The Houses of Clinton and Bush

Let's say Hillary gets the nomination and wins. Lets further say she gets reelected. This would mean we would have either a Bush or Clinton in the White House for 28 years straight. Do we want that? Is that good for Democracy or America?

Maybe we should have Chelsea and one of the Bush nephews (or daughters) get married. We can thus join House Atreides and House Harkonnen bringing peace to the galaxy once more.

Christopher Hitchens in Slate: [Link]

What would it take to break this cheap little spell and make us wake up and inquire what on earth we are doing when we make the Clinton family drama—yet again—a central part of our own politics?
What do you have to forget or overlook in order to desire that this dysfunctional clan once more occupies the White House and is again in a position to rent the Lincoln Bedroom to campaign donors and to employ the Oval Office as a massage parlor? You have to be able to forget, first, what happened to those who complained, or who told the truth, last time.

Suing to prevent Obama supporters being able to vote in Nevada. [Link]

As this link shows, the Clinton campaign is supporting, if not actually inciting, a Nevada State Teachers Association lawsuit against the Culinary Workers Union. The reason? The Culinary Workers Union has arranged for its members to caucus in their workplaces, to cast their votes in the hotels and casinos that support that state's economy instead of taking time off to get to polling places -- at the risk of getting fired.

That lawsuit was filed right after the Culinary Workers Union endorsed Obama.

Gosh. What a coincidence. It's an unfair disadvantage, the teachers union lawsuit says -- they are supporting Hillary -- to let all those maids and bellboys vote while they are on the job.

The caucus is on the 19th. It's a Saturday. I guess the teachers are going to be -- really busy compared to those maids and bellboys?

Manipulating the Michigan ballot. [Link]

“What happened in Michigan is not very different from what used to happen in the old Soviet Union,” Riegle said. “The Clinton machine manipulated the ballot. They don’t care how they win, only that they do. It’s wrong and people need to know that.”

Riegle said the Democratic candidates had an understanding, after Michigan defied the party and tried to become the first state to hold a primary, that none of them would compete in Michigan. Obama and Edwards honored the agreement, but Clinton did not and put her name on the ballot, he said.

...

Besides Clinton, candidates Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel are also on the Democratic ballot. Backers of other candidates have been told to vote Uncommitted. Write-in votes will not be counted. If Uncommitted wins 15% of the vote in a congressional district, delegates will be chosen later to represent other candidates such as Obama and Edwards, Riegle said.

No more dynasties. [Link]

I admire her a lot and think she could be a great president, but here's the speech line that killed any enthusiasm for that scenario (from memory): "It took a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush and it looks like it'll take another Clinton to clean up after the second one.").

That line just drove home the whole dynasty shtick that I've grown so weary of. If it's bad for backward countries to elect spouses and kids of former rulers, then why is it such a good deal here?

I mean, are we that bereft of talent that we must regurgitate entire administrations? Look at what the "steady hands" of Bush 41 (Powell, Rice, Cheney, Wolfowitz) got us with Bush 43.

All this tells me is that politics doesn't matter much today in the everyday lives of Americans. We're just dogs going back to our own vomit. Instead of the Big Man, we submit to the Big Family. Same mediocre deal, because they second-timers rule with a sense of entitlement. We saw it with W.'s supremely arrogant crowd and I suspect we'd see it with all the Clintonites back in power: tons of "we know best."

Yes, no more dynasties, on either side.