HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » HRC is NOT a member of a...

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 07:55 PM

HRC is NOT a member of a dynasty (Jeb Bush is, of course)

Sec. Clinton, I just want to remind everybody, is not related by blood to Bill Clinton. If she had been too closely related, it would have been illegal for them to have married. She is not Bill's daughter or mother. She shares no DNA with Bill. So, until Chelsea announces her intention to run, there ain't no Clinton dynasties.

Sec. Clinton took her husband's name when she married, which is not required by law, even as she kept a reference to her maiden name (Hillary Rodham Clinton) as part of that name. Presumably even then, she wanted people to know she was a separate person, her own person professionally, and was not simply her husband's wife. Her career has demonstrated that although her loyalty to her husband has been admirable, she is quite prepared to make her own mark, speak for herself, and try to fulfill her own ambitions.

Gov. Bush, on the other hand, is the son of one president and the brother of another. He is certainly a dynast. And it would be good to remember here that his brother twice had a presidential election stolen for him. Al Gore was elected to the presidency in 2000, and John Kerry in 2004. But the man sworn in was George W. Bush. Not only is it a dynasty, it's a thoroughly undemocratic dynasty.

Therefore, if they try to tell you you're tired of dynasties, tell them you are, and vote for Hillary if she's the nominee.

239 replies, 23764 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 239 replies Author Time Post
Reply HRC is NOT a member of a dynasty (Jeb Bush is, of course) (Original post)
planetc Feb 2015 OP
pnwmom Feb 2015 #1
napkinz Feb 2015 #2
HereSince1628 Feb 2015 #3
billhicks76 Feb 2015 #105
HereSince1628 Feb 2015 #122
ND-Dem Feb 2015 #4
pnwmom Feb 2015 #5
ND-Dem Feb 2015 #7
pnwmom Feb 2015 #13
ND-Dem Feb 2015 #25
pnwmom Feb 2015 #36
ND-Dem Feb 2015 #42
Agschmid Feb 2015 #88
ND-Dem Feb 2015 #127
Aviation_Semi-Pro Feb 2015 #151
pnwmom Feb 2015 #161
ND-Dem Feb 2015 #164
pnwmom Feb 2015 #167
ND-Dem Feb 2015 #168
pnwmom Feb 2015 #173
ND-Dem Feb 2015 #174
pnwmom Feb 2015 #175
MADem Feb 2015 #199
pnwmom Feb 2015 #204
MADem Feb 2015 #198
Divernan Feb 2015 #203
pnwmom Feb 2015 #208
MADem Feb 2015 #213
pnwmom Feb 2015 #214
MADem Feb 2015 #218
Agschmid Feb 2015 #215
MADem Feb 2015 #211
tularetom Feb 2015 #37
pnwmom Feb 2015 #39
Lancero Feb 2015 #43
F4lconF16 Feb 2015 #49
BlueCaliDem Feb 2015 #71
F4lconF16 Feb 2015 #75
BlueCaliDem Feb 2015 #84
F4lconF16 Feb 2015 #89
BlueCaliDem Feb 2015 #96
Agschmid Feb 2015 #92
tularetom Feb 2015 #69
Agschmid Feb 2015 #95
zeemike Feb 2015 #87
pnwmom Feb 2015 #90
Agschmid Feb 2015 #97
zeemike Feb 2015 #99
pnwmom Feb 2015 #101
zeemike Feb 2015 #106
pnwmom Feb 2015 #108
zeemike Feb 2015 #112
Agschmid Feb 2015 #115
zeemike Feb 2015 #120
pnwmom Feb 2015 #118
Agschmid Feb 2015 #102
Marr Feb 2015 #116
pnwmom Feb 2015 #117
Agschmid Feb 2015 #91
ND-Dem Feb 2015 #153
pnwmom Feb 2015 #158
FSogol Feb 2015 #70
pnwmom Feb 2015 #98
DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #107
pnwmom Feb 2015 #178
Cha Feb 2015 #222
KMOD Feb 2015 #223
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #8
joshcryer Feb 2015 #10
ND-Dem Feb 2015 #23
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #24
ND-Dem Feb 2015 #26
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #28
ND-Dem Feb 2015 #32
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #35
ND-Dem Feb 2015 #46
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #53
ND-Dem Feb 2015 #57
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #62
ND-Dem Feb 2015 #124
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #126
ND-Dem Feb 2015 #128
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #130
ND-Dem Feb 2015 #132
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #134
ND-Dem Feb 2015 #137
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #138
ND-Dem Feb 2015 #139
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #143
ND-Dem Feb 2015 #145
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #147
ND-Dem Feb 2015 #148
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #149
ND-Dem Feb 2015 #150
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #152
ND-Dem Feb 2015 #154
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #156
ND-Dem Feb 2015 #159
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #160
ND-Dem Feb 2015 #162
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #163
ND-Dem Feb 2015 #165
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #183
MADem Feb 2015 #196
Orsino Feb 2015 #191
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #193
Orsino Feb 2015 #197
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #201
Orsino Feb 2015 #221
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #224
Orsino Feb 2015 #227
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #228
Orsino Feb 2015 #229
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #230
Orsino Feb 2015 #231
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #232
Orsino Feb 2015 #233
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #235
Orsino Feb 2015 #237
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #238
Orsino Feb 2015 #239
SidDithers Feb 2015 #14
Hekate Feb 2015 #56
BlueCaliDem Feb 2015 #93
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #6
aikoaiko Feb 2015 #9
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #11
aikoaiko Feb 2015 #15
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #16
aikoaiko Feb 2015 #17
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #21
SidDithers Feb 2015 #12
Ramses Feb 2015 #18
Fumesucker Feb 2015 #19
dissentient Feb 2015 #20
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #22
Drunken Irishman Feb 2015 #31
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #34
Drunken Irishman Feb 2015 #50
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #55
Drunken Irishman Feb 2015 #76
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #82
Drunken Irishman Feb 2015 #83
dissentient Feb 2015 #38
ND-Dem Feb 2015 #27
cascadiance Feb 2015 #33
billhicks76 Feb 2015 #109
peacebird Feb 2015 #29
silvershadow Feb 2015 #45
LittleBlue Feb 2015 #30
pnwmom Feb 2015 #40
LittleBlue Feb 2015 #51
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #59
LittleBlue Feb 2015 #61
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #63
LittleBlue Feb 2015 #72
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #74
LittleBlue Feb 2015 #79
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #81
F4lconF16 Feb 2015 #78
ND-Dem Feb 2015 #54
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #85
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #41
LittleBlue Feb 2015 #52
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #65
LittleBlue Feb 2015 #67
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #68
LittleBlue Feb 2015 #77
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #80
Marr Feb 2015 #123
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #125
Marr Feb 2015 #133
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #135
ND-Dem Feb 2015 #47
F4lconF16 Feb 2015 #58
silvershadow Feb 2015 #44
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #73
silvershadow Feb 2015 #86
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #94
silvershadow Feb 2015 #100
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #103
silvershadow Feb 2015 #113
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #114
silvershadow Feb 2015 #119
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #121
silvershadow Feb 2015 #129
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #131
Marr Feb 2015 #176
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #182
ND-Dem Feb 2015 #187
RufusTFirefly Feb 2015 #144
silvershadow Feb 2015 #184
BlueCaliDem Feb 2015 #48
sendero Feb 2015 #60
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #66
ND-Dem Feb 2015 #64
DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #104
Marr Feb 2015 #110
RufusTFirefly Feb 2015 #111
99Forever Feb 2015 #136
RufusTFirefly Feb 2015 #141
ND-Dem Feb 2015 #155
nichomachus Feb 2015 #140
RufusTFirefly Feb 2015 #142
ND-Dem Feb 2015 #157
RufusTFirefly Feb 2015 #166
ND-Dem Feb 2015 #169
Dragonfli Feb 2015 #170
ND-Dem Feb 2015 #172
Aviation_Semi-Pro Feb 2015 #146
MannyGoldstein Feb 2015 #171
MADem Feb 2015 #177
Fumesucker Feb 2015 #180
MADem Feb 2015 #192
Fumesucker Feb 2015 #202
MADem Feb 2015 #206
Calista241 Feb 2015 #179
ND-Dem Feb 2015 #188
Calista241 Feb 2015 #189
ND-Dem Feb 2015 #195
Divernan Feb 2015 #205
ND-Dem Feb 2015 #210
woo me with science Feb 2015 #181
planetc Feb 2015 #185
backscatter712 Feb 2015 #186
Orsino Feb 2015 #190
ND-Dem Feb 2015 #194
Divernan Feb 2015 #207
ND-Dem Feb 2015 #209
pnwmom Feb 2015 #212
Agschmid Feb 2015 #216
Orsino Feb 2015 #219
Agschmid Feb 2015 #220
Throd Feb 2015 #200
TheKentuckian Feb 2015 #217
woo me with science Feb 2015 #225
LWolf Feb 2015 #234
William769 Feb 2015 #226
alarimer Feb 2015 #236

Response to planetc (Original post)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 08:04 PM

1. And don't forget Senator Prescott Bush, the Nazi-assister who began the dynasty.

http://www.nhgazette.com/the-bushnazi-stories/bushnazi-link-confirmed/

WASHINGTON – After 60 years of inattention and even denial by the U.S. media, newly-uncovered government documents in The National Archives and Library of Congress reveal that Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, served as a business partner of and U.S. banking operative for the financial architect of the Nazi war machine from 1926 until 1942, when Congress took aggressive action against Bush and his “enemy national” partners.

The documents also show that Bush and his colleagues, according to reports from the U.S. Department of the Treasury and FBI, tried to conceal their financial alliance with German industrialist Fritz Thyssen, a steel and coal baron who, beginning in the mid-1920s, personally funded Adolf Hitler’s rise to power by the subversion of democratic principle and German law.

Furthermore, the declassified records demonstrate that Bush and his associates, who included E. Roland Harriman, younger brother of American icon W. Averell Harriman, and George Herbert Walker, President Bush’s maternal great-grandfather, continued their dealings with the German industrial baron for nearly eight months after the U.S. entered the war.

No Story?

For six decades these historical facts have gone unreported by the mainstream U.S. media. The essential facts have appeared on the Internet and in relatively obscure books, but were dismissed by the media and Bush family as undocumented diatribes. This story has also escaped the attention of “official” Bush biographers, Presidential historians and publishers of U.S. history books covering World War II and its aftermath.

SNIP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 08:06 PM

2. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to planetc (Original post)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 08:09 PM

3. No, yet I suppose she could be a co-founder of a dynasty only time will tell...

would sort of depend on what her descendants do...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #3)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:36 PM

105. Editorial Stinks

 

She is nepotistic and that's the real point. Of course she doesn't have as much power as Bush. But this article is a disservice to us all. She CANNOT use nepotism or cronyism now as a campaign advantage which would normally hurt Bush. If we select Clinton then we have neutered that talking point and sacrificed any advantage it would give us. We need another candidate. The worst part of this self-congratulatory article is that it IGNORES the FACT that she is close intimate friends with the Bush family and is considered an honorary family member. It is probably due to the fact that the Clintons protected and covered up for the Bushes when they took office in 93 allowing a clear path for GW Bush to become president in 2000. It could never have happened without their help and I blame them for Bush members return to political power. Time to face reality...the Clintons essentially work for the Bushes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billhicks76 (Reply #105)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 11:12 PM

122. We certainly need choices going in to the primary...

It'd be a tragedy if the only option comes from the democratic right. IMO it would suggest the leadership doesn't reflect the diversity of the base, which means it can't really argue for the interests of the base.

A couple of month's back we watched HRC stumble badly trying to explain how capital is only part of the story of job creation. It sure looked like HRC didn't understand the basic concept that DEMAND drives capitalists investment in production.

Keynesian economics is pretty much the foundation of progressive management of economic recovery and HRC couldn't express it.

I'd like primary challenger that -can- express it, so that the democratic base has an opportunity for choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to planetc (Original post)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 08:09 PM

4. yes she is.

 

dy·nas·ty

1. a line of hereditary rulers of a country.
"the Tang dynasty"


synonyms: bloodline, line, ancestral line, lineage, house, family, ancestry, descent, succession, genealogy, family tree; More
regime, rule, reign, empire, sovereignty



2. a succession of people from the same family who play a prominent role in business, politics, or another field.
"the Ford dynasty"


synonyms: bloodline, line, ancestral line, lineage, house, family, ancestry, descent, succession, genealogy, family tree; More
regime, rule, reign, empire, sovereignty


https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=define:+dynasty

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #4)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 08:11 PM

5. Two people, not of the same blood, don't make a dynasty.

Especially when 16 years separates their terms of power and each was elected through the Democratic process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #5)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 08:27 PM

7. they make a political dynasty. and it is of little moment whether they were "elected through

 

the democratic process" or not, when the reason Hillary is in the race is her husband's political career.

not that she isn't accomplished, but without bill she wouldn't be where she is (likely we could say the same of bill in relation to her as well, but for different reasons)


American political dynasties historically have been built on power passed from fathers to sons, brothers to brothers, even husbands to wives: the Adamses, the Kennedys, the Bushes, the Clintons.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/heiress-apparents-daughters-take-their-turn-for-the-political-dynasty/2013/07/26/1c880604-f47d-11e2-9434-60440856fadf_story.html


the essence of a dynasty is that POWER is passed on, not earned on its own merit; though merit may have some bearing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #7)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 08:36 PM

13. No. Two highly-qualified people don't constitute a dynasty. And Hillary Clinton is a former Secretary of State

and U.S. Senator. If she's elected President she will have earned it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #13)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 09:02 PM

25. she got to be Senator/SoS because of having been the President's wife, in the last analysis.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #25)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 09:17 PM

36. Whatever. the circumstances: two people, separated by 16 years, don't constitute a dynasty. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #36)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 09:30 PM

42. according to you ms webster. apparently other linguistic masters disagree.

 

Year of the political dynasty? Spouses, son seek to replace relatives in Michigan Legislature
http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2014/08/all_in_the_family_will_2014_be_1.html



A political family or political dynasty is a family in which several members are involved in politics, particularly electoral politics. Members may be related by blood or marriage; often several generations or multiple siblings may be involved.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_family



America’s Political Dynasties

Here’s something to think about. Americans under the age of 38 have only experienced one presidential election that did not involve a Bush or a Clinton, and that was in 2012.

Now there is at least a possibility of another presidential election that features two members of political dynasties. Jeb Bush is actively pursuing a run for the Republican nomination and it’s expected that Hillary Clinton will chase the Democratic nomination.

What does that say about America?

“If you have famous parents or famous relatives or a famous husband, you have an advantage in politics. First of all, the name recognition is very important. Normally someone who wants to run for president has to spend a lot of time and a lot of money getting known as an entity –to get people to know that they actually exist. If Jeb Bush were named Jeb Smith and were the successful governor of Florida, he’d have a much more difficult time than he will have now as Jeb Bush. Similarly, if Hillary Clinton were Hillary Smith and not married to the president of the United States, would not have had the launch pad into the Senate race in New York and after that, she was of course on her own, she was a successful senator and a successful secretary of state.”

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/12/18/americas-political-dynasties






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #25)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:18 PM

88. Yup that's the only reason she was qualified for that...

FFS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agschmid (Reply #88)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 11:18 PM

127. If she hadn't been first bill's wife as governor, then his wife as president, it's unlikely she'd

 

have had as many qualifications as she now has.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #127)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 12:13 AM

151. Hear Hear!

Agreed, she'd be nowhere near where she is now without him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #127)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 12:26 AM

161. She had a law degree from Yale and many years of campaign experience before

she made her first run.

Many men with less experience have become Senators -- even Governors.

For example, Gov. Walker who didn't even manage to get a college degree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #161)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 12:35 AM

164. campaign experience on bill's campaigns. yale degrees are nice, but lots of people have

 

them and aren't presidents or secretaries of state.


walker attended Marquette without graduating and first ran for the Wisconsin assembly at 22. he won at 26. He's been in politics ever since.

Clinton had an early distinguished career in law.

From 1979-2001 most of her activities were connected to her position as first lady in the governors mansion and then in the white house.

she used those connections to postion herself as senator and SoS in preparation for a presidential bid (IMO, as I can't read her mind).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #164)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 12:41 AM

167. You think her activities as First Lady didn't provide her with valuable knowledge and experience,

in addition to her education and her paid work.

I strongly disagree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #167)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 12:45 AM

168. of course they did. but she wouldn't have had them, had she not been first lady. that's the

 

point. she didn't get them entirely through her own efforts, but as the spouse/family of someone else.

that's what happens in political dynasties. often the members are very talented; not taking anything away from Hillary.

still, the name recognition, connections, and opportunities to get such 'experience' etc. go a long way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #168)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 01:22 AM

173. Her efforts had a lot to do with Bill getting elected, so it works both ways. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #173)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 01:28 AM

174. of course. but again, as potential first lady. i believe her efforts included something about

 

a cookie recipe.

(I agree that was for public consumption only, but kind of a joke)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #174)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 01:32 AM

175. What I remember is people criticizing her for getting too involved in policy.

But you remember a cookie recipe. That says a lot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #175)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 01:14 PM

199. The policy people got mad about was ... HEALTH CARE. She wanted people to HAVE it!!! Oh, the huge

manatee!!!! The nerve of that woman!!!



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_1993


The Clinton health care plan, known officially as the Health Security Act, was a 1993 healthcare reform package proposed by the administration of President Bill Clinton and closely associated with the chair of the task force devising the plan, First Lady of the United States Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Bill Clinton had campaigned heavily on health care in the 1992 U.S. presidential election. The task force was created in January 1993, but its own processes were somewhat controversial and drew litigation. Its goal was to come up with a comprehensive plan to provide universal health care for all Americans, which was to be a cornerstone of the administration's first-term agenda. A major health care speech was delivered by President Clinton to the U.S. Congress in September 1993. The core element of the proposed plan was an enforced mandate for employers to provide health insurance coverage to all of their employees.
Opposition to the plan was heavy from conservatives, libertarians, and the health insurance industry. The industry produced a highly effective television ad, "Harry and Louise", in an effort to rally public support against the plan. Instead of uniting behind the President's original proposal, Democrats offered a number of competing plans of their own. Hillary Clinton was drafted by the Clinton Administration to head a new Task Force and sell the plan to the American people, a plan which ultimately backfired amid the barrage of fire from the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries and considerably diminished her own popularity. By September 1994, the final compromise Democratic bill was declared dead by Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell[citation needed].

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #199)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 02:09 PM

204. Yup. And Children's health care was the worst of all! (CHIP) But don't forget the lobbying she was

doing on behalf of teens who were aging out of foster care. She helped get that bill passed, too. How despicable!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #161)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 01:00 PM

198. Don't bother listening to someone who doesn't even realize that she worked in DC

during the NIXON administration--on the House impeachment team...of course, bring that up, and you'll probably get the blatant right wing lie that she was "fired" (debunk here - http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp - to save time/energy).

There's an agenda afoot there--you'll get nothing but nitpicking and circular "arguments" that are, if not fact-free, shy of salient aspects.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #198)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 02:07 PM

203. Her boss TERMINATED her & refused to recommend her for any other jobs!

From YOUR link to Snopes:

The claim originated with Jerry Zeifman, under whom Clinton worked in 1974 as a member of the impeachment inquiry staff for the House Committee on the Judiciary during the course of the scandal.

Statements made by Zeifman himself contradict the claim he fired Hillary Clinton. During a 1998 interview with the Sacramento Bee in which he discussed his work with Clinton on Watergate, Zeifman not only stated he hadn't fired her, but he didn't even have the authority to fire her:
If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her.
Ten years later, Zeifman's story had shifted. When asked by radio host Neal Boortz in April 2008 if he had fired Hillary Clinton from the Watergate investigation, Zeifman hedged by stating Clinton had been let go, but only as part of a layoff of multiple personnel who were no longer needed:
Well, let me put it this way. I terminated her, along with some other staff members who were — we no longer needed, and advised her that I would not — could not recommend her for any further positions.

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp#8e0IuqzK7BYEJrFB.99

And here's the rest of the story as to why he refused to recommend her for any other positions, in a letter from the aforementioned Jerry Zeifman:
The book is now out of print. However, a small supply of the limited first edition is still available. Information about it, and how to obtain a copy, may be found at: www.iethical.org/book.htm

Previously published in the NEW YORK POST

August 16. 1999

HILLARY'S WATERGATE SCANDAL

By Jerry Zeifman
IN December 1974, as general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, I made a personal evaluation of Hillary Rodham (now Mrs. Clinton), a member of the staff we had gathered for our impeachment inquiry on President Richard Nixon. I decided that I could not recommend her for any future position of public or private trust.

Why? Hillary's main duty on our staff has been described by as "establishing the legal procedures to be followed in the course of the inquiry and impeachment." A number of the procedures she recommended were ethically flawed. And I also concluded that she had violated House and committee rules by disclosing confidential information to unauthorized persons.

Hillary had conferred personally with me regarding procedural rules. I advised her that Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino, House Speaker Carl Albert, Majority Leader Tip O'Neill and I had previously agreed not to advocate anything contrary to the rules already adopted and published for that Congress. I quoted Mr. O'Neill's statement that: "To try to change the rules now would be politically divisive. It would be like trying to change the traditional rules of baseball before a World Series."

Hillary assured me that she had not drafted and would not advocate any such rules changes. I soon learned that she had lied: She had already drafted changes, and continued to advocate them.

In one written legal memorandum, she advocated denying President Nixon representation by counsel. This, though in our then-most-recent prior impeachment proceeding, the committee had afforded the right to counsel to Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.

I also informed Hillary that the Douglas impeachment files were available for public inspection in our offices. I later learned that the Douglas files were then removed from our general files without my permission, transferred to the offices of the impeachment inquiry staff, and were no longer accessible to the public.

The young Ms. Rodham had other bad advice about procedures, arguing that the Judiciary Committee should neither 1) hold any hearings with or take the depositions of any live witnesses, nor 2) conduct any original investigation of
Watergate, bribery, tax evasion, or any other possible impeachable offense of President Nixon - but to rely instead on prior investigations conducted by other committees and agencies.

The committee rejected Ms. Rodham's recommendations: It agreed to allow President Nixon to be represented by counsel and to hold hearings with live witnesses. Hillary then advocated that the official rules of the House be amended to deny members of the committee the right to question witnesses. This unfair recommendation was rejected by the full House. (The committee also vetoed her suggestion that it leave the drafting of the articles of impeachment to her and her fellow special staffers.)

The recommendations advocated by Hillary were apparently initiated or approved by Yale Law School professor Burke Marshall - in violation of committee and House rules on confidentiality. They were also advocated by her immediate supervisors, Special Counsel John Doar and Senior Associate Special Counsel Bernard Nussbaum, both of whom had worked under Marshall in the Kennedy Justice Department.

It was not until two months after Nixon's resignation that I first learned of still another questionable role of Ms. Rodham. On Sept. 26, 1974, Rep. Charles Wiggins, a Republican member of the committee, wrote to ask Chairman Rodino to look into a troubling set of events. That spring, Wiggins and other committee members had asked "that research should be undertaken so as to furnish a standard against which to test the alleged abusive conduct of Richard Nixon." And, while "no such staff study was made available to the members at any time for their use," Wiggins had just learned that such a study had been conducted - at committee expense - by a team of professors who completed and filed their reports with the impeachment-inquiry staff well in advance of our public hearings.

The report was not made available to members of Congress. But after the impeachment-inquiry staff was disbanded, it was published commercially and sold in book stores. Wiggins wrote that he was "especially troubled by the possibility that information deemed essential by some of the members in their discharge of their responsibilities may have been intentionally suppressed by the staff during the course our investigation."

On Oct. 3, Rodino wrote back: "Hillary Rodham of the impeachment-inquiry staff coordinated the work. ... After the staff received the report it was reviewed by Ms. Rodham, briefly by Mr. Labovitz and Mr. Sack, and by Mr. Doar. The staff did not think the manuscript was useful in its present form."

On the charge of willful suppression, he wrote: "That was not the case ... The staff did not think the material was usable by the committee in its existing form and had not had time to modify it so it would have practical utility for the members of the committee. I was informed and agreed with the judgment."

During my 14-year tenure with the House Judiciary Committee, I had supervisory authority over several hundred staff members. With the exception of Ms. Rodham, Doar and Nussbaum, I recommend all of them for future positions of public and private trust.

Jerry Zeifman is the author of "Without Honor: The Impeachment of President Nixon and the Crimes of Camelot," which describes the above matters in more detail. (See www.iethical.org/book.htm)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Divernan (Reply #203)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 02:30 PM

208. All these claims were made by a conspiracy theorist who switched sides and now writes for outlets like NEWSMAX,

and has compared Senator Ted Kennedy, in his fight against the confirmation of Judge Alito, to Joseph McCarthy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024386053#post6

Fortunately, Kennedy has failed in his partisan attempt to deny Judge Alito a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court ...

... in a badgering cross-examination of Judge Alito, Kennedy tried to portray him as an undercover enemy of equal rights for women and minorities.

For me, Kennedy's effort to impugn Judge Alito's integrity was reminiscent of Republican Senator Joe McCarthy, who tarred his victims with the brush of guilt by association.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/reviews/matthewdallek.htm

In 1973 Jerry Zeifman, chief counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, decided to keep a diary of the "extraordinary events" surrounding the impeachment of President Nixon. Now, Zeifman draws on that diary to give us Without Honor: Crimes of Camelot and the Impeachment of President Nixon, in which he accuses government officials of obstructing the impeachment inquiry. Their reason? Not any sympathy for the besieged Richard Nixon, but a desire to protect the reputation of John Kennedy. Zeifman's book will surely excite conspiracy buffs on the lookout for sinister coverups in high places. But those wary of such unsubstantiated theories (myself included) will find Zeifman's book an unconvincing, if imaginative, tale of intrigue.

Zeifman's theory goes something like this: John Doar, Hillary Rodham, Bernard Nussbaum and other Kennedy loyalists investigating Nixon obstruct his impeachment "to cover up malfeasance in high office throughout the Cold War." The scheming starlets are abetted by Peter Rodino, a weak, corrupt chairman of the House Judiciary Committee who is afraid that Nixon might expose his own Mafia ties. Rounding out the list of conspirators is Burke Marshall, Robert Kennedy's assistant attorney general, who orchestrates the bogus investigation in the hopes of keeping Nixon in office, which will, he believes, help Ted Kennedy win the White House. Using a variety of dubious legal strategies -- still with me? -- Doar and his co-conspirators do everything they can to avoid putting the president on trial, a strategy, they hope, that will prevent Nixon's lawyers from revealing the "crimes of Camelot."

The lack of evidence makes this theory hard to swallow. Zeifman's most reliable source -- his diary -- contains few revelations and seems little more than a chronicle of his suspicions and speculations. The book's jacket cover, which promises readers "truths even more startling than those brought out in Oliver Stone's movies 'Nixon' and 'JFK', " does not help matters. Perhaps the book's publicists forgot that "Nixon" and "JFK" were, after all, only Hollywood movies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #208)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 02:44 PM

213. I love it when they unintentionally OUT themselves--and this was a doozy.

This is just the most incredible purveying of right wing tripe I've ever seen here. Blatant!!!!!!

Apparently, the words FALSE at the top of a Snopes report, followed by a detailed accusation and refutation, doesn't work for people who don't read the whole thing. It is horrifically embarrassing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #213)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 03:12 PM

214. Here's another long piece written by Zeifman about how much he loathes Ted Kennedy.

It's posted on a right-wing site because that's where he posts everything. He stopped being a Democrat decades ago.

http://www.thefirearmsforum.com/threads/the-most-disgusting-us-senator.27008/page-3

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #214)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 04:17 PM

218. The Big Z has been caught in lie after lie after lie--only someone who was just so anxious to

try to play a "gotcha" game without bothering to do any homework would even try to pass that loser-bullshitter off as a serious source. Just going there is a very poor reflection on the person using the source! It's both humiliating AND revealing at the same time!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #213)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 03:19 PM

215. Yup.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Divernan (Reply #203)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 02:37 PM

211. Good GAWD, you sure are a selective reader--but thanks for OUTING yourself so robustly!!!!!

Apparently you don't realize that the big fat FALSE at the top of the page means that the "claim" you are proudly cutting and pasting has been REFUTED?

And then, you quote the lying liar who shopped the falsehood and you do it PROUDLY. You have most definitely taken a wrong turn.

Wow--you are hilarious. Unintentionally. And your insistence is PATHETIC.

Let's go to the end of the page you so proudly cut and pasted from SNOPES:


However, one need only go back to the source of the rumor and Zeifman's own statement that he did not have the power to fire Hillary Clinton to discount that now common version of political lore: the evidence indicates that, whatever Zeifman may have thought of Clinton's behavior, she was let go from the Watergate committee because she was one of a number of people who were no longer needed as the investigation wound down (and Nixon's resignation made the issue moot), not because she was "fired" over ethical issues.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp#w8yDkzoWX3gkPXqK.99


Again--thanks for letting us all know that you are a willful purveyor of false information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #13)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 09:17 PM

37. She never would have been elected to the senate if she hadn't been first lady

And she never would have run for president in 2008 if she hadn't been a senator.

And she would never have been appointed SOS if Obama hadn't felt he owed her something after wiping the floor with her in the primaries. Her senatorial record was underwhelming and her tenure as SOS consisted mostly of advocating neocon foreign policy and kissing up to Pentagon brass.

She hasn't "earned" squat. But she did sleep with the guy who got a BJ in the Oval Office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tularetom (Reply #37)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 09:21 PM

39. Thank you for this good example of "Hillary-hate." Someone else was claiming not to ever see it

on DU, but you've just provided the example I needed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #39)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 09:30 PM

43. Pity a jury let this blatantly sexist statement stand.

I'd love to have a look at the jurors comments, because I have no idea how they can justify someone saying that the only reason a woman is successful is by her choice of husband. Stripping out the politics in his statement, that's pretty much the core of his statement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lancero (Reply #43)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 09:39 PM

49. That was juried and not hidden?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to F4lconF16 (Reply #49)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:05 PM

71. As it should have. It was a misogynist post if I've ever seen one. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #71)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:07 PM

75. Oops. I meant to refer to the results. Editing it. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to F4lconF16 (Reply #75)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:17 PM

84. Whoops. I thought you were being sarcastic. My sincerest apologies. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #84)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:18 PM

89. It was was very poorly worded

No problem

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to F4lconF16 (Reply #89)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:22 PM

96. Thank you for the out, F4IconF16!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lancero (Reply #43)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:21 PM

92. It's a bullshit comment...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #39)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:03 PM

69. I apologize if you were offended by my comments

Actually I don't "hate" Hillary or anybody else.

I simply believe she is a very unqualified and overrated political figure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tularetom (Reply #69)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:22 PM

95. That was hate. Pretty black and white IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #39)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:17 PM

87. So we are defining hate now as being critical of a politician?

In that case I guess the right wing is right about us...we are haters because we are critical of Bush.
If it is good for one it is good for all.

At some point we are going to have to get real. If we do what they do, then we are not any different than they are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #87)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:19 PM

90. No.But you apparently define a sexist, nasty attack as being "criticism."

Did you miss this part, or does this sound like "criticism" to you?

She hasn't "earned" squat. But she did sleep with the guy who got a BJ in the Oval Office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #90)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:23 PM

97. Yup.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #90)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:27 PM

99. Well I fail to see how that is sexist.

But then I don't consider talking about sex to be sexist...but some do I guess.
Has anyone on the left made such a sexist remark about the Republicans?...and did you feel the same way?

It is a rhetorical question, I don't expect an answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #99)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:30 PM

101. This remark would be sexist no matter what party was being discussed.

I fail to see how that isn't obvious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #101)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:37 PM

106. Well it is not to me.

I have no problem with blow jobs no matter who gets them or who gives them even in the white house...and I am not offended when people talk about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #106)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:42 PM

108. What is deeply offensive is the poster's suggestion that Hillary's sleeping with the man who "got a BJ"

is what has "earned" her a shot at the Presidency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #108)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:54 PM

112. Well as long as we are offended by things

there will be someone who will offend you.
And when you try to suppress it it will only increase their resolve...it is then like they have a button installed that they can push any time they like and watch you dance...and the more you are offended the more you will see offence.

I am just not into that emotional game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #112)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:59 PM

115. Except here you are playing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agschmid (Reply #115)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 11:08 PM

120. Why?...because not being offended by words is emotional?

Or by saying I am not causes you emotional distress?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #112)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 11:06 PM

118. Right, you're not into that game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #99)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:31 PM

102. Yes.

Take your blinders off...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #90)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 11:03 PM

116. If you're going to make the ridiculous claim that Hillary Clinton is not part of a political dynasty

 

people are going to illustrate just why she is. That comment may be crude, but it's only exaggerating a simple fact that you're denying, ie, that Hillary Clinton is by no means a solo political act.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #116)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 11:04 PM

117. It's a sexist slur that is justified by nothing. But you're right in the sense

that this kind of sexism might be what underlies a lot of Hillary-hate, including some (not all) of those who have taken to arguing that she's a part of a two-person "dynasty."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #39)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:20 PM

91. Yup.

Some pretty solid misogyny in there too...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #39)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 12:15 AM

153. you think that's a good example of 'hate'?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #153)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 12:24 AM

158. Accusing her of sleeping her way to the top is sexist hate. Yes. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tularetom (Reply #37)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:04 PM

70. Wow, Winner of DU's most sexist post ever!

What an embarrassment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Reply #70)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:27 PM

98. I'm not sure about that, but it IS a blatant expression of what, IMO, is at the root

of a lot of Hillary-hate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tularetom (Reply #37)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:41 PM

107. "... But she did sleep with the guy who got a BJ in the Oval Office."

That seems to be the source of your animus.

Maybe if you had more charm you could get one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tularetom (Reply #37)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 03:27 AM

178. Hillary got 48% of the delegates in the primaries. No one "wiped the floor" with her.

That's just what you wish had happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tularetom (Reply #37)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 10:42 PM

222. "She hasn't "earned" squat. But she did sleep with the guy who got a BJ in the Oval Office." WOW..

What a piece of hateful piece of sexist crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tularetom (Reply #37)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 11:34 PM

223. It's up to you, but I would ask you to please consider self deleting this comment.

 

It's sexist and highly offensive.

President Obama himself respects Hillary Clinton. I'm pretty certain he would not care for your comment either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #4)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 08:29 PM

8. No she isn't and besides, the false accusation comes from Republicans in 1994

In traditional dynasties, rule is inherited. If one can extend that to mean people from the same family elected in free and fair elections, then one can easily make the case that it extends to people in the same party. So if a Democrat follows a Democrat, that's a dynasty.

The origin of this “dynasty” argument comes from Republican strategy in 1994 to get as many Republicans elected as possible and end the 40 years Democrats controlled congress. Newt Gingrich needed a gimmick to get them to that majority. Newt and his Republicans came up with “term limits”.

Interesting that “progressives” have discovered the evils of dynasty now that Clinton is running.

LOVE LOVE the Roosevelts.

They were silent about the Salazar brothers in Colorodo.

They worship at the alter of the Kennedys.

The Rockefellers?

Former Vice President Al Gore?

The Cuomos?

The Udall family?

The complaints against Hillary are a political bill of attainer applicable only to her. Progressives are Hypocrites.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #8)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 08:35 PM

10. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #8)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 08:59 PM

23. i have no argument. all those families = political dynasties, same as the clintons. i'd never

 

suggested the Clintons are some kind of special case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #23)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 09:01 PM

24. Except they don't

Dynasties are inherited.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #24)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 09:02 PM

26. so?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #26)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 09:04 PM

28. So did Bill Clinton bestow the presidency on Hillary?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #28)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 09:10 PM

32. i think you're confusing royal dynasties with political dynasties. did bush sr. "bestow"

 

the presidency on bush jr? did he "bestow" florida on jeb?

no. each went out, rounded up support and campaigned.

but you can't tell me either would have had a chance without their family background, or that bush sr would have had a chance without Prescott in the background, or for that matter, that Prescott would have had as much of a chance without Samuel P in the background.


In 1901, Bush returned to Columbus to be General Manager of Buckeye Steel Castings Company, which manufactured railway parts. The company was run by Frank Rockefeller, the brother of oil magnate John D. Rockefeller, and among its clients were the railroads controlled by E. H. Harriman....In 1908, Rockefeller retired and Bush became president of Buckeye, a position he would hold until 1927, becoming one of the top industrialists of his generation.

Bush was the first president of the Ohio Manufacturers Association...In the spring of 1918, banker Bernard Baruch was asked to reorganize the War Industries Board as the U.S. prepared to enter World War I, and placed several prominent businessmen to key posts. Bush became chief of the Ordnance, Small Arms, and Ammunition Section, with national responsibility for government assistance to and relations with munitions companies.

Bush served on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland...In 1931, he was appointed to Herbert Hoover's President's Committee for Unemployment Relief, chaired by Walter S. Gifford, then-President of AT&T...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_P._Bush



Some could argue the Clintons, associated with Arkansas and the southern United States, could also be a current, or forming, political dynasty. Members include Bill Clinton, who served as the 42nd President of the United States; wife Hillary Rodham Clinton, a former Senator from New York, unsuccessful Democratic presidential candidate for 2008, 67th Secretary of State, and a potential Democratic presidential candidate for 2016; and daughter Chelsea Clinton, the latter of whom has worked for her mother's 2008 presidential campaign, along with Clinton-sponsored charities. Through her husband, Marc Mezvinsky, Chelsea is also daughter-in-law of former Democratic U.S. Representatives Edward Mezvinsky and Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_political_families

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #32)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 09:16 PM

35. I'm not confusing anything

"political dynasty" is a mis- application up the word dynasty. Maybe we should all make up our rules on who should be elected president. Apparently you 'political dynasty people' don't give a rat's ass about free and fair elections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #35)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 09:35 PM

46. you seem to be the one making up your own rules. i've cited dictionaries and news items.

 

you've cited the authority "wyldwolf"

well then. I bow to the authority of 'wyldwolf"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #46)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 09:41 PM

53. You cited dictionaries and then misapplied the definition

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #53)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 09:46 PM

57. how's that 'wyldwolf'?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #57)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 09:53 PM

62. Easy 'ND-Dem'

Here is the definition you supplied:

dy·nas·ty

1. a line of hereditary rulers of a country.
"the Tang dynasty"


synonyms: bloodline, line, ancestral line, lineage, house, family, ancestry, descent, succession, genealogy, family tree; More
regime, rule, reign, empire, sovereignty

2. a succession of people from the same family who play a prominent role in business, politics, or another field.
"the Ford dynasty"


Both of these prove a Clinton presidency would not be a 'dynasty.'

1. A Clinton presidency would not be inherited.
2. A Clinton presidency would not be in succession.

suc·ces·sion
səkˈseSHən/
noun
1.
a number of people or things sharing a specified characteristic and following one after the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #62)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 11:16 PM

124. so the adams family was not a political dynasty because they didn't succeed each other

 

directly? is that so?










Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #124)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 11:17 PM

126. Based on YOUR definiton, the one you keep pasting here

the adams family was not a political dynasty

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #126)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 11:19 PM

128. uh, i don't think so, 'wyldwolf'

 

A political family or political dynasty is a family in which several members are involved in politics, particularly electoral politics. Members may be related by blood or marriage; often several generations or multiple siblings may be involved.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_family



you insisted a dynasty had to involve direct succession. to the same office. with the earlier officeholder 'bestowing' the office on the successor.








Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #128)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 11:21 PM

130. you don't either, huh 'ND-Dem'

A political family or political dynasty is a family in which several members are involved in politics, particularly electoral politics. Members may be related by blood or marriage; often several generations or multiple siblings may be involved.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_family

Wikipedia


I could change that definition in WIKI in 2 seconds.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #130)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 11:22 PM

132. be that as it may; it's the same one i quoted earlier. and a standard definition.

 

you claimed the definition I quoted earlier made the adams' not a political dynasty.

you, on the other hand, claimed a political dynasty meant direct succession to the same office, with the earlier officeholder 'bestowing' the office on the successor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #132)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 11:26 PM

134. Yeah, you used it with someone else. You called Wikipedia a 'linguistic master." Bwahaha.

you, on the other hand, claimed a political dynasty meant direct succession to the same office,


No, dear, that's what Webster's says.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #134)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 11:37 PM

137. websters says that? can you link me to the direct succession part? dear?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #137)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 11:39 PM

138. What? Again?

Here is the definition you supplied:

dy·nas·ty

1. a line of hereditary rulers of a country.
"the Tang dynasty"


synonyms: bloodline, line, ancestral line, lineage, house, family, ancestry, descent, succession, genealogy, family tree; More
regime, rule, reign, empire, sovereignty

2. a succession of people from the same family who play a prominent role in business, politics, or another field.
"the Ford dynasty"


Both of these prove a Clinton presidency would not be a 'dynasty.'

1. A Clinton presidency would not be inherited.
2. A Clinton presidency would not be in succession.

suc·ces·sion
səkˈseSHən/
noun
1.
a number of people or things sharing a specified characteristic and following one after the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #138)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 11:43 PM

139. I don't see anything like this there:

 

ND Dem:
you, on the other hand, claimed a political dynasty meant direct succession to the same office,


WYLDWOLF: No, dear, that's what Webster's says.


Where does websters say that a political dynasty = direct succession to the same office (with the predecessor bestowing the office on the direct successor, which you also claimed)?

That pretty much eliminates all the American family dynasties: the adamses, tafts, roosevelts, kennedys, etc.

I'm not sure the wyldwolf authority is as authoritative as it thinks


The Constitution could not be more specific: “No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States.” Yet, in over two centuries since these words were written, the American people, despite official disapproval, have chosen a political nobility. For generation after generation they have turned for leadership to certain families. They are America’s political dynasties. Now, in the twentieth century, surprisingly, American political life seems to be largely peopled by those who qualify, in Stewart Alsop’s phrase, as “People’s Dukes.” They are all around us—Kennedys, Longs, Tafts, Roosevelts.

Here is the panorama of America’s political dynasties from colonial days to the present in fascinating profiles of sixteen of the leading families. Some, like the Roosevelts, have shown remarkable staying power. Others are all but forgotten, such as the Washburns, a family in which four sons of a bankrupt shopkeeper were elected to Congress from four different states. America’s Political Dynasties investigates the roles of these families in shaping the nation and traces the whole pattern of political inheritance, which has been a little considered but unique and significant feature of American government and diplomacy. And in doing so, it also illuminates the lives and personalities of some two hundred often engaging, usually ambitious, sometimes brilliant, occasionally unscrupulous individuals.

http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Political-Dynasties-Stephen-Hess/dp/156000911X

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #139)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 11:52 PM

143. Quote me where I said "a political dynasty meant direct succession to the same office,"



YOU supplied the definition from the dictionary that states a dynasty is 'succession.'

BUT succession also has a definition: One after another.

And now, after putting so much emphasis on Webster's dictionary, you now turn to other sources to refute it, including those 'linquistic masters' at wikepedia and a book from Stephen Hess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #143)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 12:06 AM

145. you quote my earlier quote:

 

Here is the definition you supplied:
dy•nas•ty

1. a line of hereditary rulers of a country.
"the Tang dynasty"


synonyms: bloodline, line, ancestral line, lineage, house, family, ancestry, descent, succession, genealogy, family tree; More
regime, rule, reign, empire, sovereignty

2. a succession of people from the same family who play a prominent role in business, politics, or another field.
"the Ford dynasty"



Then you say:

Both of these prove a Clinton presidency would not be a 'dynasty.'

1. A Clinton presidency would not be inherited.
2. A Clinton presidency would not be in succession.

suc•ces•sion
səkˈseSHən/
noun
1.
a number of people or things sharing a specified characteristic and following one after the other.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6255631



But your comment assumes that:

1. A political dynasty means everyone in the dynasty holds the same office (e.g. the presidency)
2. the office is inherited
3. Succession is direct (i.e. one person from the family immediately follows another in the same office)


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #145)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 12:08 AM

147. oh. So I DIDN'T REALLY say it. You just assume I meant it. Got it. LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #147)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 12:09 AM

148. No, your comments assume it. There's no other possible interpretation of your comments.

 

The assumption is inherent in your comments.

In other words, it's not my assumption, but yours. It's implicit in your comments.

Maybe this is linguistically hard for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #148)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 12:10 AM

149. My comments assume it? ok, got it. LOL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #149)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 12:13 AM

150. yes. & you also claimed it was in websters.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #150)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 12:14 AM

152. I claimed what you just admitted I didn't actually say was in webster's? LOL. Got it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #152)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 12:20 AM

154. here's one where you more directly say it, though to someone else.

 

55. Check the definition of succession

The way the term is being applied here it means one after another. There have been 16 years between the end of Bill Clinton's presidency and a supposed to presidency of Hillary Clinton. That is not succession.



again, it's implicit in your statement that 'succession' is direct, one immediately following another, or it's not succession. and without such 'succession' there's no dynasty.

speaking of twisting language for one's own ends.

tiring.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #154)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 12:22 AM

156. You're making a judgement of what's implicit in my statements. OK, got it. LOL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #156)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 12:24 AM

159. in that case, it's explicit. it was my error to type 'implicit'. got it?

 

"There have been 16 years between the end of Bill Clinton's presidency and a supposed to presidency of Hillary Clinton. That is not succession."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #159)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 12:25 AM

160. Is it implied, explicit, implicit, direct, assumed... ? You're tying yourself in knots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #160)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 12:27 AM

162. ....

 



"There have been 16 years between the end of Bill Clinton's presidency and a supposed to presidency of Hillary Clinton. That is not succession."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #162)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 12:30 AM

163. ....



suc·ces·sion
səkˈseSHən/
noun
1.
a number of people or things sharing a specified characteristic and following one after the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #163)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 12:37 AM

165. so you admit that you think "succession" is synonymous with "direct succession"?

 

why did you deny it earlier?

you're making me tired.

goodnight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #165)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 09:01 AM

183. when have I ever denied it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #160)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 12:48 PM

196. Pay no mind.

Some posters just like to fight. Don't get sucked in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #28)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 12:33 PM

191. Yes.

That's how dynasties work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orsino (Reply #191)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 12:41 PM

193. Really? When was hillary elected?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #193)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 12:55 PM

197. When the Clintons became beloved and the money aligned accordingly. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orsino (Reply #197)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 01:36 PM

201. Imagine that. Hillary has been president this whole time!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #201)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 10:36 PM

221. Incorrect. She's been First Lady, then senator, then SecState.

She'll become president nearly as effortlessly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orsino (Reply #221)

Sun Feb 22, 2015, 06:32 AM

224. wait, you said she'd been elected president. You're confusing everyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #224)

Sun Feb 22, 2015, 10:22 AM

227. I don't think there's an everyone here.

But you see how dynasties work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orsino (Reply #227)

Sun Feb 22, 2015, 12:00 PM

228. She's secretly been the president since 2000?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #228)

Mon Feb 23, 2015, 05:33 AM

229. Nope. She coasted into the Senate, Sec State, and has been anointed president.

That's how dynasties work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orsino (Reply #229)

Mon Feb 23, 2015, 05:42 AM

230. So she's President now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #230)

Mon Feb 23, 2015, 09:21 AM

231. She is your next president.

That's how dynasties work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orsino (Reply #231)

Mon Feb 23, 2015, 09:26 AM

232. Oh glad you clarified that (snicker)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #232)

Mon Feb 23, 2015, 09:31 AM

233. You may recall a previous eight-year gap. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orsino (Reply #233)

Mon Feb 23, 2015, 09:42 AM

235. It's been close to 14 years, has it not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #235)

Mon Feb 23, 2015, 10:07 AM

237. I'm referring to the 41/43 gap.

Your premise is flawed, conflating monarchical dynasties with those found in American politics (where blood relation does not default to inheriting a crown--yet). You attempt to exempt the Clintons from your definition, but really, the resemblance to the Bushes or Kennedys is difficult to ignore.

Yes, the Clintons became a dynasty when Hillary packed her carpetbag for New York, becoming a senator largely because of her celebrity rather than primarily on her considerable merits. She became a presidential candidate in the minds of most at about the same time. That's how American political dynasties work.

It's a shame, though it's working to the advantage of the Democratic Party right about now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orsino (Reply #237)

Mon Feb 23, 2015, 11:00 AM

238. One minute she's the president and one minute she isn't

Make up your mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #238)

Mon Feb 23, 2015, 11:35 AM

239. That's just a consequence of the Clinton dynasty.

It makes Hillary look so much like a shoo-in that many or most people forget she hasn't officially been nominated as president yet. However, as explained, she doesn't have to become president for the word dynadty to be used--because of the other high offices she's cruised into. When people refer to the Clinton dynasty, now you'll understand what is meant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #4)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 08:39 PM

14. Tell us again about the smiling North Koreans, Hannah...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #14)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 09:44 PM

56. Persistant...

... as a rash, and twisty. Why indeed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #14)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:22 PM

93. Ah, geez...they're one and the same??

Great.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to planetc (Original post)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 08:21 PM

6. ^^^THIS^^^

 

Bravo!





Especially the part where she kept part of her own name....excellent perception!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to planetc (Original post)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 08:31 PM

9. You doth protest too much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #9)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 08:35 PM

11. That response was neither clever, applicable or original

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #11)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 08:44 PM

15. You're no one to put down another's post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #15)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 08:45 PM

16. I'm someone to put down another's post

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #16)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 08:48 PM

17. You're something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #17)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 08:53 PM

21. that's for sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to planetc (Original post)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 08:36 PM

12. Don't let pesky facts get in the way of perfectly good outrage...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to planetc (Original post)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 08:49 PM

18. I will try to clap harder

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to planetc (Original post)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 08:50 PM

19. Not yet she isn't

Rest assured she is working on that little oversight though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to planetc (Original post)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 08:50 PM

20. I think if Hillary became president, we can safely say its a political dynasty

 

even if some don't like the term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dissentient (Reply #20)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 08:57 PM

22. I think if Hillary became president, we can safely say its not a political dynasty

Much to the chagrin of some.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #22)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 09:08 PM

31. Why not?

A political dynasty doesn't have to be through blood.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #31)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 09:14 PM

34. Post #8

And please clarify your post. In this misapplication of the word dynasty how else but through blood can the term even be defined. By party? if so then no Democrat or Republican should ever be elected again. By last name? Then any new president has to have a different last name than any prior President.

The fact is this whole political dynasty business was invented by the Republicans. Thank you for carrying their water and please jump back in your DeLorean go back in time and erase the presidencies of the Roosevelts and all the political offices of the Kennedys.

There can be no (snicker) political dynasties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #34)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 09:40 PM

50. By definition...


dy·nas·ty
ˈdīnəstē/
noun

a succession of people from the same family who play a prominent role in business, politics, or another field.


They're family - even if not by blood.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #50)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 09:44 PM

55. Check the definition of succession

The way the term is being applied here it means one after another. There have been 16 years between the end of Bill Clinton's presidency and a supposed to presidency of Hillary Clinton. That is not succession.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #55)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:09 PM

76. So you don't consider the Bush family a dynasty?

After all, W. didn't directly follow his father and Jeb, if he wins, won't directly follow Bush.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #76)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:16 PM

82. I do not and have never made the argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #82)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:17 PM

83. I do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #22)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 09:20 PM

38. It's a free country. The bottom line is, some American's don't like the idea of being ruled over by

 

people from the same family, so I understand it is a sore spot when talking about Hillary and 2016.

But like it or not, its a negative feeling some people have in the country.

On the other hand, some probably like the idea, because they like the familiarity of the same political names such as Kennedy and so on.

In other words, Its a double edged sword.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dissentient (Reply #20)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 09:03 PM

27. most don't apparently. everything hill did, she did on her own merit. in theory.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #27)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 09:13 PM

33. If she was a woman solely where she is by her own making and not Bills...

 

... and she had him publicly criticized and even impeached for having cheated on him...


... and she apparently shouldn't be grouped with Clinton as having any kind of agreement on policies of his on things like NAFTA, overturning Glass Stiegel, the Telecomm Bill, and basically disagreed with him politically so much (that many say here to claim that she's progressive where Bill Clinton showed he wasn't progressive on many issues)...

Then why did she stay with him at all if it there wasn't much she agreed with him on and he put her through so much personal hell?

Could it be that she "benefitted" from being part of a political dynasty? HUH? If she didn't benefit from being associated with Bill, then I would have thought she would have left him a long time ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dissentient (Reply #20)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:44 PM

109. Semantics

 

The problem is that the Clintons serve the Bushes and always have. How do you think GW was able to bring back his fathers entire administration back into power? It was due to Bill "looking forward" and not dwelling or investigating the crimes of the past. It was a total scam. If fools select Hillary we cannot run on the Anti-Nepotism argument. Who cares about the word dynasty...I surely don't. We have bigger problems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to planetc (Original post)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 09:07 PM

29. Triangulation at it's best- Hillary would be proud.

No more Bush, no more Clintons

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peacebird (Reply #29)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 09:32 PM

45. Yeah. It's gonna be an interesting lead-up to the primary (assuming, of course,

 

we actually have one.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to planetc (Original post)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 09:07 PM

30. If she were elected, yes, she would be

 

: a family of rulers who rule over a country for a long period of time; also : the period of time when a particular dynasty is in power

: a family, team, etc., that is very powerful or successful for a long period of time

: a succession of rulers of the same line of descent
2
: a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dynasty

Obviously this would be a political dynasty, being that Hillary and Bill are from the same family. They don't have to be blood related. Similar to the Dowager Empress Cixi. She wasn't blood related to the Xianfeng Emperor, but she effectively ruled for 47 years as a regent of the Qing Dynasty after his death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empress_Dowager_Cixi

The difference between political dynasty and traditional dynasty is that the latter serves for life, so "long period" is much shorter for a political dynasty. Spouses definitely count.

Arguing that Hillary doesn't count because she isn't blood related is very disingenuous. If anything, this kind of intellectual dishonesty discredits Hillary supporters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #30)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 09:26 PM

40. There have been 16 years during which this non-dynasty did not maintain its power.

There goes that argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #40)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 09:40 PM

51. Wrong

 

Can you do me a favor and tell me the most famous Democratic political dynasty in history? The Kennedy family, obviously. How long did they "maintain power", as you put it? Once! And that was only for 2 years, a little shy of 3 actually.

If Hillary is elected, the Clinton family will have held the highest office for at least 6 times longer than the Kennedy family.

The ultimate irony here is that the OP refers to the Bush family as a political dynasty, and they are a political dynasty. How long have they served as president? For 12 years. Which is exactly the time that the Clinton family will serve if Hillary wins, assuming she doesn't win a second term. If she does, that will increase to 16 years.

So yeah, the Clinton family will become a dynasty if Hillary wins, assuming it isn't already considering she's been a senator and Sec of State. After all, lesser offices have cemented the Kennedy and Bush families as dynasties. She would clearly qualify the family as a dynasty if she took power. It doesn't mean a family must maintain unbroken presidential terms, just a lot of political power over time and multiple offices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #51)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 09:48 PM

59. Can you do us all a favor and tell us what authority your definition of 'political dynasty' has?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #59)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 09:50 PM

61. Merriam-Webster is my authority

 

My definition is from that dictionary, and it's listed in my first reply to this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #61)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 09:56 PM

63. paste the definition from Merriam-Webster of 'political dynasty.' Or better yet, I will

Oh wait, there is no entry for political dynasty in that dictionary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #63)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:05 PM

72. There is no precise definition of a political dynasty

 

because there are so many offices and so many ways of having power and influence.

12 years governor, 8 president, 4 Sec of State, 8 senator and 4-8 as president again? That would be an unprecedented amount of power in one generation of a family in American politics. They are the most powerful political family of our generation, and their only rivals to that title are another unquestioned political dynasty, the Bush family.

Unquestionably that would be a dynasty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #72)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:07 PM

74. so what you're really doing is making up your own definition

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #74)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:11 PM

79. ...

 

: a family, team, etc., that is very powerful or successful for a long period of time

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dynasty

Once again, it's sad that you can't accept this basic definition.

I really have nothing else to prove. You can either read it and understand, or not. It makes no difference to me whether you do. Bye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #79)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:15 PM

81. ...

Full Definition of DYNASTY

1
: a succession of rulers of the same line of descent

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dynasty

Full Definition of SUCCESSION

1
a : the order in which or the conditions under which one person after another succeeds to a property, dignity, title, or throne

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/succession

Hillary, upon winning the presidency, will not have done so in succession.

Once again, it's sad that you can't accept this basic definition.

I really have nothing else to prove. You can either read it and understand, or not. It makes no difference to me whether you do. Bye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #72)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:10 PM

78. +1, well said nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #40)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 09:43 PM

54. so what? few political dynasties have uninterrupted runs of power. at least not at the

 

same exact level of power. There were 8 years between Bush 1 and Bush 2, for example. The time gap doesn't mean it's not a political dynasty.

but Hilary has been in political office from the moment bill left the white house (Senator 1/2001-1/2009, then SoS 1/2009-2/2013.

And Bill has been involved in myriad political activities since he left office. And of course he campaigned for Hill at every opportunity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #54)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:17 PM

85. where do you get your definition of 'political dynasty' from? Oh, yeah, you made it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #30)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 09:26 PM

41. Intellectual dishonesty?

Check the definition of 'succession' a word that figures prominently in your definition of 'dynasty.'

"a number of people or things sharing a specified characteristic and following one after the other."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #41)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 09:40 PM

52. Bush didn't succeed his father

 

John Quincy Adams didn't succeed his father, either. Geez

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #52)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 09:57 PM

65. So?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #65)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 09:59 PM

67. So those are both unquestioned dynasties

 

Should Hillary win the presidency, the Clintons would unquestionably be a dynasty, if they aren't already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #67)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:01 PM

68. those don't meet the definition of 'dynasty' either

Seriously, why are people pasting dictionary definitions then running away from them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #68)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:09 PM

77. Yes, they do. I'm sorry you have to defend Hillary at all costs

 

and make an intellectually dishonest argument to do so.


: a family, team, etc., that is very powerful or successful for a long period of time


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dynasty

But no one is really deceived by this. They understand that so much power held between a married couple constitutes a dynasty, and they can read a definition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #77)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:13 PM

80. No, they don't. And this isn't a 'defense' of Hillary

Because there is nothing here that needs defending.

Full Definition of DYNASTY

1
: a succession of rulers of the same line of descent

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dynasty

Full Definition of SUCCESSION

1
a : the order in which or the conditions under which one person after another succeeds to a property, dignity, title, or throne

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/succession

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #77)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 11:12 PM

123. It's funny, isn't it?

 

wyldwolf's posts here are killing me. "It's not a dynasty! The english language is wrong!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #123)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 11:16 PM

125. Perhaps you would like to reconcile the definition with your 'progressive' made up one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #125)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 11:24 PM

133. Thanks, I'm familiar with the english language. Your pained parsing is entertaining, though. /nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #133)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 11:27 PM

135. Apparently enough to 'create' definitions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #30)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 09:36 PM

47. intellectual dishonesty seems to be the order of the day around these parts.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #30)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 09:47 PM

58. +1 there are many types of dynasties. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to planetc (Original post)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 09:31 PM

44. Very astute. She also is not from the more "traditional" Democratic wings of the party-

 

ie: good solid dues-paying union member, anti-corporatist, etc. May the best man or woman win. For the good of us all. She would have to morph like Stephen King character to even get my attention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Reply #44)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:06 PM

73. "traditional" Democratic wings of the party?

Would that be the party circa 1828-1860 that favored republicanism, slavery, a weak federal government, states' rights, agrarian interests (especially Southern planters) and strict adherence to the Constitution?

Or the Democratic party of the late 1800s like the pro-business Bourbon Democrats or the 'solid south' racist Democrats?

The Agrarian Democrats of the early 1900s that put Woodrow Wilson in power?

The FDR coalition of 1932 - 1968?

The 'New Left' influenced Democrats of the late 60s and 70s?

The 'New' Democrats of the 1980s - present?

The 'progressive' movement that lost disastrously in the 40s?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #73)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:17 PM

86. No. I explained what I meant. The labor the party embraced for the last 100+ years.

 

And the anti-corporatism. As these issues have become more pronounced as of late, the Clintons have become unmasked for what they are, and I find them rather repulsive, quite honestly. Does that help clear it up to you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Reply #86)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:22 PM

94. ok, so YOUR definition of 'traditional Democrats.' I'll play

1. The Democratic party HAS NOT been 'anti-corporatism.'
2. Hillary has a great labor record.

http://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/55463/hillary-clinton/43#.VOf5WPnF9bI

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #94)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:28 PM

100. NAFTA is an albatross around both their necks. (Hill and Bill). I will make you a deal,

 

because I could list a blue million problems with her. After we find out if Bernie's in, I will get back to you. I don't wish to beat a dead horse. It's kind of unbecoming, and I don't want to burst the Republicans' bubbles- they truly are counting on her winning and planning on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Reply #100)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:32 PM

103. how is NAFTA an albatross around Hillary's neck?

I'll make you a bet. IF Bernie's in, he won't win a single primary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #103)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:54 PM

113. Perhaps not. I thought my vote was for who I think is the best candidate.

 

BTW, My vote doesn't even count, the nominee is always chosen before we even vote here, so I will be voting for whomever you all choose. But as long as Hillary's cheerleaders get injecting themselves into conversations, the "news" cycle (wink, wink), and not one rowdy or fiery speech like Bernie has, do you really, honestly think she has my attention? Hardly. Milquetoast, tepid, as if she's just not trying to mess it up until she's presumed. Our country is still recovering from the smoldering ruins, we didn't make nearly as much progress as we should have, the TPP is on our doorstep, and corporate fascism is nigh upon us, and you want me to believe Hillary is going to save us all? I'm rooting for Bernie, yes, but even with his fire, I don't think he will be allowed to fix this mess. Even if. But I'm hoping. Hillary doesn't even give me the idea that she see it that way, so for now I'm dismissing her as being out of touch. Surely I can say she is out of touch without being bludgeoned. Out of touch. And her husband's third-way triangulation is the proximate cause of our worsened state, his "centrist" (wink, wink, read "Republican" ) ways helped obscure the truth the Democratic Party didn't want to hear from Ross Perot. It has all come to pass. Every bit of it. Is she not going to comment on the TPP so she can just say "Oh, it was done under a previous administration, I don't want to go back there?" I'd venture to say, yes, yes she probably will. I'm so sick of hearing catchphrases like "jobs for the new century" or "jobs for the new economy", without any actual jobs to train for. If Hillary wins it will be because of Republicans from both parties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Reply #113)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:57 PM

114. again, how is NAFTA an albatross around Hillary's neck?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #114)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 11:08 PM

119. Sorry, poor example. Thanks, got it. Her views aren't anything at all unlike her husbands.

 

She is a centrist because it suits her style. Play both sides. I personally think she learned triangulation from him. Sorry I hung NAFTA around her neck. I should have stuck with corporatism. She is a corporatist, so I'm pretty sure it would be more of the same on the trade front. I wouldn't know, though, because she hasn't really gotten out there in front of the camera in a fiery speech about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Reply #119)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 11:11 PM

121. Apparently 60%+ Dem voters don't share your concern.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #121)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 11:19 PM

129. LOL. You are fun. Doesn't matter to me, my vote doesn't count. Well, unless I withhold it from

 

her. You Clintonistas are in good shape. Even if you lose my vote, you will always pick up the Clinton Republicans, especially with the clown bus they are running over there. So you are safe. From me, anyway. I don't know about the others on this very thread and all over DU who are kinda with me (at least in general), but your 60% figure seems a little suspect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Reply #129)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 11:22 PM

131. Says the guy rooting for a sure loser.

but your 60% figure seems a little suspect.


Because you don't like the figure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #131)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 02:28 AM

176. Hmm... remind me again-- which one of them has lost a national primary?

 

Hillary Clinton has already demonstrated how unappealing she is at the national level.

Hey! Maybe you can just redefine the word "lost".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #176)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 08:32 AM

182. hmmm... remind me again what year we're discussing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #176)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 12:05 PM

187. "Maybe you can just redefine the word 'lost'" = lol. They seem to think word games are more

 

useful for keeping voters in line than actual policy actions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #121)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 12:02 AM

144. Agree with the 60%+ Dem voters or else, silvershadow. You have no choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RufusTFirefly (Reply #144)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 11:25 AM

184. I will choose the Democrat when the so-called "primary" gets to me. The one who is left in

 

the race at that time, like I always do. It isn't really a primary if all states don't get a voice. Love the pic!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to planetc (Original post)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 09:37 PM

48. I never quite understood why some people referred to SoS Clinton as part of a dynasty, either.

I never saw it as such.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to planetc (Original post)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 09:49 PM

60. One little Ignore...

.....and this thread is a lot less stupid. Wild indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #60)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 09:59 PM

66. An ostrich-like approach to things. But if it works for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to planetc (Original post)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 09:56 PM

64. 1/3 of US Senate is relative of another public official.

 

There are a lot of smaller political families in the 50 states. Up on Capitol Hill, take the U.S. Senate, which has 100 members. A full third -- 33 of them -- are the father, son, mother, daughter, husband or wife of at least one other public official, according to a CNN analysis.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/03/politics/dingell-political-families/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to planetc (Original post)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:33 PM

104. Neither is she a legacy./NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to planetc (Original post)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:44 PM

110. lol.

 

Sorry, but that's about all I can muster for this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to planetc (Original post)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:49 PM

111. Oh goody. Thanks for that clarification! I feel so much better!

I think the point is that our potential presidents come from the same depressingly narrow group of possibilties. This is a huge country full of lots of talented, qualified potential presidents. Why is it that so many come from such an alarmingly limited field? Here, I'll give you a hint.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to planetc (Original post)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 11:31 PM

136. You seriously think that ...

... wordsmithing alleviates anyone's real world objections to Hillary Goldman Sachs MIC Clinton?


Good one dude.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #136)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 11:47 PM

141. I'd say the hair-spliting is a really good sign

They're running out of arguments.
And it shows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RufusTFirefly (Reply #141)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 12:21 AM

155. hair-splitting indeed. it hurts the head.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to planetc (Original post)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 11:47 PM

140. I don't care about her bloodline, as much

As that she's a lying, corporatist, warmonger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nichomachus (Reply #140)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 11:48 PM

142. Yes, but aside from that stuff, she's like, really, really great.

And besides: Ted Cruz. SCOTUS. Ponies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RufusTFirefly (Reply #142)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 12:23 AM

157. as long as she doesn't succeed bill directly and is only a clinton by marriage,

 

it's not a political dynasty.

it reminds me of Solomon and the baby. except in Solomon's case, the baby lived.

the democratic party baby is on life support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #157)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 12:38 AM

166. Great!! That's truly inspiring! Vote for Hillary because (technically) she's not part of a dynasty

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RufusTFirefly (Reply #166)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 12:47 AM

169. it is inspiring, isn't it? i feel my heart warming as we speak. (though it may be heartburn.

 

or heartbreak.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #157)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 12:55 AM

170. It depends on what the meaning of is is, er I mean Dynasty /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #170)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 01:07 AM

172. exactly.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to planetc (Original post)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 12:06 AM

146. Uh, What?

You're making a distinction in search of a difference. If that's important to you, so be it, but it's a hard sell to others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to planetc (Original post)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 01:05 AM

171. Maybe time for me to retire

 

I'm getting a panic attack thinking about trying to achieve this level of awesome.

Bravo!



Regards,

Third-Way Many

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to planetc (Original post)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 02:38 AM

177. She was Hillary Rodham until she got bullied by the backwards media into becoming "Mrs. Clinton."

This is something that is popular in USA for some dumb reason, it is fortunately becoming less popular and people don't feel forced to take the same name as much anymore. Some people combine names, and the rare few men take the wife's name, instead (I suppose it's an easy choice if your name is Butt or Hiney or Fartz or something mockable)....but Hillary wasn't really given a choice, she would have been excoriated in the media even worse than she was (Stand By Your Man and all that crap) had she refused to go by the "Mrs. Clinton" handle.

But in fact, she's a Rodham. A Clinton was lucky enough to marry her. He admits she's the brains of the family, and he is right, I think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #177)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 07:22 AM

180. So the brains of the family believed Smirk was smart and Sneer was honest

Smart and honest enough to endorse a blank check for them that eventually was written for $3,000,000,000,000

All this coming well after "The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" business.

That says a lot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #180)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 12:39 PM

192. Smirk and sneer? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #192)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 01:54 PM

202. ...

Smirk...



Sneer..





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #202)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 02:25 PM

206. Smirk was smart--he was smart enough to steal an election and keep power for eight years.

And Sneer was honest in that he honestly didn't give a shit about anyone but himself and his avaricious war-mongering agenda and he also didn't give a shit who knew it--it's not like he danced around with the dove of peace on his shoulder, ever.

So, she didn't lie if that's what she said.

I don't understand why people take these kinds of political, makey-nicey comments seriously. They are common and EVERYONE in public life does it. The reason they do it is because they know they can't win elections with "true believers" alone. They've got to appeal to that mushy middle that doesn't see things so starkly. And if you don't WIN, you can't make change.

I personally wouldn't think much of any politician that foams at the mouth and spits invective and personal insults at opponents--it's why assholes like Giuliani with his "Obama doesn't love America" garbage are so viscerally unappealing. I'd regard them as unhinged and incapable of nuance. I'd also be fearful that they'd get some halfassed idea in their head that I didn't care for, and run off with Messianic fervor to try to implement it, without giving a damn what the electorate thinks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to planetc (Original post)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 03:35 AM

179. She's also the most successful cattle futures investor of all time. N/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Reply #179)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 12:15 PM

188. lol. "guided by james blair, futures trader & counsel to tyson foods"

 

Rodham had no experience in such financial instruments. Bill Clinton's salary as Arkansas Attorney General and then Governor of Arkansas was modest and Rodham was interested in building a financial cushion for the future[3][4] (the ill-fated Whitewater Development Corporation would be another such effort from this time[3]).

Starting in October 1978, when Bill Clinton was Attorney General and on the verge of being elected Governor,[1] she was guided by James Blair, a friend, lawyer, outside counsel to Tyson Foods, Arkansas' largest employer, and, since 1977,[5] a futures trader...

Blair in turn traded through, and relied upon cattle markets expertise from, broker Robert L. "Red" Bone of Refco, a former Tyson executive and professional poker player who was a World Series of Poker semifinalist.[6][4]

Rodham later wrote that she educated herself about the market and followed it closely, winning and losing money.[3] By January 1979, she was up $26,000;[4] but later, she would lose $16,000 in a single trade.[4] At one point she owed in excess of $100,000 to Refco as part of covering losses, but no margin calls were made by Refco against her.[4]

Near the end of the trading, Blair correctly sold short and gave her a $40,000 gain in one afternoon.[4] In July 1979,[1] once she became pregnant with Chelsea Clinton, "I lost my nerve for gambling [and] walked away from the table $100,000 ahead."[3]

She briefly traded sugar futures contracts and other non-cattle commodities in October 1979, but more conservatively, through Stephens Inc..[4][7] During this period she made about $6,500 in gains (which she failed to pay taxes on at the time, consequently later paying some $14,600 in federal and state tax penalties in the 1990s).[8][7] Once her daughter was born in February 1980, she moved all her commodities gains into U.S. Treasury Bonds.[4]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_cattle_futures_controversy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #188)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 12:25 PM

189. Who has his own 1000% ROI in less than 10 months to show as well right?

From the same Wikipedia article:

Financial writer Edward Chancellor noted in 1999 that Clinton made her money by betting "on the short side at a time when cattle prices doubled."

Various publications sought to analyze the likelihood of Rodham's successful results. The editor of the Journal of Futures Markets said in April 1994, "This is like buying ice skates one day and entering the Olympics a day later. She took some extraordinary risks."[12]

In a Fall 1994 paper for the Journal of Economics and Finance, economists from the University of North Florida and Auburn University investigated the odds of gaining a hundred-fold return in the cattle futures market during the period in question. Using a model that was stated to give the hypothetical investor the benefit of the doubt, they concluded that the odds of such a return happening were at best 1 in 31 trillion.[14]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Reply #189)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 12:48 PM

195. and blair in turn had help from...

 

"cattle markets broker Robert L. "Red" Bone of Refco, a former Tyson executive"

gosh, Tyson is all over this picture of the little housewife with no trading experience who became the "most successful trader of all time".

go sell it to the stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Reply #179)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 02:20 PM

205. First time trader, HRC turns $1,000 into $109,600 - it's a Cattle Futures Miracle!

Mrs. Clinton's highly speculative trading dramatically boosted the Clintons' income at a time when Bill Clinton was earning $26,500 as attorney general of Arkansas and Hillary Clinton was making $24,250 as a young lawyer in Little Rock.

Mrs. Clinton initially invested $1,000 in cash on Oct. 1, 1978, in an account at the Springdale, Ark., office of the Ray E. Friedman & Co. commodities brokerage of Chicago. By Oct. 12, she made $5,300 and reinvested the $6,300 in several transactions. In a series of trades through the rest of 1978, she accumulated profits of $49,069, offset by losses of $22,548. The White House calculated her net gain at $26,521 in 1978.

In 1979, Mrs. Clinton continued trading in this account with profits of about $109,600, offset by losses of about $36,600. Her net gain for 1979 was $72,996.


And here's how she did it - she used a broker who made unauthorized trades without permission of clients and then assigned the winning trades to accounts he selected. So he & HRC were bffs.

The disclosure of Mrs. Clinton's trading came amid reports that her former broker, Robert Bone of Springdale, Ark., had been disciplined for trading violations in 1977 by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and in 1980 by the CFTC and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.

Bone, who had formerly worked as a professional poker player and an executive at Tyson Foods, often traded without orders or permission from his clients, and "at the end of the day the winning and losing trades would be allocated to the accounts selected by Bone," reported Securities Week, a McGraw-Hill newsletter focusing on securities and futures.

In January 1980, a committee of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange banned Bone from trading on the exchange for three years, Securities Week reported.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19940330&slug=1902853

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Divernan (Reply #205)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 02:36 PM

210. :^)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to planetc (Original post)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 08:02 AM

181. Of course she is. And her agenda is corporatist and predatory.

Yet another talking point OP designed to divert from Hillary's actual record of malignant policy positions and instead get people to waste time "debating" a patently obvious diversion.




Hillary Clinton's leading role in drafting the TPP
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101667554

Hillary Clinton and Trade Deals: That “Giant Sucking Sound”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016101761

Hillary Clinton Cheerleads for Biotech and GMOs
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112772326

Dissecting Hillary Clinton's Neocon Talking Points - Atlantic Interview
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017209519

NYTimes notices Hillary's natural affinity toward the neocons.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025205645

Hillary Clinton, the unrepentant hawk
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024876898

More from Hillary Clinton's State Department: The fascistic TISA (Trade in Services Agreement)
http://m.thenation.com/blog/180572-grassroots-labor-uprising-your-bank

How Hillary Clinton's State Department sold fracking to the world
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251376647

Hillary Clinton Sides with NSA over Snowden Disclosures
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101695441

On the NSA, Hillary Clinton Is Either a Fool or a Liar
http://m.thenation.com/article/180564-nsa-hillary-clinton-either-fool-or-liar

Corporate Warfare: Hillary Clinton admits role in Honduran coup aftermath
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025601610#post29

The Bill and Hillary Clinton Money Machine Taps Corporate Cash
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025189257

Hillary's Privatization Plan: TISA kept more secret than the TPP
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014829628

Hillary Clinton criticizes Obama's foreign policy 'failure'; strongly defends Israel
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014867136

Some of Hillary Clinton's statements on Social Security.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024379279

Hillary Clinton's GOLDMAN SACHS PROBLEM.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025049343

Ring of Fire: Hillary Clinton - The Perfect Republican Candidate
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017209285

How Americans Need Answers From Hillary Clinton On TPP, KXL, Wall St & More
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017181611

Hillary Clinton Left Out By Liberal Donor Club
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025809071

Why Wall Street Loves Hillary
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016106575

Hillary Clinton: Neocon-lite
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101684986

Interactive graphic of Hillary Clinton's connections to the Forbes top 400 (Follow link in post)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025824981#post9





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to planetc (Original post)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 11:45 AM

185. The thing that really struck me about the "Clinton dynasty" talking point was ...

that the accusation of being half a dynasty is very useful to Republican strategists. It distracts from the much more flagrant Bush dynasty, and it makes it delightfully easy to blame her for almost everything Bill ever did. It sort of makes them bigger and more fearful than they are, or anyone could be. For the easily frightened, this is an ideal tactic. I've also seen the "Clinton machine" referred to, another nebulous entity that's threatening and destructive. The Republicans, as a party, have very few strategies except to find ways to blame Democrats, personally, for everything that goes wrong. They're working overtime on Mr. Obama too, because the campaign never ends.

And I have been watching Republican talking points float around, still two years ahead of the actual election, and have concluded that Republicans really don't want Sec. Clinton to run. All sorts of preliminary work is being done even as we speak. The entire first paragraph of the Economist piece was code for "she's too old." So I see the "dynasty" theme as being a distraction from the unsavory Bush dynasty, and part of the ongoing campaign to chip away at her popularity. The "inevitability" theme is another attempt to make a virtue into a demerit.

For the record, I think that to call Bill and Hillary a dynasty is to stretch the definition almost beyond recognition, especially since she has taken such pains, so patiently over a number of years, to distinguish herself from her husband. As her husband's second presidential term drew to a close, she finally got her own under career under way, having been a very able adviser throughout his elective career. The course Sec. Clinton has followed is politically savvy, and perhaps personally honorable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to planetc (Original post)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 11:51 AM

186. Fair enough. Though it would be nice if the Democratic Party's standard-bearer was a Democrat. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to planetc (Original post)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 12:31 PM

190. The Clintons are a dynasty.

It's a shame, because Hillary is smart and charismatic, and could have reached elective office entirely on her own merits. That's not the way it happened, however. The OP's attempt to claim that our dynasty isn't one, unlike the Bushes', is pathetic.

Ours just hasn't quite reached the next generation yet...but plenty of DUers have already signed onto Chelsea's campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orsino (Reply #190)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 12:45 PM

194. and clinton married into another office-holding political family with money, which widens the

 

dynasty.

none so blind, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #194)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 02:28 PM

207. Chelsea's father in law still owes nearly $10 million to his fraud victims.

I'd say she married into a family of failed grifters, and her husband's occupation as a co-owner of a failing hedge fund indicates he also lacks the Clinton skills to raise vast amounts of money with out doing jail time.

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. A whole family of grifters.

As the twig is bent, so grows the tree. Marc Mezvinsky's parents were both grifters. Chelsea's father-in-law, or as some refer to him "felon-in-law" is Ed Mezvinsky. Since Ed Mezvinsky's own mother-in-law was one of his fraud victims, HRC & Bill would have been smart not to invest either their private millions or the Clinton Foundation's funds in son-in-law's hedge fund. And just where did Marc M get his faulty international insights as to Greece? Or was Bill selling short on Eaglevale's choices all along?


(F)ederal prosecutors said Ed Mezvinsky habitually dropped the Clintons' names and boasted of their friendship during the 1990s as he defrauded friends, family members and institutions out of more than $10 million.

Ed Mezvinsky was sentenced in 2003 to serve 80 months in federal prison after pleading guilty to a massive fraud that prosecutors said amounted to a Ponzi scheme. He was released from custody in April 2008, but remains under federal probation supervision.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/mezvinsky.asp#W86TSmhCqGEkOYkR.99


After serving five years in federal prison, he was released in April 2008. He remained on federal probation until 2011, and still owes $9.4 million in restitution to his victims. Mezvinsky Sr.'s victims included family, friends, & his own mother-in-law. Just google Mezvinsky & Ponzi Scheme.

And the groom's mother, Marjorie Margolies? Well, she tried to file for bankruptcy but the bankruptcy judge wasn't having it. Somehow the female bankruptcy judge didn't believe a woman who had served in the US Congress when said woman whined that she had no knowledge of her family's finances because her husband took care of all finances.

Shortly thereafter, she filed for bankruptcy, but failed to receive a discharge from her debts, based on 11 U.S.C. §727(a)(5). The court found Mezvinsky had failed to satisfactorily explain a significant loss of assets in the four years prior to her bankruptcy filing. The bankruptcy judge stated, in her published opinion, "I find that the Debtor has failed to satisfactorily explain the loss of approximately $775,000 worth of assets (the difference between the $810,000 represented in May 1996 and the $35,000 now claimed in her Amended Schedule B)." Sonders v. Mezvinsky (in re Mezvinsky), 265 B.R. 681, 694 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2001).

When she filed for bankruptcy, a judge rejected her assertion of ignorance in a scathing decision that, depending on how you read it, either calls her feminist assertions into question or suggests she knows more than she’s letting on. “Her consistent response to questions asked by her creditors about the disposition of her assets is lack of knowledge or ‘my husband handled it,’ a mantra that is completely at odds with her public persona, background, and accomplishments,” the judge wrote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Divernan (Reply #207)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 02:34 PM

209. The in-laws still appear to be living the life of wealth and connections, however. I don't

 

know how some people do it; it certainly doesn't work for the lower-middle-class.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orsino (Reply #190)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 02:38 PM

212. How can it be a dynasty when she hasn't even been elected yet? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #212)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 03:20 PM

216. It can't.

Hell she ain't even officially running yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agschmid (Reply #216)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 10:31 PM

219. And yet she's already nearly anointed.

That's how dynasties work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orsino (Reply #219)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 10:33 PM

220. She's not...

People just need to run.

If it's going to be an annotation the more time passes the more it seems it will be with the blessing of Warren and Sanders.

(Just using them since they get the most play as alternative candidates).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to planetc (Original post)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 01:16 PM

200. A distinction without a difference in my book. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to planetc (Original post)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 03:44 PM

217. Dynasty Schmynasty, the problem is she isn't just a member of the Oligarchy but

an ardent and activist promoter of their interests first as well as a dangerous, interventionist warmonger.

Sure, we have to be concerned with essentially creating an aristocracy on top of the oligarchy but the individuals in question are dangerous on their own account.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #217)

Sun Feb 22, 2015, 06:59 AM

225. +1000000

Well put.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #217)

Mon Feb 23, 2015, 09:41 AM

234. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to planetc (Original post)

Sun Feb 22, 2015, 08:12 AM

226. Taking away another meme. How dare you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to planetc (Original post)

Mon Feb 23, 2015, 09:46 AM

236. Politics is all about who you know.

The only people capable of being elected all have ties to one another in some way, shape or form.

It is a beast that feeds itself. No one else ever has much of a chance. Once you are in the system, you just wait your turn.

So she is just taking advantage of her connections. They happen to be closer connections than most have, but still. And I think it's a mistake to elect the same people over and over again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread