Are you crazy?

I know people like to roll their eyes when conservatives talk about the sanctity of marriage, but are you really trying to say  that there is a stronger bond between Obama and Cheney than there is between Bill and HIllary Clinton?

And ins't this idea of a lineal dynasty based on patriarchal constructs that should be rejected?  If the Clintons had a son, even one younger and less accomplished than Chelseas, wouldn't he be the "heir" under your old stilted definition? 

If the monarchy of Great Britain passed from Elizabeth to Prince Phillip rather than Prince Charles would that make it a model of egalitarianism and democracy?

If a presidential couple had adopted a child, would that child qualify?

If George W. Bush appointed Laura's nephew to a Cabinet post, I'm quite sure there would be charges of nepotism, in spite of the appointee not being related to W.

Having the presidency bounce back and forth between two families for almost a quarter century isn't consistent with what we say about our country.  I don't care if the family links are identical twins or a one-night stand hook-up.  I've got to believe we can find someone qualified to be president who is not a member of these two families.

The Great Unflushed ain't buying any of that Rodham larkey. They know full well there's more than just a passing Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc coincidence between her bid for the job and the fact that her hubby held it for 8 years.

But nepotism and inbreeding is all the rage in certain professions, politics being perhaps the most obvious; but you also have it in professional wrestling, acting, pastoring, the music buss [I mean, have you ever heard of Ziggy Marley or Julian Lennon], and last, but not least, academia. Our entire Dail, for example, was spawned by the same pair of hybrid ginnets, their names, Rompulus and Reamus O'Rickets. Our Free State still suckles at their ample dugs, though it has to be said of their genitalia that they're neither decorative nor useful.

America's a very big place with limitless potential, so why does the political field appear so narrow? Surely there are more [and better] options than Bushes, Kennedys, Clintons, etc. But the system's such that those already ensconced are better placed, blahblah.