O'Malley: the presidency is not some crown to be passed between two families

[Mr. Morden]

A rare dig at Clinton from O'Malley:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gov-martin-omalley-presidency-crown-passed-families/story?id=29988770

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

So much for Hillary being safe from attack ads by other democrats. Go O'Malley!!!

[Beet]

F O'Malley. Now I know how Massachusetts Democrats who voted for Romney in '02 felt in '12.

[IceSpear]

Well O'Malley, maybe you'll have a point of you run against Chelsea in 2028. But as of now, your complaint is falling on deaf ears.

[Progressive]

Anyone catch his response to what America's greatest threat was? It was something he came up with on the fly and he struggled through that. I want him to run, I want there to be a primary b/c I think it's healthy for Hillary, but he is not primetime ready.

[JRP1994]

He's absolutely right.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

I agree that we should have more variety in our presidential picks, but O'Malley is a terrible candidate.  No charisma, bad speaker.  We might as well be running that actor that played him in "The Wire", even though he's actually Scottish or whatever.     

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

I'm not really interested in this line of attack, although I would never vote for Clinton and Bush is way down on my list. The people pick the President. Yes, name recognition is helpful, but given that we've had exactly two father-son Presidencies 200 years apart, one grandfather-grandon Presidency where name recognition was likely worth nothing, and that's it, O'Malley just seems like he's raging against the fact that he's well behind a "dynasty candidate".

[Ebsy]

I don't buy into the notion that the Clintons are a dynasty. Power couple, yes, but a dynasty implies multiple generations.

[Türkisblau]

Somebody has to say it.

[King]

Lumping the Clintons and Bushes together is disingenious. There was only one Clinton President as opposed to two. Bill's ancestry is not aristocratic like the Bushes. Hillary is not an heir to the Clinton throne. She is simply his wife.

Also Bill Clinton's Presidency was an objective success that Democrats tout whenever it's convenient. The GOP has 12 years of serious reasons to distant themselves from the Bush family.

[Gallium]

Sad to see a Democrat be the first candidate to bring up this Bush/Clinton false equivalence.

Also Bill Clinton's Presidency was an objective success that Democrats tout whenever it's convenient. The GOP has 12 years of serious reasons to distant themselves from the Bush family.

Listening to the media you'd think the opposite were true. "The Clintons are so scandal-ridden/entitled/secretive! How can you trust them? Jeb is so different to the other Bushes - he has a Hispanic wife!"

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

They both have the same base of support from blacks, since OMalley was mayor, and Hillary has Bill.  He, along with Biden will have sufficient support, should they get traction, ahead of Hillary in polls.

[The Other Castro]

I agree that we should have more variety in our presidential picks, but O'Malley is a terrible candidate.  No charisma, bad speaker.  We might as well be running that actor that played him in "The Wire", even though he's actually Scottish or whatever.     

You mean Littlefinger?

[Fuzzy Bear]

The Adams' and Roosevelts' would disagree.

But the Adams' had a 28 year gap between Adams 2 and Adams 6.  John Quincy Adams was Speaker of the House at the time he was elected President; he was legitimately qualified.  He was not at all a legacy, as Bush 43 has proven to be.  FDR was TR's nephew by marriage, and a 5th cousin by blood; he was a Democrat and was elected Governor of New York not because of his family, but because of Al Smith and Tammany Hall. 

The Bush situation is different.  Firstly, there was only an 8 year gap between Bush 41's defeat and Bush 43's controversial election.  Bush 43 failed in every business he entered, and became Governor of Texas on his name.  (The Texas Governorship is a "weak Governor" office with power lodged in the legislature; it's not the kind of CEO experience that being Governor of NY or CA would be.)  And he was selected because Jeb Bush, who was ALWAYS known to be the more capable Bush, had only been FL for 2 years, having been defeated in his 1st gubernatorial run in 1994.  Not only is Bush 41 still alive, but Dick Cheney, who has the look and feel of a "regent" is still alive.  None of this sits well with the American people, including a lot of Republicans who may well sit out an election if Jeb Bush is the GOP nominee.

So there's a mood out there already against dynasties.  This is NOT good news for Hillary Clinton who, after all, has already been a Presidential candidate once.  Somehow, the idea that the Presidential nominee of a party should come from one family is not in line with the American experience.  But the Bushes and Clintons take this one further; they are pushing a Presidential candidate from those families who are of the same generation as the last President from their family.  The only time in American history I can even view this as a possibility is when Eisenhower contemplated having his brother, Milton Eisenhower, succeed him as President.  Even Ike backed down, realizing that the American people would not buy that.

This is not good news for HRC.  I believe that she will have trouble against any GOP candidate other than Bush, and if it's a HRC/Jeb contest, the possibility of any credible 3rd party candidate causing unpredictable havoc is there, because Americans are not down with the idea of dynastic families.  O'Malley isn't a top-tier candidate, but the power of the "dynasty" issue is grossly understated.

[WVdemocrat]

I support him, but these type of things just make him seem like a hypocrite. He supported Hillary in 2008, but now he suddenly has a problem with political families? Give me break. The ironic thing is he doesn't have to resort to cheap attacks to win, he just needs to stay on message and if people agree with him, they'll vote for him. This is the wrong way for him to go about his campaign.

[Free Bird]

How dare he attack the great female savior!

[Brewer]

How dare he attack the great female savior!

*eye roll*

[Lief 🗽]

Bill and Hillary are not part of some dynasty; they are husband and wife. Maybe if Chelsea Clinton were running for President this would be a valid concern, but this is more comparable to a Vice President running after his successful President's two terms have ended.

[Thunderbird is the word]

I really do want an alternative to Hillary though I have my doubts about O'Malley. He does seem like a bit of an opportunist.

[Ebsy]

I really do want an alternative to Hillary though I have my doubts about O'Malley. He does seem like a bit of an opportunist.

Well, he is a politician. Opportunist is just a more negative way of saying ambitious.

[Thunderbird is the word]

I really do want an alternative to Hillary though I have my doubts about O'Malley. He does seem like a bit of an opportunist.

Well, he is a politician. Opportunist is just a more negative way of saying ambitious.

You can be ambitious and have some consistency. I feel like he's just trying to fill a void as a left alternative to Hillary when in the past he was a DLCer. I dunno, if he's the only alternative I'll vote for him but he's far from ideal.

[heatmaster]

Hi Icespear, I'll remind you of the "deaf ears" comment,  if and when Jeb Bush emerges as the nominee of the G.O.P. & Hillary as the Democrats, one good thing,  is that, the issue is effectively neutralized and Hillary tries to hammer Jeb on the issue, well we all know where that's going to go and yeah, that "deaf ears" theory will come into play! 😊

[SteveRogers]

So the real question is will O'Malley say this to Hillary's face in a debate, or will he Pawlenty out?

[Simfan34]

I don't care, but the idea that the Clintons aren't a political dynasty simply because Hillary is Bill's wife is silly. Would you have said in 1970 that the Kennedys weren't a "dynasty" either because they were all brothers? If we want to talk real monarchies, uxorial succession is a thing there too, you know: Catherine the Great, Mary II, Hatshepsut...