Some of the comments on my previous post indicate support for a particular candidate. That is fine, but the post was not intended as an endorsement of Obama, Paul, or anyone else. Frankly, like many Americans I have not made up my mind who I will support, but I know that it will not be Billary.
So far in this campaign there has been very little discussion of the "dynasty" issue. I think the phenomenon is the same as the endless Hollywood remakes of successful films from the past. Financial backers are willing to invest only in proven commodities. Certainly, there is risk in supporting or contributing to a candidate with no name ID.
Other than GW Bush, we have only one example of a dynastic presidency and that was John Quincy Adams a long time ago. Roosevelt does not count because Teddy and Franklin were distant cousins, they were from different parties, and were probably as different ideologically and in personality as any two presidents could be. Interestingly, there is only one known photograph of Theodore and Franklin together.
This does not mean that sons of presidents have not sought the office. I believe that Jimmy Roosevelt, who represented a California district in the House in the late 40s and early 50s, believed he could do it, but his hopes were dashed when he failed to support Truman for the nomination in 1948 and he became something of a pariah among Democrats. Nobody thought he could be elected just because his father was a very popular president.
Finally, I have a question. Is there anyone who seriously believes that offered the choice between Billary and Obama, any great number of black voters will choose Billary? After over 200 years of struggle to rise from slavery and attain social and political equality with whites (still not fully achieved) will enough black voters choose Billary to give them the nomination? Obama is the first black candidate in history to have a real chance. What do you think? Isn't this the "elephant in the room" in the campaign?
Tomorrow I will mention some other issues that have not emerged in the campaign so far.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Dynasty?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
You are absolutely right. Democratic Afro-American voters are never going to vote for Billary. I know that the former President liked to think of himself as the Afro-American candidate, but now we have a real Afro-American candidate, and Afro-American voters (except for Republicans and Conservatives)will not vote for Billary.
You're right that this continuation of a dynasty is really scary. And unfortunately, as talented as Hillary is, she would not be now or EVER enjoying the kind of assumed support she has were it not for Bill. I have heard SO many Hillary supporters saying that I just thought the Clinton years were good and that it would be good to have BC back in the White House. In fact, a guy I spoke with this week was saying this, and I said, "That sounds like ABB (Anybody But Bush). As in, going back in time would be better than repeating the last 8 years" He said sheepishly, "Well, yeah."
But as to your question about "The Black Vote," I honestly am tired of hearing this term as if all black voters can be expected to vote the same. That can be used as a for-the-most-part accurate generalization if you're talking about the Dem-Rep election, but it's not a fair one for the primaries. Black voters should not be seen as monolithic. I personally support Obama, but if someone else wants to support Billary, more power to them. They have that right. Here is a good article on this issue:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2008/obama-not-a-given-among-blacks.html
Hey, check this story out from today:
Leading Democrats To Bill Clinton: Pipe Down
http://www.newsweek.com/id/96385
A priceless quote from a Clinton aide about Bill's out-of-control antics: "...the stakes couldn't be higher. It's worth it to tarnish himself a bit now to win the presidency."
Right...wait a minute, whose presidency?!
Post a Comment