wonder what democratic courage is going to come up with?

I'm not sure how persuasive it would be to anyone who isn't already persuaded.

Here's my question, though: If you're saying Clinton wouldn't be a big change from Bush, aren't you saying Bush really wasn't a big change from Clinton?  Is that really a message you think you can sell?

i'd say this is far superior to the 'volvo driving, latte-drinking, NYT reading, east coast liberal' ad bash that we saw 4 years ago. (that was was made by the dem machine--this ad targets the dem machine. about time.)

thanks for sharing!

ABC : is my motto.

Nothing is inherently wrong with dynasties.

There're just alot inherently wrong with Hillary.

Great Diary Vox. I agree with your assessments. It is time that another family got a chance at the White House.

What is the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result!!

Wow.  You really would have hated FDR.

I will AGAIN offer my points on this nonsense.

1) The Bush and the Clinton are different families, from different parties with different politics.  Saying Bush / Clinton makes it seems like they are connected, which for them to be a dynasty they would have to be.  They are not.  Its a bogus charge.  

The only people who would claim they are the same are the filthy Narerites who also claimed that there was no difference (not a dimes worth) between Gore and Bush.  I think even the not so bright among us here can see that the stinking Naderites were out to lunch, as usual, on that call.

2) Nobody cried foul when Shrub ran.  Not you, not anyone else.  Nobody said no, or that it was too soon after his dad, etc.  This is just a weak arguement made by those that oppose Clinton.

3) This is the most important one.  WE DON'T HAVE DYNASTIES IN THIS COUNTRY!  We have a democracy.  Clinton as a RIGHT to run.  People have a RIGHT to vote for her or for someone else.

seems like the ultimate in desperation for Obama and Edwards supporters. Hillary is playing within the system. She has worked hard to be where she's at at the front of the Democratic field. "No Dynasty" just seems like you're saying "No fair Hillary, you're the wife of the former President". It's a bunch of whining as far as I'm concerned.

Great video--put it on all the airwaves for next two weeks every hour.We are a better nation than having to put up with more crap.As for me am not going to hold my nose and vote. We can do write in if it is Clinton. She is tiresome and wears badly--not to mention she is the choice of the people in charge of this country--and we know how committed they are to our interests.

Her whole life a man has been in the White House.

No.

No.

NO!!!!

It wasn't an authorization vote.

Look it up!!

I'm watching a rerun of Bill Clinton on David Letterman right now, explaining what's going on in Iraq, talking about the reasons why we need to end this war for our own sake and for the Iraqis' sake.  God, for all his faults, I'd give that man twelve terms in office if I could.

recycling arguments? Back to dynasty issues?

weak

but you have videos, i'll give you a C+ lol

that godfather theme song is hillaryous.

When given the opportunity at the recent Democratic debate to distance herself from NAFTA and its expansion, she called it "A vague memory."

she did not have sex with that trade policy, mr. nafta.

it was clinton who opened the door to our being poisoned by china. they couldn't even leveraged trade with china with something positive, such as make it as a condition of requirement that china relinquished their control of tibet. or anything else similar that would of marked a stand for progressive ideals. clintons sold out cheap.

while they opened the flood doors to china, they blocked drug reimportation from canada, citing bogus safety concerns (to big pharma's delight). so what did we end up with as a result? higher prescription drug costs and dead cats and dogs. progressive dems need to wake up out of their nostalgic reverie that will drag us off onto the wrong track (again!), get off the kool aid, and face the true picture of the clinton record, instead of burying their heads in the sand like ostriches like so many do.

I think it would not be good for the United States to continually have a president drawn from two families.

Are there really only two families that can provide us our president?

Isn't that sort of the way things happen in banana republics with sham democracy?

I think Hillary would be an incredibly better president than Bush but having said that it can't be denied that it sets a very poor precedent to have two families alternating power over potentially 36 years! I mean really!

Likewise it can't be denied that its high time the United States have a female president.

Personally I think the US is stuck in a rut. We have lost our mojo and we need a fresh start. Hillary does not provide that fresh start as her administration- judging by her current advisors/hangers-on- would look a somewhat like Bill Clinton's administration.

Mature democracies do not continually recycle leadership but rather develop new leaders.

I am in Texas write now spending the week with some very good americans. Solid. Military family. Hard working. Honest. The guy is disgusted with Bush whom he -like many- gave the benefit of the doubt to until a few years ago. He can't stand Hillary.

Just saying we ought to try to bring this guy in rather than say "You're either with us or against us and we're offering you the exact same thing you didn't like before."