A VC« Our Generation | Main | Widget Removal - Which Ones Made The Cut? »
A Return To Royalty?
It's not that I am against Hillary. I think she's smart and I generally agree with her politics.
But if she's elected President, the past four presidents will be from two families, the Bushes and the Clintons.
What does that say about our country and our democracy?
Comments (29) | Posted January 21, 2007 in Politics
Comments
Going even further back, the last Presidential election that did not have a Bush or Clinton on the ticket was 1976.
We need some new blood leading this country.
Posted by: COD | Jan 21, 2007 9:59:05 AM
and if you include Reagan, that would make 5 presidents in 20 years, since GHWB was the VP. I was thinking about this yesterday. When was the last time that a sitting VP, prior VP, incumbent, or the son of one of the above hasn't ran for the office of the President? The 52 and 56 elections saw Stevenson. However, his father was VP under Cleveland. So, it seems we need to go all the way back to 1928, the Hoover / Smith race.
Anyway, I like Obama. I'm fairly certain she's unelectable anyway. There is way too much hate Hillary, which is too bad.
Posted by: Jamie | Jan 21, 2007 10:22:34 AM
we need real change here in the states. some political analysts like webster tarpley think there is enough political dissatisfaction with both parties and that people are becoming increasingly aware that republican vs democrat it is just a false paradigm to mask the real one (ruling class vs ruled).
ron paul is the way to go. the current establishment hates him because he shakes things up and pretty much tells it like it is.
as such, a vote for him is a vote for democracy. he will be running in 2008.
Posted by: kid mercury | Jan 21, 2007 10:34:04 AM
If the democrats want to win she really needs to not be doing this. She is divisive and she is unelectable at the national level.
The good news is the GOP is even more screwed up than the dems. The only way I see the GOP winning is Hillary being the democratic nominee.
Posted by: Erik Schwartz | Jan 21, 2007 11:33:15 AM
Well, if the New York Democratic funders like Patricof (I like him don't get me wrong) and Bay Area funders like Mark Gorenberg (only know that he buys and uses desktop software but doesn't think desktop software is something people would buy) continue to lead the shakedown of Democratic financial elites (i.e., Wall Street, VC, old money, etc) toward a specific candidate--if THAT's our system of selection (it is, because a candidate's viability is measured by the press, politicos, and funders by how much they have raised or can raise)--then we're screwed.
Without public financing of elections and campaigns, open and frequent debate, real electoral reform, and the removal of big money from politics, we can not field the best and the brightest.
btw--The back channel word is that Obama and the Clintons made a deal: they want him to run and become the VP candidate.
Posted by: Charlie Crystle | Jan 21, 2007 11:36:05 AM
People are comfortable with voting for names they recognize. And people who are already known are more likely to attract campaign funding. Obvious, but I thought I'd say it anyway.
Posted by: Martin Frönmark | Jan 21, 2007 12:13:09 PM
I wonder if it's more important to have a female president or a minority president as a message to the country and the world as to our respect of diversity.
That's why I think it's important for Obama to run, and not align himself with Hillary. I also think you're on target with Hillary... she's definitely in the Washington power circle. No doubt her presidency would be one of politics and not progress.
Posted by: Doug Karr | Jan 21, 2007 12:40:10 PM
Obama can't win. Once Hillary and the Clinton crew gets done shredding him he won't know what hit him. Love or hate Bill Clinton, he has the best political team around, they will dig up things about Obama that will sink him.
And too many people already hate Hillary, so she won't win any converts.
Maybe the far left can push Edward enough and he can sneak out as the nominee.
But I think if McCain or Rudy get on the top of the GOP ticket they will win.
IMO, McCain is the man to beat this time. Here's why:
Military guy - check
Straight shooter - check
Bucks his party when he thinks they are wrong - check
Willing to compromise with the Dems - check
McCain finally gets his victory, which he should have gotten in 2000.
Posted by: JB | Jan 21, 2007 12:52:15 PM
McCain is one of the Keating Five. He was a tool for a thief and roughed-up a banking regulator who was just doing his job. I don't want someone of such poor character in the White House.
Posted by: Thrift Collapse | Jan 21, 2007 1:27:19 PM
I also like Hillary, but she is dancing around the war issue, and I don’t think this will help her. I don’t mind having another Clinton in the white house as long as she is the right person for the job.
I like Joe Biden too. He tells it like it is, and he knows what he is talking about. Minus the small problem some time ago with plagiarism, I don’t think you will find a bone in his closet.
It’s also too bad Ted Kennedy can not run, I like him as much as Biden, for the same reasons.
As for those who think so much of McCain I would say this; McCain is a war hero, and he deserves to be treated with due respect, but that is where it should end. He is also a hypocrite (remember how he fought tooth and nail with Bush, then hugs and kisses him during the last election?), he has a terrible temper (remember the Maria Shriver incident during the 2000 primaries, and the email to Obama, not so long ago?). If we see these things, imagine what goes on behind closed doors! I just had to say this because I’m really tired of so many people touting the greatness of this man.
Posted by: Stephen L. McKay | Jan 21, 2007 1:47:26 PM
I volunteered for Wes Clark in 2004 in New Hampshire (brrr), if he gets in the race I'll support him again. He is a very smart man. He doesn't quite get the politics machinery yet. But between his raw brain power and his experience in defense matters, he would make a helluva president.
I haven't got time to volunteer in 2008, but we're working on some tools using the Foneshow platform that political candidates should find quite useful.
Posted by: Erik Schwartz | Jan 21, 2007 2:05:54 PM
My biggest issue with Hillary is that generally she stands for what she thinks will get her elected. It seems that she's followed every "hot" (and arguably stupid) issue that's come up in the past couple of years, whether it's illegal downloads or "protecting" children...
I'd like to see someone that (a) has their own ideas and (b) can be convinced by reasoned argument.
Obviously George W would qualify for (a), which is why (b) is there too :-) I'd say Arnie in CA is a good example of following both...
As for McCain, I used to respect him prior to the last election. I didn't agree with him that much, but at least he seemed to have some integrity. But then in the last go round he just jumped aboard the bus... Not to mention that all the reform he was supposedly going to push through has turned into vaporware...
I vote for Fred -- at least music downloads will be protected :-)
Posted by: fewquid | Jan 21, 2007 2:12:22 PM
Great point and something that I did not consider before. Granted at the end of the day I should use the issue's to decide who to vote for, but this does present perspective that will factor into my decision now.
As for CrazyMcain, I was all for him in 2000, but just look at him now. He is becoming a hard right liner who bends to his cater the base on that side. He lost his straight shooter long time ago. Just look at his stance on ethanol. I respect his military record but will NOT vote for him.
My vote for 2008 is probably going to the GOP party as I prefer a split power in all the branches.
Posted by: Marcus | Jan 21, 2007 2:16:03 PM
I just wish Mark Warner hadn't quit so soon.
Posted by: Don | Jan 21, 2007 2:48:11 PM
If Hillary wins democratic primary, the republicans all over the country are going to have a huge party, this would be there dream opponent.
Democrats need to send John Edwards or someone like that, anyone who is North/Eastern elite is not going to fly.
Alex
Posted by: Alex Iskold | Jan 21, 2007 3:11:35 PM
Seems to me like a testament to the power of branding. The name recognition and awareness behind the Clinton name brings both votes and money into the campaign. Both the Clinton and Bush family have extensive relationships and networks, which set up a barrier to entry to newcomers, but it certainly doesn't make them invincible. I think what it says about American democracy is that it's a consumer product where brands reign supreme.
Posted by: Stu | Jan 21, 2007 3:34:20 PM
>>>and I generally agree with her politics.
That would be her actual politics, her apparent politics, or her "positioning for election" politics?
SNL had a truly brilliant opening last night (about time).
Posted by: Andi | Jan 21, 2007 6:20:20 PM
Wait a minute! How many who spout off here actually use the mediums we have at our disposal to communicate with our elected officials? Send a message! I’m 46, and back in my day it would have been marches on the mall. Now everyone is so complacent. We go with the flow, and why should we not expect our elected officials to do the same? All this stuff about playing the political game, and doing what it takes to get elected should be as antiquated and as repulsive as “smoke filled back room deals”.
With all this social networking, and our ability to build a “community” on line, none of it is going towards the really important things, like making the right, not the most popular political decisions.
I remember R.M.N., for those too young to know who, or what that stands for, Google, or Wicki the initials. We are no more advanced than we were back then, we simply do the same things in a little bit better looking clothes.
Posted by: Stephen L. McKay | Jan 21, 2007 8:03:40 PM
PS
I just googled R.M.N., and the name Richard Nixon is no where near the top rankings. This is the problem. This is why I think we are more of a "me" society than we were when I cut my bones in the financil business back in the 1980's. Movies like Wall Street have nothing on our society today. We just go about it differently.
Posted by: Stephen L. McKay | Jan 21, 2007 8:09:45 PM
Fred,
I'm sorry for taking up so much with my comments, but these are real issues that I feel strongly about. We have more abilities to communicate, to get the message out, than ever before in history, yet it would seem that we are more concerned with the latest "widget", or Wii, or PDA, than we are with how to use them for our betterment. There must be a balance. Like going back to the Moon, which I support, but what will it accomplish? Maybe a telescope on the dark side? This would be good! Lets promote technology at every available turn, but lets never forget what that technology is for, and if we run away with only a one sided view of what it is for, we lose, every way you look at it. I am pretty disgusted by the fact that Hillary is not more openly concerned about the number of human lives that are being sacrificed as a result of a “mad man”, allowed to run amok in the highest seat in our land. Enough, is enough, but we too have to start thinking about more than just whether or not Apple is going to “Rock” for another five years! Maybe, we could think about what we all need to do with the technology that will make Apple rock!
Posted by: Stephen L. McKay | Jan 21, 2007 8:46:23 PM
It'll probably go like this:
Hillary
Jeb
(someone)
Jeb's latino son
Chelsea
then we'll just decree a Dual Monarchy and let the 2 families duke it out. half of us will speak Hungarian and the other half German. We'll try like hell to hold together our ethnically diverse empire, but *poof*
Posted by: scotty | Jan 21, 2007 9:27:57 PM
To Scoty,
Someday, a few hundred, or so years from now, there will be no races. Mixing, as part of the evolutionary process will take care of that. Jeb, and the Bush dynasty isout, never to return. Jeb admitted to this not long ago. What we, and I mean all of us need to be doing, is getting more involved, whether on the local, state, or national level. We are just to wrapped up in our selves to care (or at least most, who, like i said earlier, will post here, but don't email their congressman).
All the comments are great, as they mean your thinking, but don't stop there! use the platforms we have! Get your thoughts out there, and stop being such a bunch of complaining slackers!
Posted by: Stephen L. McKay | Jan 21, 2007 9:42:47 PM
What does that say about our country and our democracy?
Small political gene pool?
Posted by: chris | Jan 21, 2007 11:22:30 PM
For the Democrats, I'd prefer an Obama/Bayh ticket, but I think it's still too early to make a prediction. Blood lines don't mean too much for me--who's the best for the job? Regardless of who the democratic nominee is, I think Bayh will be the favorite for VP. He's the only Democrat that can win the red states, especially Indiana-- which I think (should he be chosen for VP) will be the pivotal state in the 2008 election. Tim Russert will be saying, "Indiana, Indiana, Indiana."
Posted by: apseek | Jan 21, 2007 11:56:32 PM
Why is this an issue?
The question is not do we have Royalty? The question is do we have the best person for the job, not which family they comes from.
Clearly with our current president we probably have the worst person for the job. And I am sure George Bush Sr. would agree.
But Hillary? Royalty? Give me a break...She is not the scion of some patrician snooty New England Blue Bloods like W.
She and Bill have risen from middle and lower middle class roots on MERIT and merit alone! And with huge accomplishments and the style that we can only wax poetic with nostalgia about.
Hillary is at this point in her life because she has worked all her life to get here, not because she was born with a silver foot in her mouth. It is just plain superficial to compare the Clintons to the Bush Dynasty or to say that her candidacy is about some notion of Royalty.
If she wins the nomination she will win because she is smart and because she deserves it.
If she wins the presidency, it will be a pivotal moment in the history of the White Male Dominated US Body Politic. Imagine a woman president - is within our sights!!!
Maybe that moment will symbolize a new beginning, a sea change that this country needs, that will give this country a chance to break it's downwardly spiraling trend and emerge with a new beginning.
Totally Superficial Analysis Fred! Sorry...
Posted by: YB | Jan 22, 2007 1:36:35 AM
Main RSS Feed of All Posts
VC and Technology Posts Only
