Reports, analyses, and opinions on politics, current events, health care, the economy, equity markets, odd news, and sports.
I don't really get this line of argument. I can understand 'no more Clintons' or 'no more Bushes' but to act like the whole 24 years is one monolithic dynasty makes no sense. An argument that makes a little more sense is research showing that our current 2 party structure promotes centrism and therefore every winning candidate -- whether labelled Democrat or Republican, Bush or Clinton -- is too similar to encourage creative political change.
Tried to check this on snopes.com, but couldn't find anything. Hilary says that the Gores and the Bushes are distant relatives. So it would be the Gore/Bush monolith, not the Clinton/Bush monolith. Sort of. I cannot verify that anything I've just said is true.
hilary bulman or hillary clinton?
Though I know you are joking, I'll point out that Rodham/Clinton spells her with two Ls and Bulman spells her with one. I still can't get this straight and always want to spell Clinton's with one L.
Post a Comment