Bill Clinton Addresses The Dynasty Question

On tonight's "World News" with Charles Gibson, President Clinton is asked about the politics of dynasty, as very deliberately raised by George W. Bush.

Gibson: President Bush recently, sort of mused about, about presidential succession. And said, huh, interesting, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. And used the word "dynasty." Is that good?

Clinton: In our case, I don't think dynasty is right, because, Hillary, will win -- have to win on her own merits. And I believe that, on the merits, I think she's the best qualified non-incumbent I've had a chance to vote for in 40 years as a voter…

The fact that we happen to have been married, I don't think should disqualify her…If you go out and you fight fair, and you win it on your own, that's not a dynasty. She gets elected this time, it's not going to be, you're not going out to vote for me for a third term. She's going to get elected, she'll be the President, she'll make the calls, the rest of us will have to do our best to help her succeed…No, dynasties are not good for America, but it wouldn't be good for America to eliminate someone in consideration, because of what their last name was.

It's her turn. Or is it?

Comments

If Hillary Clinton is running on her own merits why does she contantly talk about her husband Bill and the part he will play in her presidency. I think Bill Clinton is lying to himself if he thinks that Hillary Clinton would be where she is now if she wasn't married to him. I say dynasty by any other name is a dynasty. It makes me disgusted with democrats and the whole country because they obviously still believe in dynasties. Maybe that is why GB still has a queen.

Posted by rssrai | September 26, 2007 7:17 PM

"It's her turn."

I think you've summed up the Hillary message nicely here, Marc.

The problem with running a campaign based on nothing is that once you get scratched, you can bleed like a hemophiliac.

The folks who think Edwards won't be able to capitalize on an Iowa win are crazy. Most of the party would love to be able to get behind an electorally strong candidate, but they'll only do so if Hillary starts to bleed.

The difficult part for Edwards is going to be to win Iowa. The Bill & Hillary Show will put on a full court press to steal that away. But if Edwards does win Iowa, the rest will follow far more easily than the current conventional wisdom has it.

Posted by Petey | September 26, 2007 7:26 PM

For a fairly eloquent, thoughtful guy that answer is thougtless BS. Lame, lame, lame.

Posted by Joe Justice | September 26, 2007 7:29 PM

It would be one thing if Hillary was ignoring her time spent as First Lady and instead running on her Senate career, but that's not happening.

The crux of Hillary's "experience" argument rests on her time spent in the White House, a position she certainly didn't rise to "on her own."

Posted by Dave | September 26, 2007 7:38 PM

Bill's quip is merely a glorified campaign ad. Hillary doesn't "deserve" to be Prez...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by paul | September 26, 2007 7:44 PM

Rssai -- I agree with you except on one point. Bill isn't lying to himself -- he is as usual, lying to us.

I am going to watch the debate tonight -- I hope that Hillary is asked if she supports the FISA amnesty bill before congress.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/09/22/telecom_immunity/print.html

Posted by donna | September 26, 2007 7:46 PM

I don't see the other candidates distancing themselves from Elizabeth Edwards and Michele Obama. There's no reason that Hillary Clinton shouldn't use her spouse as a campaign advantage.

The fact that she has one of the most famous and well loved public figures in the world as her spouse is part and parcel of her total campaign package. Just like the candidate spouses bring something to their campaigns.

Nor would it be fair to ignore the fact that Hillary Clinton has the experience of being a key political and policy advisor for eight years in the White House and two successful Presidential elections. That experience almost certainly contributes to the fact that she's been the most effective candidate on the trail.

I'm sure that frustrated Obama and Edwards supporters no end. But, that's the breaks.

Posted by hwe | September 26, 2007 8:17 PM

I don't see the other candidates distancing themselves from Elizabeth Edwards and Michele Obama. There's no reason that Hillary Clinton shouldn't use her spouse as a campaign advantage.

Both Elizabeth Edwards and Michelle Obama are great and successful people, but neither has been president.

The question is whether or not electing Hillary amounts to the continuation of a dynasty, which should be a pretty clear "of course" (she's basically running on it).

Whether or not that's a problem is up to the voters, but Bill's insistence that Hillary is not running as part of a dynasty rings hollow. If he really thinks "dynasties are not good for America" then he should probably vote for Edwards or Obama.

Posted by Dave | September 26, 2007 8:41 PM

"I'm sure that frustrated Obama and Edwards supporters no end."

As an Edwards supporter, I think the Billary Dynasty Factor is a very double-edged sword for Hillary. It's put her at the top of the pack, but it's her greatest point of weakness in January too.

Posted by Petey | September 26, 2007 8:55 PM

Total bullshit from Bill Clinton. Hillary is very obviously not running on her own merits, but on her husband's record in the White House.

Posted by Korha | September 26, 2007 9:09 PM

I've never voted Republican in a presidential race, but if Hillary is nominated, I will. This dynasty is a disgrace to democracy and is ruining America.

Posted by William | September 26, 2007 9:20 PM

ervnlcgiq xnikmzy hafbogskp hyvqxklo bdtgjfkrh enmdhoaci zhcir

Posted by pdnrqmsoj uswqn | June 25, 2008 1:29 PM