I have decided to move this blog to Bloglines. You can find the new location here.

Electing two people of the same family need not be bad. America's experience with such Presidencies varies. In most such cases, one, if not both, had a disastrous Presidency.

• The Roosevelts (FDR was Theodore Roosevelt's fifth cousin) were both illustrious Presidents.
  
• The Adams were both great men. Both had a sigle term, both were defeated by their respective nemesis, and John Quicy Adams had a horrible Presidential term, through and through.
• William Henry Harrison did only one thing notable in his short Presidency - gave an inauguration address longer than Bill Clinton's convention address of 1988, while his great-grandson was dumped by his own party after a single term.
• The Bushes... well, you know the story.

There is a question certainly is worth discussing about Hillary Clinton's candidacy. If she does win the Presidency, by the time she gets to the end of her first term, America would have spent close to a quarter century under either a Clinton or a Bush.

Devilstower, over at DailyKos, raises the issue, and thinks that it should not affect Hillary, because she will not be President, because she was Mrs.Bill Clinton. Good point. There is one more related point worth noting.

In the case of the Clintons, no one is associating any kind of elitist aristocratic attributes to the Clinton family. In other words, no one is attributing any special qualities, or values, to any one because he or she is a Clinton. In fact, Bill and Hillary are considered more as studies in contrast. This is not the case with the Bushes. Quote:

"The whole Bush family, going back, I think even to President Bush's parents, have this sense of community participation [and] volunteerism," says Matalin.

Ron Kaufman, a former adviser to President Bush agrees: "It's inbred, I think, I really do believe it's inbred in the Bush family, that if you can make a difference, you owe it to the country to make a difference."

That sort of "they will be good leaders because they are they are a of the family" is what makes the Bushes, the Kennedys, and the Gandhis aristocratic dynasties. Their scions get a break, merely for having the name. Same would not be the case, for example, for Chelsea Clinton. That is a very important difference to note.

So, Hillary Clinton is in. Good. I think the Democratic side of the race is shaping up very well. Wish I could say the same about the other side.

I can find something interesting in each of the presumed Democratic front-runners. Clinton has a foreign policy that has a good balance of realism and idealism. I think she really does understand the complexity of the issues in the Middle East, and elsewhere, and does not bother oversimplifying it for public consumption, which is very good.

I find Obama the most inspiring, and audacious. His "lack of experience" does not bother me that much, given that I do not consider "experience" as much more than membership in the Congress. Obama certainly has much experience in the real world of common people, and that is worth a lot. His exposure to multiple cultures will be vital in these days of global conflict and cooperation.

I find Edwards's grassroots work very interesting. It is a whole lot different from political theorizing and electioneering, and again, as in the case of Obama, yields a lot richer experience.

I am still waiting to see if Wes Clark and Bill Richardson will enter the race. I have a feeling Clark will not, but Richardson will. Both would be strong candidates for Vice Presidency, or a cabinet secretary position (Clark for Defense and Richardson for State, of course).

For obvious reasons, I find Rudy Guiliani the most palatable (presumed) candidate on the GOP side, but I think he will find it very difficult to get elected, if only because a challenge to his candidacy from the right is certain.

I have lost all my respect for McCain - the man has compromised on every principle possible, and I see his stand on the surge only as a weak effort to resurrect his against-the-grain fame.

Romney is another spineless wonder. I wouldn't be half as contemptuous of him, if he were to own up his past liberal stands, and give credible reasons why he has shifted.

I used to have a sort of respect for Gingrich, if only for his idealism, before he started suggesting that the only way for us to be safe is to be servile to the President. Now, I think he's just dangerous. I'd rather die, than lose my freedoms, thank you very much.

As for Brownback, well, let's skip it, shall we?