My Photo

Welcome to Mannionville

  • Politics, art, movies, television, books, parenting, home repair, caffeine addiction---you name it, we blog it. Since 2004. Call for free estimate.

The Tip Jar

  • Please help keep this blog running strong with your donation

Help Save the Post Office: My snail mail address

  • Lance Mannion
    109 Third St.
    Wallkill, NY 12589

Save a Blogger From Begging...Buy Stuff

The one, the only

Sister Site

« Clinton is going to lose | Main | "Ever the best of friends, eh, Pip?" »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Tom W.

Well, I agree with you and I'd go further.

The dynastic argument against Hillary is deeply sexist at its root, disqualifying a "wife" for her role in marriage.

It's distasteful to Obamacans, I know, to suggest this - but it's also true. Raising the dynasty card is raising the gender card in an absolutely negative fashion.


You're only looking at the dynastic argument from one side. What if the argument is that it shows how American politics has degenerated into pointless trench warfare akin to World War I, with both sides content to hold their lines while opportunities, blood and treasure are squandered in service to egos, pride, and selfishness?

Jeez, even in World War I they finally figured it out.


What I find hilarious is the people who tout Obama because of the dynasty aspect, while ignoring the log in their eyes over the fact that he is now in the pocket of the single largest political dynasty in American history.


e_five: What if the argument is that it shows how American politics has degenerated into pointless trench warfare akin to World War I...?

Ok, e_five, I'll bite. What if it has?

Bluegrass Poet

First ever woman president looks like a symbol of the future to me. Just like first ever person of color. And they're both running as Democrats and whoever gets elected we look like change and the future. And McCain looks like a Schmoo from the old Al Capp cartoon.


The dynastic argument against Hillary is deeply sexist at its root

This is utter hogwash. I know because I've made the argument and I'm not a sexist. I like identity politics as much as the next liberal, but please, a little originality.

Having argued for the dynasty argument to Lance before, I feel compelled clear it up (again). First, no one I have ever read or spoken to would refuse to vote for Hillary on the basis of a dynasty worry. It's one (small) issue among many. As shocking as this may seem--sit down, Tom W.--some voters weigh a number of factors before filling out the ballot. In a primary election where both surviving candidates share views on about 90% of the issues, it can be argued that one starts looking at these inconvenient other factors to make a decision.

I think Clinton would be a solid president. Good gas mileage, excellent safety rating, decent warranty, not likely to require much maintenance. To me it's unfortunate that it looks like she'd bring her husband's machine back into power--but when you agree to dynasties, you get the courtiers, too. I'd argue that's another good reason to be leery of the concept.

I didn't vote against Hillary this morning. I did vote FOR someone, however. And it wasn't the dynastic argument that threw it his way.

Incidentally, it wasn't sexism, either. I mean, do Clinton supporters really believe this sort of thing? Do you really accept the equally ludicrous counter-argument--that you're a bunch of racists for opposing Obama? Or, for that matter, Yankee carpetbaggers for opposing Edwards? Or robot-haters for opposing Romney?

Mary Jane

Here is the Pick your candidate quiz.... Direct from David Byrnes online journal.... The quiz will match your views to the candidates, rate them in order of compatability and point out which issues you disagree on.


But to claim that HRC represents a "dynasty" IS sexist. She's not the child of Bill Clinton, she's his wife. You know, that adult person who belonged to another family before she married him, and who continues to belong to that family?

She's as much - perhaps more - a Rodham as a Clinton; this cannot be said of the Bushes, where you have a father succeeded directly by a son, and hopes of a second son doing the same.

You can only make the dynastic argument about a wife following in her husband's footsteps if you see being a wife as akin to being a child inheriting its parents' (political) capital.

Somehow, I suspect that if she had held the office first, we wouldn't be having this conversation; that's why it's a sexist argument. That, and the fact that the issue of a wife running for president has never come up before!

Ken Muldrew

OK, so much for the dynasty argument. Now what about the aristocracy argument?

Chris the Cop

Rana - I would argue that NOT calling it a dynasty because HRC is a wife and not part of a family succession is what's sexist.

She may be "as much - perhaps more - a Rodham than a Clinton," but she wouldn't be a Senator nor a viable presidential candidate if she hadn't first been the wife of a popular President.

It's also true we'll never know what she could have done on her own because she decided to hitch her star to WJC. But that was her choice and so far other than a few public humiliations over Bill's zipper problem, it's worked.


I'm willing to call it the aristocracy argument. In fact, I like it a lot. It's a more accurate term and apparently less sexist (oy). Perhaps it will also provoke fewer manifestations of mind-reading powers by Hillary's supporters.

All hail the aristocracy argument!


I'm more concerned with Bush and Cheney's monarchial assertions.

With Dems, it's different discussing the dynasty thing. With Republicans, this point really is just Hillary-bashing. Any Republican who actually objected to George W. Bush on the same grounds is excused, but I don't know of any.

There are just so many other reasons to vote for or againt any of the remaining candidates.


I find the term aristocratic hilarious when used to describe any of the families mentioned above. As for dynastic, as far as I know we still hold elections.

I think the Murdochs are an example of a dynasty - they have huge power and we have no say as to who gets to inherit.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Data Analysis

  • Data Analysis


April 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

Movies, Music, Books, Kindles, and more

For All Your Laundry Needs

In Case of Typepad Emergency Break Glass

Be Smart, Buy Books

Blog powered by Typepad