Jesus.

Let's think.  If Hillary turns into a two termer, then two families will have split control of the nation from 1989-2017.

This about that for a few minutes.

1989-2017.  There are eras in history that don't last that long.  In fact, it already overlaps the Cold War and the War on Terror!  It covers two invasions of Iraq.  It covers two recessions.  It will cover two recoveries.

That's insane.

All things being equal, we as Democrats OWE the nation better than just picking the most famous Dem we can find and tossing her out there as the uber-donkey of the moment.

Forget that whole notion.  It is wrong.  It is almost immoral.  It is franly unAmerican.

Let's at least try to give someone like Feingold or Warner or whatever can-win-in-red Dems a chance.

Hell, better yet, let's give everyone a realistic chance rather than a presumtpive nominee.

The GOP did that with Georgie boy, and they slimed a war hero to pull it off properly.

What will the Dems do to put Hillary over the top?  Who will they slime -- just like the Bushies -- to get it done?

We as Dems have to call bullshit on this entire process.  The eggheads who push our party around ar fuckups.  Let's just face that fact outright.  These are the same idiots who told us Kerry was a can't-miss candidate.

Rightie?

Let's burn these fools once and for all and maybe, just maybe, take a swing at picking the STRONGEST candidate, rather than the "most electable".

That didn't work.

In fact, the emminently unelectable Bill Clinton, a drawling sex fiend with a pudgy build and folksy message, was a damned two-termer who no one would have picked on profile alone!

Let's just draw the damned line.  Right here.  No more of this crap.

The Clintons are nothing like this.  Nothing.  Bill Clinton lived with his grandmother.  He is famous, well, for being a good President who made a stupid mistake.  And the reason he continues to influence the nation is not because of some economic base that dominates a particular state, but because a party is nostalgic for what they perceive as his ability to lead.  

The Clintons have managed to translate political capital back into economic capital--no small feat, mind you.  And exactly the opposite of what the Bush family has done.  But make no mistake, the Clinton family could not, for example, install Chelsea as a governor the way the Bush family has done for Jeb.  The Clinton's could not make one of their relatives go away for fear that their behavior would taint the politics of one of their rising stars--as the Bush family has done. The Clinton family has never retained influence over the nation's security complex, such that it can use the law to control individuals.  And--finally--the Clinton family has never wanted nor held a global alliance with other landed aristocracies in other nations, as the Bushes have done with the Saudi Royal family.

I'm sorry, but on a very basic, Progressive level, the Bush family represents everthing we work against:  the enduring and destructive power of accumulated wealth if left unchecked by a government that works for the benefit of the people.  While the Clinton family stands for everything that Progressives work towards:  the idea that if individual, middle class Americans work hard and play by the rules, then they can become the President--and a good President.  I realize that HRC has come from a family of considerably greater means than Bill's, but still:  is she not the type of role model that we want for young people in this country, as opposed to the Laura?  No matter how many dresses HRC buys from Anne Klein, she still represents the promise of the New Deal, the voting rights act, the ERA, while the Bush family, and all their progeny, still represent the ever present threat that unslacked weath posed to any free society.

Enough said.  The point is that just because we have a family feud of literary proportions unfolding in our history, that doesn't mean that we have two equal social phenomena in American society int the Bushes and the Clintons.