American dynasty: Bush... Clinton... Bush... Clinton?

The Associated Press

And Hillary makes four?

Featured Topic | Posted 42 weeks 1 day ago

American dynasty: Bush... Clinton... Bush... Clinton?

The dynasty question isn't new this election season, but Hillary Clinton addressed it candidly on Thursday night.

"It did take a Clinton to clean (up) after the first Bush, and I think it might take a second one to clean up after the second Bush," she said to applause at a televised debate with Democratic rival Barack Obama.

The Bush and Clinton dynasties wouldn't be the first, second or even third in U.S. presidential history, of course. But the prospect of 24 years of the Bush and Clinton families occupying the Oval Office does give pause. Are dynasties good for America?

Ben likes: Hilliam Clinton

The Wall Street Journal

The political strategy is clear enough. Mrs. Clinton wants to roll to her party's nomination on a tide of "inevitability" while disguising her real agenda as much as possible. But Democratic voters ought to consider whether they want to put all their hopes for retaking the White House on Mrs. Clinton's ability to obfuscate like her husband without his preternatural talent for it. Aside from lacking her husband's political gifts, Hillary's challenge is that we've all seen this movie before.

Joel likes: The dynastic question

Nicholas Kristoff/The New York Times

We remember John Quincy Adams as intelligent and diligent, but his presidency is diminished by the hint of dynastic succession and is seen as emblematic of a parochial time when America was ruled by an incestuous elite. Some day, I suspect we may detect the same narrowness in the rise of the Bush Dynasty and, if there is one, in the Clinton Dynasty.

We added the 22nd Amendment, limiting presidents to two terms, on the rationale that levers of power should turn over to keep our democracy healthy. Many Democrats today would consider Bill Clinton intrinsically the best person to serve as president for the next eight years. And yet, even if there weren’t a 22nd Amendment, we would shy away from that; we prefer the risk of an unproven president to the risk of stasis and aristocracy.