The post suggested that another Clinton presidency would be bad for the country, because it would create a pattern of "political dynasticism."  The occasional presidency from the same family, ala the Adams, Josh seemed to be saying... we can handle it.  It's when there's a pattern of people getting jobs based entirely on their family name that things get bad.

Which makes sense, and is, I think, a reasonable thing to point out.

But... I would argue what made the Adams a "fluke" and not evidence of something uniquely "unhealthy" in the American system was that John Quincy Adams actually had the skills to do the job.  If he'd been an utter fool who got the job entirely on the basis of his last name, then the fact that he was elected, all by itself, would have been a troubling example of political dynasticism, rather than a fluke.

Coming from a successful political family definitely gives someone a leg up -- but very few people who have risen to the most powerful position in the country haven't had advantages of one sort or another.  Bill Clinton might be about as close as we've gotten to electing someone from an unprivileged background, but still, he's white, male, and Christian -- people who aren't white and male haven't yet made it into the office in our entire history, and non-Christians have been rare.

When we worry about political dynasticism in our system, I don't think the concern is particularly about qualified people getting a leg up in attaining the office.  If it were, well, we've already got much bigger problems in that regard.  The white Christian male dynasty has been going on since the nation's inception, for one thing -- how's that for a pattern?  Instead, the political dynasty worry seems to be about not wanting to elect people purely as a consequence of their last names, i.e., people who aren't qualified for the job.

So here's the thing: we already did that.  We elected George W. Bush, a man who very obviously did not have the skills for the job, who was an abject failure at everything he touched for most of his life, who would never have had the teeniest, tiniest chance of becoming president if it were not for the fact that his father was president before him.

The time to worry about unqualified people getting elected because of their name was when George W. Bush was running for president.  The source of the "bad message" about political dynasties is his election, and it can't be undone by not electing other people, like Hillary Clinton, who actually have the skills to do the job. (And did I mention that whole white male thing that's gone uninterrupted throughout our entire history?)

There's a parallel here, I think, with the notion some people have that Bush shouldn't be impeached, because Clinton's impeachment was so bad and politicized.  The thinking goes that we shouldn't reinforce the "bad message" that impeachment is something to be taken lightly, used as a political tool, done without public support, etc.

Problem is, Bill Clinton's impeachment already sent that bad message, because, well, it was actually a bad impeachment.  Reasonable people can disagree, but I know that I won't be taking the possibility of a serious case for the impeachment of George W. Bush off the table because of a frivolous impeachment that happened just prior to his tenure.

Nor will I take the election of a capable, intelligent Clinton off the table because we just got finished electing an incompetent fool with the last name "Bush."