Better to go From Clinton to Clinton than From Bush to Bush

     There is an attempt to draw a parallel between Jeb and Hillary-that they are both from 'dynasties' which I think kind of misses some key points. Here Politico tries to play it up.

    "A central struggle for both is escaping their famous families — and their political operations have accordingly marketed the candidates around their first names only: Clinton’s logo is a squat blue “H” pierced by a red arrow, while Bush’s is a big red “Jeb” punctuated by an exclamation point"

   Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/hillary-clinton-jeb-bush-similarities-119036.html#ixzz3dBJBaQ8D

   My response is twofold: 

   1. It's not entirely true that Bush=Clinton. Even if in a sense you can say that the Clintons are dynastic, it's a considerably more meritocratic dynasty than the Bush dynasty. 

    Neither Bill nor Hillary were born into a dynasty. You can argue that the two of them together through their common devotion to the liberal cause achieved a dynasty of sorts over time. This wasn't the goal, but rather the effect of their success. In a way this is the American dream. He was actually born quite poor. She was comfortably middle class, but she was a woman which by definition means she has had to overcome long odds to achieve her goals and visions. 

   On the other hand Jeb Bush is from a dynastic family that extends back to the Mayflower-he is first cousins with Queen Elizabeth-and the political dynasty is in its 3rd generation. His father and brother have both already been President. 

   2. What is also ignored by those making this kind of parallel is that the Clinton years are remembered quite positively by most Americans whereas the George W. Bush years remain anathema. 

    http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/06/to-fix-america-lets-pledge-no-more.html

     Hillary doesn't quite have to distance herself from Bill like Jeb does from George W. Bill Clinton remains a very popular ex President. During the 2012 election  Republicans themselves couldn't stop praising him. They were rightly dismayed when he spoke for Obama at nomination night at the Democrat Convention.

    To accuse her of not being independent of her man kind of reeks of sexism. As for Obama he is viewed very well by most of the base. I think I speak for many in saying I'd rather see her embrace him than keep him at arm's length. 

    Finally:

    3. There is nothing inherently wrong with political dynasties. Things worked out pretty well with FDR serving 4 terms on top of his cousin TR's 2 terms. 

    Most Americans also have little to say but good things about the Kennedy family. I agree with Garry Wills here. There is nothing wrong inherently with elitism. The question is how you utilizie your power. 

    The Roosevelts and the Kennedys used it to serve the average American; the Bushes-and the Romneys for that matter-have  served only their own fat cat friends.