of course, we should have never had this bush in the white house for the last seven years.   his father was at least qualified, like his politics or not, and he did appoint david souter to the supreme court.  junior is unfit to be mayor of a small town:  arrogantly sure of everything but his own incompetence, lazy, a party boy until the age of 40 with the lack of all the positive life experiences that should come by that age [books read, history studied, a view of the world formed].  

 junior is in the white house only because of his name.   and the fact that so much of the press supported this man, because he lined their pockets, speaks volumes of the loss of independence of our media.   i have no problems with true conservatives,  but this guy ain't it.  i think he is fully culpable in two of the biggest disasters to ever befall our country.  one, the clues in the summer of 2001 that a big terrorist strike was coming and his deliberate ignoring of the warnings.  two, his failure to pay any attention to the failure of the levees after hurricane katrina had already passed new orleans.  the army corps of engineers should have been ordered to be monitoring what were, in the beginning, just small overflows of the levee system.   instead bush's fema head declared that there was no problem because the newspapers had declared that the city had "dodged a bullet".   bush was, as usual, on one of his can't be disturbed august vacations. 

The problem with this issue is: why is Hillary being blamed for Bush 2? And why is a dynasty an MSM problem for Clinton, but it wasn't for the Bush family? Double standard there, eh?

I promise you, if a Democrat wins in 2008 and Jeb Bush runs for the Presidency in 2012, we won't hear one word about "concern" over a "family dynasty."  Even if the Democrat who wins is Hillary Clinton.

It's hysterical- and utterly predictable- that this "dynasty" stuff is an issue NOW, but not in 2000.   

Yes, and Russert, the MSM's water carrier, keeps stressing this phony issue as somehow being of great concern to Americans, when the above poll clearly shows that almost 75% os people aren't worried about it. 

If this issue gains traction, it could hurt Clinton very much. These guys are throwing everything they can out there, hoping something will stick against Dems. 

The "dynasty" meme has never been a problem for Republican candidates.  recall that in 2000, only one candidate was ridiculed as a privileged, Ivy league educated, spoiled, pampered, political legacy.  And it wasn't George W. Bush, the son of a former President and grandson of a former Senator.

As much as I'd like to see somebody besides HC get the Dem nomination, the family connection doesn't bother me.

And although poppa Bush wasn't anything like the disaster his boy has turned out to be, I was pretty amazed when Bush Jr. became a contender.I didn't think Dad really had the coattails to get him in, but somehow 1/2 the voters saw something in him. Twice.

"So does it bother you to listen to nothing but Mozart and Ted Nugent?" "Absolutely." "So what would you prefer? The Bay City Rollers? Vanilla Ice? A Flock of Seagulls?" "Well, no, actually--if you could just replace the Ted Nugent with more Mozart, please?"

The pithy essence!

Bush Senior, a one-term president, was easily defeated by Bill Clinton. The Bush "Dynasty" was thus, one of failure.

Clinton, widely approved and even beloved (to this day), had two terms that saw America at its strongest, happiest, and most satisfactorily led. Peace and prosperity, balanced budget, etc. A highly successful presidency.

Al Gore was the choice of "the People", garnering hundreds of thousands of votes more than Bush, in the nation, and also in Florida. The American People REJECTED GW Bush as president. He was installed only by deceptions and frauds, election tampering and dirty tricks, and ultimately the WILL OF THE PEOPLE was struck down by the five partisan rightwing members of the Supreme Court. So much for a "Dynasty".

GW Bush is a deeply flawed and incompetent "leader". He has squandered any opportunity to make America better, instead opting for doing highly destructive things which have only two goals: ONE, To hopefully perpetuate Republican rule (illegal wiretapping, staffing all organizations, like the FEC, SEC, and the FCC, with highly partisan rightwingers in order to "game the system" to the advantage of GOPers. And TWO, to turn every economic advantage in favor of the already very rich, enabling the amassing of tremendous fortunes in the hands of a very few elites. This garnering of wealth, which comes mostly from America's middle class' pockets and from depriving our poor of any help in life, has NOTHING to do with the value and productivity of those banking the fortunes, and everything to do with utilizing government power to redistribute wealth to friends and cronies.

The second goal has, sadly, been acheived. The first goal has FAILED.

Now come the "dynasty" complaints about Hillary. What claptrap! First off, Dynasties by definition are monied elites who pass power by virtue of bloodline and wealth. This describes the Bushs, but NOT the Clintons. With the Clintons, there is no history of wealth, and there is no "royal" bloodline. In addition, the first Clinton presidency was both popular and a succes, while BOTH Bush presidencies have been abject failures. Even if a dynasty were involved, the people would be nuts to reject a SUCCESSFUL family of leadership, on the basis of a FAILED family of leadership. It makes no sense, even if the premise is accepted.

Bottom line, Democrats in charge are GOOD for the nation, while Republicans in charge spells DISASTER for the nation. The choice is not difficult, what's hard is getting past the propaganda which "stolen" money has bought, aimed at fooling Americans into voting AGAINST their best interests and AGAINST the best future for America.

While the Rightwing was buying up all the "traditional" forms of media, they had every reason to believe that they would monopolize "the message" and thus assure Republican victories in perpetuity (through lies, smears, and propaganda presented in the "mainstream media" as TRUTH, which demonizes Democrats daily while promoting Republicans and whitewashing their flaws). The Rightwing could not have predicted that the free Internet would develop and make their commercial takeover of media irrelevant and obsolete.

I firmly believe it is the Internet, and sites like this one, which have saved America from an Oligarchy, tyranny by the elite. An informed electorate will do the right thing, and this is the downfall of the Rightwing. Only by FOOLING THE PEOPLE can they hope to earn the votes of any but the top 5% wealthiest, who GW Bush referred to as "his base". 

TEX- excellent post! You summed up the "dynasty" talking point it well...

This is jsut another tactic to keep HC out of the White House.

But looking at her husband's 2 terms of peace and prosperity- I say "give us more PLEASE!"

You can spin the Clinton numbers any way you want to.  Obviously, compared to what we've had for the past eight years Bill looks very good.  But in 1992, nearly 6 in 10 voters voted against him, and again in 1996 he did not secure a majority of the vote.  In 1994 his agenda was rejected by the public as they swept Democrats out of office in droves in the mid-term elections.  This was all before the Lewinsky scandal even hit.

While it's true that Gore won the popular vote in 2000, Kerry did not win it in 2004.  With Bush's seemingly dismal record on foreign policy in his first term, the Democratic Party couldn't beat that?  Really, the Democratic Party will be put back in power in 2008, not because they are embraced by the public, but because the Republicans are currently being rejected.  You all should figure out a way to be embraced once you get there, or the victory, I'm afraid, will be short-lived.

ross perot was a significant factor in both 92 and 96.  polls showed that clinton and bush would have split his votes.   and as for bush winning in 04, he had people like you voting for him. 

according to this post election poll, clinton would have gotten 38% of perot's votes, bush 37%, and 15% said they would have not voted.   the idea that perot took all his votes from the republicans and that clinton's 92 victory was some fluke is provably untrue.  

 http://bartblog.bartcop.com/2007/05/20/myths-of-the-netroots-part-3/

I don't believe Clintons victory in 1992 was a fluke.  He would have won a two person race as well.  I merely stated the fact that in the 92 election nearly 6 in 10 voters voted against him.  He was not voted into office with some grand Democratic mandate, as backed up in 1994 when the Republicans did very well.

when you "merely stated the fact", you had a reason for doing it.   you seemed to be implying that clinton was not all that popular.   and the election was as much about 40 years of democratic control of the house as much as anything.   not to mention a lot of republican lies.  remember term limits?   and in 1998, something happened that rarely has in our history, the party of a sixth year presidency gained seats. 

So I guess your argument is that people vote FOR Republicans, but AGAINST Democrats, and the only way Democrats win is when people are in the mood to reject the Republicans?  So the "default" choice is Republican?

Well, that certainly fits the spin that emerged after the 2006 elections- all I've heard from Republicans is that the voters last November went to the polls to demand "Bipartisanship."  They did this by voting in a Democratic Congress and Senate.  So voting Democratic meant endorsing Bipartisanship, while voting Republican would have meant endorsing Bush's policies.  And how, exactly, where voters supposed to express a rejection of Bush's policies?  I guess that wasn't really an option.  Whatever. 

I think people do vote "for" Democrats, but at this particular time in history I believe a disproportionate amount of votes are "against" Republicans.  And that's what they deserve.

I didn't see any mention of a Bush or Dole on every Republican ticket since 1976.

So much for a discussion of dynasties.

I am going to start from the basis that the poll is valid in terms of how it was structured, ran, etc.  and address why specific numbers like these are significant.

As an example.  If I asked if you would vote for someone that ate vanilla ice cream and the responses were:  25%  Never; 5% Not sure and 70% Would not come into consideration when voting. 

The big news here if you are a candidate that is addicted to vanilla ice cream is that you lost 25% of the vote before anyone pins on a button.  I know it is hard to believe but primaries are about the extremes and the election is about the center.  This poll and by extension, the story, is about the election and not the primary.

Gitlin is made to appear that he's not supporting Hillary. Is he happy about this? I suspect it's a false implication.