Talk of "dynasty" is this years "Both parties are the same."

[Captain_Nemo]

Help me, I have trouble getting over my anger from the 2000 election. We could have had President Al Gore but I remmeber hearing, from liberals, a steady barrage of this sentence: "Both parties are the same."

Now, looking back how stupid does that sound? Sounded ridiculous to me then and now it just sounds like a time fo great ignorance in our country.
Disagree with me? Just say these words to yourself: President Al Gore.


Well here we are again. I am now hearing from liberals "no more dynasties" in relation to Hillary Clinton's run for president.

I truly believe that warnings of potential dynastic rule should have been fiercely attacked in 2000. But, there was no attack. Just the Nader led attack of "Both parties are the same."

Can someone help assuage my anger?

[EFerrari]

1. Democrats have led the way on election reform, so

Oh, wait.

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. And they have jumped up and held bush accountable

Oh, never mind.

[JackRiddler]

38. And they've responded to poll results showing that Iraqis want the US out now

by, um, calling for a plan for some kind of withdrawal by 2013, you know? If circumstances allow.

[Bicoastal]

2. I can sausage your anger.

assuage and sausage...see one word, think of the other....

Don't mind me.

[Catherine Vincent]

3. It ticks me off when idiots say this also. nt

[TwilightZone]

4. It's just an excuse.

Just like it was an excuse in 2000. Any objective analysis of the issues would make it obvious that it's a false statement.

The sad thing is that people on this very website are *still* making the "there's no difference" argument to this day. I've seen it applied to Clinton and Obama both in just the past few days.

How ANYONE can truly believe it is beyond my understanding.

[aquart]

5. It's way more than that.

It's a way of completely ducking the issue which is this is the first viable woman candidate for president we have ever had.

[Captain_Nemo]

6. Yes, and beyond gender, I think she can be the most effective.

[TwilightZone]

8. That is certainly one of the intended uses, but one of many.

People use it as a catch-all because they think that it excuses them from actually coming up with something tangible.

When pressed, they often say, "Oh, he/she is just a corporatist, so he/she is just like Bush."

Ok, fine. What about abortion? Gay rights? Health care? The Supreme Court?

That's usually when the "discussion" ends.

[Atman]

9. The "Dynasty" argument is very real, and scares a great many of us.

It's un-American. We're not a monarchy, and these two families have become way too close and way too intertwined. Think of the White House like any other house...when you live there too long, shit accumulates in the dark recesses of the attic. It becomes easier and easier to lose stuff, or in this case HIDE stuff.

I think the equating the "There's no difference" meme with the Dynasty argument is just plain wrong. I'm not for a minute saying there is no difference in the parties, but I do see a very real danger in allowing two close-knit families to control EVERYTHING for such a long period of time. It is dangerous, and at a time like this, with our nation already teetering on the edge, I don't see why we need to take any more risks with our future.

.

[Captain_Nemo]

13. Having someone who is not experienced in the WH scares me much more than two families

Dynastic rule is nothing compared to shifting coastlines, drought, shrinking middle class and potential nuclear exchange in the middle east.

Navigating through this mess (and holding on to civil liberites) takes skill.

Obama doesn't have it. Edwards sort of has it.

The Supreme Court is crucial. Obama's kowtowing to the middle (reaganites and religous types) does not give me cofidence that he can nominate correctly in this arena.

Look, the guy just praised Reagan and then, on TV, he disavowed him. sorry, not ready for prime time. And in 2008 one has to be ready for anything.
You are forgetting this: the PEOPLE rule. Act your part as a citizen an you will see that dynastic rule in the USA is far from a reality.

[Captain_Nemo]

21. correction on this: I meant FEAR of dynastic rule is wasted time at this point. The time was 2000.

the disastrous state of our infrastructure, economy, environment means it time for effective change. NOt just change in person. Change in decision making. who can make the best decisions for all of the people.

[Atman]

22. I share your concerns about Obama, and have for quite some time.

I disagree, however, that "the people rule." The past eight years has demonstrated that "the people" are utterly powerless. We can march on Washington a million strong, and we're ignored. We can throw the bums out via elections, and our will is ignored. This is why so many of us have problems with the same two families...we need some fundamental, dramatic CHANGE and I don't see that happening by re-coronating the same leaders over and over again.

.

[Captain_Nemo]

26. no president changes us. WE the PEOPLE change. Example of people themselves being weak:

When the "both parties are the same" statement was being thrown around quite effectively it had an addendum: corporate rule is kiling us. "Its the corporations." People followed Nader on this! Followed quite blindly because they thought he was green party (he was independent) they thought he was for the people but he wasn't.

How can I prove this: Where is he now! We have lead in childrn's toys, ecoli, posion in dog food. Hello? Ralph, Ralph? Where are you?

Furthermore, where are the people? IN a movement the people do more than just march on washington. they CHANGE their lives. They boycott, the march every week. They read apers and write letters. They demand that media be held accountable.

Sorry, the people aren't doing this now. In short, there is NO MOVEMENT. Leaders don't start movements - they emerge.

Movements make change.
Obama takes more money from Goldman Sachs than Hillary. Obama said the health care companies would have a seat at the table.Obama praised Reagan. This is not change. This is politics.

[Atman]

29. In all fairness, not very many people "followed Nader" on this.

And I don't see Hillary Clinton as one of those people "emerging" to lead. That's precisely what I've been looking for, another out-of-nowhere leader like Bill Clinton seemed to be way back when. Someone to challenge the status quo, not be a part of it, and unfortunately, Hillary Clinton is simply not that person. She brings back horrible memories for half of America, and that is not in anyway the definition of an emerging leader.

Obama lost me when he praised Reagan...and he DID praise Reagan, that's undeniable when you hear the entire clip. Reagan was the beginning of this nightmare we're in right now, and there is not one single thing to praise him for except maybe his hair.

.

[Captain_Nemo]

36. I thought you felt we needed a leader? Leaders are not elected, they emerge. There is no movement.

And, I believe it is important to talk in specifics:

Exactly why do you think half of America has horrible memories of the clinton years? Even republicans have come out and said "he was a pretty good president." Yes, Reagan was the begining of a nightmare and Clinton gave us an 8 year respite. He stabilized aboritn rights, he brought a surplus where he had inherited a deficit, he gave us peace and prosperity. It wasn't a nightmare. The nightmare is what we are in right now.

Reagan was the result of a backlash to the women's movement and civil rights movement and gay movement. He effectivelty said he would put us BACK to where we were before the sixties.

You have to realize that you don't elect a leader. You elect a president to solve problems. Only people can start a movement and leaders emerge from movements. MLK Jr. emerged from the civil rights movment that had started in the 1940s. He did not come out in 1968 and say "I am a leader." Nor did people think in the early part of the movement "He is a leader."

He became the voice of the people because the people's collective voice was united.

I don't think Hillary is a leader. But, I do know she will be an efective president. We have serious problems to solve.

[Captain_Nemo]

28. my obama statments weren't in response to your post. They were examples of falsely using Obama

as an agent of change. I'm enjoying our discussion.

[Voltaire]

25. Did Hill and Bill not praise Reagan as well?

This is the countercharge from Brokaw's book. Its in all the papers, if you care to look. The fact is, Hillary is different than Bush, but only in the speed it will take this nation to continue its descent into the toilet. With Hillary, it will take longer. But being tied to the same corporations that run the GOP, exactly how is it that she will do ANYTHING that the corporations don't want done? If you believe there is a difference there, you need to study up.

I am not for any of the candidates because, like before, whomever gets elected won't make a damned bit of difference. If they try, they will be stopped. Buckle your seatbelts boys and girls, its a bumpy ride down!

[unpossibles]

7. well, I agree in that I don't recall any Republicans or mediatypes complaining of this in 2000

when Bush ran, it was acceptable. Now suddenly he is an example of why it's wrong, even from those who supported him!

[Atman]

10. You don't recall it, but I do. It WAS discussed in 2000.

Quite a bit, in fact.

.

[unpossibles]

16. huh. color me wrong.

It was brought up by Republicans? In their own primary I take it? I try to avoid those, so no wonder I missed it, but I don't recall hearing it during the GE, although again it may have been discussed.

[Captain_Nemo]

37. I remember endless discussions with Nader voters over the fact that the parties are different.

the Nader votrs wanted change in government - all the while they were shopping at Target.

[lwcon]

12. Sorry

I'm going to fuel your anger... because you're right!

How about "Hillary is Polarizing". That one gets my goat, too:
http://www.correntewire.com/obamas_bidens_and_the_msms_bipolar_misdiagnosis_of_hillary_clinton

BTW, I'm not a Hillary fan, just a fan of reason.


___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[Captain_Nemo]

14. Yesh, reagan was polarizing too. certainly Bush was/is polarizing and got elected 2x

[TwilightZone]

15. JFK was certainly polarizing.

So polarizing, in fact, that theories about political involvement in his assassination have been kept alive for nearly 45 years.

[Captain_Nemo]

17. Yes, he was elected by a narrow margin.

[TwilightZone]

18. One of the thinnest in history.

And, yet, many consider him to be one of the best presidents in history.

Remind me again why "polarizing" should be a disqualifier for ANY of our candidates? :)

[DemGa]

19. And they only call it a dynasty in relation to the Bush regime

Their argument is based on the Bushes!

I say eff the Bushes; I don't define Democrats by Republicans. Such FAULTY logic the use!!

[TwilightZone]

20. Yes, somehow Hillary gets the blame for 12 years of Bush rule.

She shouldn't be considered because the Bushes were in the White House for 12 years.

I've never quite understood that part of the argument.

[Captain_Nemo]

23. Thank you . A brilliant and pithy statement!

[Atman]

30. That is absolutely ridiculous.

It's NOT the Bushes being in the WH for twelve years that matters. It's THE SAME TO FAMILIES. Are you willing to bet that after 4-8 years of Clinton that the machine just won't hand the reins over to Jeb Bush? We have to break this corporate cycle somewhere. How long are you willing to wait? How much of our future are you willing to gamble, when we KNOW the corporations are controlling this process, not us?

.

[TwilightZone]

31. No, what is ridiculous is your assertion that the WH is just going to be handed to Jeb in '12.

Your assertion that the two families are "sharing" the WH is ludicrous.

Did George HW Bush "hand the reins" to Clinton?

Perhaps you've forgotten who Clinton ran against in '92. I guess ol' Georgie just threw the election, hmm?

[Atman]

32. This ain't 1992.

A lot has changed. Bill and Poppy are now golfing buddies.

And, btw, I didn't say the WH will be handed to Jeb in '12. I asked if you're willing to take that gamble. Apparently, you are. I'm not.

.

[TwilightZone]

33. Ah, yes, golfing buddies. Proof of an evil conspiracy.

The place just keeps getting funnier.

[Atman]

34. You obviously don't play golf.

Two men don't spend five hours on a golf course together when they hate each other. The biggest business deals in the world take place on golf courses. This place keeps getting funnier to you because you don't take this shit seriously.

.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

24. yeah i remember those gore is bush lite comments too. it was stupid then and is stupid now

[Lilith Velkor]

27. I'm a Nader2K voter, and I say the "dynasty" meme is horseshit

There are plenty of reasons to dislike her aside from it.

And the only way both parties are the same to me is that they are factions of the same ruling class.

I'd vote for HRC to make the heads of repiggies explode...but that's my only reason.

[Smith_3]

35. Channel your anger into effort towards an election reform.

Some people have legitimate reservations against the democratic party. It doesn't exactly represent everyones opinion.

[Orsino]

39. I can't do much to assuage your anger...

...except to note that "no more dynasties" is a worthy end in itself. Just as electing Clinton for the sake of having a female president is also defensible (that's about the only joy I'll take when she defeats the GOP nominee).

Dynasties are still a bad idea for either party, even if Hillary's presidency isn't the corporatist clusterfuck that *'s is.