An interesting discussion to be had at the moment is the potential ramifications of a Clinton campaign for the 2008 presidency. I’m by no means a US political expert, but I do pay a fair bit of attention to what goes on over there, and for a whole host of reasons I think it’d be a bad idea if she ran.
However one thing that isn’t discussed much – or at all – is how a successful campaign on her behalf would lead towards a theme of political dynasticism in American politics. Just look at it, you had Bush Senior, then Bill Clinton; you had Bush Junior; then (possibly) Hillary Clinton; after that you could possibly see Jeb Bush having a crack at the title.
I don’t know about you but if that kind of thing was going on in my country, Australia, I think it’d be quite a disturbing development. We’re talking ruling houses. We’re talking Medici, Visconti; Shakespearean Montagues and Capulets.
Josh Marshall, of Talking Points Memo fame, discusses the point further:
“I think I've seen some relatively systematic data showing a growth in the number of members of congress who are political legacies. Again, not unprecedented by any means, but a tendency that is growing and one I don't think is healthy in the aggregate.
George H. W. Bush left office to be followed by two terms of Bill Clinton. He in turn was followed by two terms of Bush's son. If those two terms of the son are followed by the election of Clinton's wife, I don't see where that's a good thing for this country. It ceases to be a fluke and grows into a pattern. It's dynasticism.”