Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy who wrote (43640)	11/21/2007 11:03:46 AM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 541933

I don't think it's fair to say Clinton won the NY senate seat via dynastic politics. She certainly wasn't deeded the seat because she was the president's wife. Lots of president's wives, as I typed before, would not. So it's not dynasty in the traditional sense of that word. And she earned the seat by campaigning very well. And, by all accounts I've read, she has been an exceptional senator. As I said, even Republicans who expected to be put off by her, offer her praise. (No doubt, they would not do so now in campaign time but they've done so in the past.) I don't think the dynasty charge carries to whether she is a better person or a better prospective president. That's where I suspect I disagree with you and Dale. The only time I think it plays a serious role is in the overwhelmingly serious business of fund raising. She clearly benefits from Bill's presidency and his contacts. But no end of wealthy folk have run unsuccessfully for president. And more than a few have raised a ton of money only to fall on their faces (witness the Texas senator, Phil Gramm, on that score.) So the dynasty charge doesn't bother me. I think it is a concern if she would be elected simply because she is Bill's wife. That's dynasty. And that's not the case here.