let's expend our energies bringing out the positives about other candidates, not giving the Repugs more ammunition against Clinton (and Dems in general).

Posted by: CParis | Jan 30, 2006 5:12:26 PM

Another point:

It worries me just how many of the Clintons' associates have been convicted of tax evasion, securities fraud, and embezzlement. Sen. Clinton herself magicked up a 10,000% return plaing cattles futures back in the day, which (given her inexperience in the futures markets) seems rather improbable.

Do we really want another President who has the appearance (no matter how unjustified) of being compromised by money?

Posted by: Mastiff | Jan 31, 2006 3:17:42 PM

I kinda like it only because the institution of the first lady is one of the most anti-feminist institutions out there. It demands an incredible amount of subjugation of the lady to her husband's political role (in campaigning, hosting dinners, general image PR stuff, etc). Seeing a former First Lady become the President in her own would be pretty empowering.

Posted by: Tony Vila | Jan 31, 2006 4:05:06 PM

仓储笼
 仓储笼
 折叠式仓储笼
 仓库笼
 南京仓储笼
 上海仓储笼
 北京仓储笼
 广州仓储笼
 杭州仓储笼