With any luck we'll have two Udalls in the Senate in 2009: Looks like Tom is running in NM

And he'll crush Heather Wilson. Mark Udall may have a tougher time in CO, but the odds are pretty good. They'll both be great additions to the Dem caucus.

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/11/chavez_promises_a_volatile_primary_in_new_mexico_senate_race.php

The Udalls have been a family of progressive voices, environmentally
conscious in an area not known for preserving their natural beauty
except under legal pressure. I remember Mo Udall giving a speech at the
National Press Club in D.C. in the 1970s. Great guy. It's good to see the
family keeping up the tradition.

Dynastic Executive Branch families in our illustrious plutocratic future? :crazy:

It's a little late (like 200 years) to want to nip that one in the bud.

A democratic republic is not meant to be ruled by politically elitist FAMILIES.

Call me picky, but that's a valid criticism. :(

But at the same time, it has given us the Roosevelts and the Kennedys,
so a family background isn't always a negative. Bush was handed the presidency
along with every other undeserved break he got in life, but Franklin Roosevelt
won on his own merits, and Hillary (who was obviously not born a Clinton or
in Arkansas) is fighting an uphill battle against the "dynasty" argument. It's
a fair bet that Laura Bush couldn't get elected U.S. Senator except maybe in
Utah or Mississippi, and maybe not even there.

Bobby Kennedy, Jr. isn't seeking office (at this point), but if he does, I don't
know of anyone in the progressive camp who would have the slightest objection to
that (with the possible exception of his immediate family, who sees little enough
of him as it is).

this is a good thing, not a bad thing. Do you know spit about either Mark or Tom Udall? I doubt it. And neither of them are running for the Presidency and they aren't even brothers. I presume you would have been dead set against Bobby Kennedy running for President, or Teddy.

Nepotism and cronyism are two very ugly consequences of such unbridled power MERELY on the basis of one's last name or ancestral heritage. IMO, it's gross and one of the reasons we broke away from England. But alas, *royalty* of any flavor is abhorrent to many of us "little people." :shrug:

that's clear from from your misuse of the word. And you really shouldn't speak for others. Unsurprising to note that you let misbegotten ideas guide you.

Of course I do ... look at our illustrious Minority Leader's SONS being constantly elevated to UN-earned positions in Utah?

http://www.campaignmoney.org/blog-tags/harry-reid

Nepotism is the showing of favoritism toward relatives, based upon that relationship, rather than on an objective evaluation of ability or suitability.

Your first example is indeed nepotism. John Kennedy's appt of Robert as AG is nepotism. But the Udalls running in NOT nepotism, not is Clinton's running nepotism. Don't let that get in the way of your righteous indignation though. How about a law barring all relatives of any politician from running for office for say, three generations. I'm sure you could get behind that piece of anti-democratic legislation.

It's become absurd. All the favors, in and out of politics is "stirring-up" us little people and it's not about to end. This is just the beginning of our expressed discontent ... the door is just now getting cracked open.

Righteous indignation? Pot meet kettle. ;)