Not a Hillary supporter, but...

This whole thing about Hillary being bad because she is related to President Clinton and "two families in WH for twenty years" reminds me of a pipe dream many Democrats had at one time and it went like this:

President John F. Kennedy 1961-1969
President Robert F. Kennedy 1969-1977
President Edward M. Kennedy 1977-1985

Of course we know it never happened and it was cut short early on by an assassins bullet, but many Democrats of the time thought this would be a wonderful thing--and who can blame them?

I think the key difference is that the Kennedy's presented a lot of Dems with hopes of progressive change. The Clintons meanwhile are far more moderate and thus do not seem to be charting a path forward and instead are simply trying to hold a position. For a lot of us they just don't represent progress. Not the way we want it. Dreams and ideals are difficult things to watch flounder.

as someone who was very idealistic, and very young, when Kennedy was elected, I can tell you that Kennedy was considered not so progressive to quite a few people in the Dem Party at that time. They felt he was a sellout and that he paled as a liberal before Adlai Stevenson, their pure hero. Eleanor Roosevelt, who had strongly supported Stevenson in both his runs, criticized Kennedy at the time for having "more profile than courage," a take off on his current book "Profiles in Courage."

Of course, I was in New York City at the time and the Dem Party had a VERY liberal wing, prolly to the left of almost anywhere in this country. They were not, generally speaking, the hard core strength of the Dem Party in NY, that being union workers primarily. Some union workers were quite liberal of course, but others were not so liberal.

It is worth noting that in the 1960 campaign, quite a few in the ultra liberal wing of NYC's Dem Party said they would NOT vote for JFK because he wasn't liberal enough!

and how much she admired him. I, too .am from NY . I was just a child but my family talked politics continually. My dad and his brother were prep school and college friends of Jack and Joe Kennedy but they liked Adalai better too!

somewhat skeptical of declarations here at DU of great intensity as to a candidate's worthiness to be the pure Dem president bemuse me. I have seen just in my lifetime how perceptions change over time.

I recently read "The CUban Missile Crisis" by Elie Abel, written just a few years after the crisis. I was dismayed at the advice Adlai was giving JFK at the time. It was wrong and it has been proven wrong. Yet the antiwar people of the day were out being very vocal (and very naive) about how that crisis could be resolved. JFK did exactly the right thing -- a naval blockade with the backup of our hemispheric neighbors and the free world. Tough, but also a diplomatic triumph. So I have changed my view about Adlai's ability to lead our country in such a dangerous time. It was probably the scariest moment of my life!

The Bush and Clinton Clans are mighty poor substitutes. (smile)

I think that because of the assasination of Pres. Kennedy, Democrats felt that Bobby would carry out the perceived unfinished business left behind. Since Bobby was killed before he could even win the nomination, many turned to Ted, but he was ruined by Chapp. (we know what I'm talking about, I just can't spell it). I don't think Democrats wanted 24 years of Kennedys, just maybe two terms.

We will never even know if Jack would have been reelected.He was not exactly that popular when he went to Dallas as I recall.

completely differnt cloth.The only thing they have in common is a D after their names.