General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: HRC is NOT a member of a dynasty (Jeb Bush is, of course) [View all]planetc
(7,801 posts)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.