Tuesday, January 8, 2008

Where was the talk about dynasties in 2000?

Good points brought up over at BuzzFlash:

Presidential history tells us of two family connections before 2000. John Quincy Adams was president as well as his father, John Adams. And Benjamin Harrison was the grandson of William Henry Harrison, both presidents, though William Henry only lasted 31 days.

So when I hear about "if we elect Hillary, we'll have a dynasty," I wonder where these people were in 2000. Regardless of who you support, if dynasties are an issue, bring it up when you have the son of a president running.

As it turns out, having George W. so close on the heels of George H.W. has been beyond disastrous.

Some may vote for Hillary because she is Bill's wife. And some may not vote for her because she is Bill's wife. That is the reality. But it really needs to be about her, not him.

The agenda for any incoming president should be for the people, and moving forward, not settling old scores. Watching Bush ignore great things Bill Clinton did was insulting, and ultimately, costly to our country.

If Hillary or anyone else wants to be president on their own merits, they deserve that shot. But it should never be about revenge.


Anonymous said...

good points

scepter66 said...

I would have to say that is in in part about Bill and people should consider that when supporting Hillary or not.I'm not a Clinton basher and think that they made a good team with him in charge and would make an even better team with her in charge.
people that bash the Clintons but are silent on the Bush's are clearly fooling only themselves.

scepter66 said...

that first sentence should read ...
"... it is in part about Bill ..."
sorry, i'll try to do better with the typing.