About Channel '08  |  Blog Partner: PrezVid.com  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed  (What's RSS?)

New Video Slams Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton(??)

A very new YouTube user named dontvotefortop has produced a new video casting the Bush-Clinton dynasty as a regime that needs to be removed. According to the YouTube profile, dontvotefortop is 24 years old, and created the account yesterday.

As Peter Hauck writes over at our sister blog, PrezVid.com, "for the theme of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton to emerge during the general election from the anti-Hillary crowd." As this video suggests, the dynasty could stretch well beyond early 2017, when Mrs. Clinton would conceivably leave office.

You may remember Sen. Clinton's response Monday night to a question about the possibility of 28 years of Bush-Clinton rule, when she said, "I think it is a problem that Bush was elected in 2000." (More here.)

Watch the video, then leave your impressions in the comments section below: Is this a legitimate anti-Hillary sales pitch?

-- Ed O'Keefe

By Ed O'Keefe |  July 25, 2007; 2:25 PM ET Hillary Rodham Clinton
Previous: Ad Watch: Obama's South Carolina Radio Ad | Next: Romney: We'll Be Watching You


Please email us to report offensive comments.

A waste of 2 minutes. No impact!

Posted by: NY | July 25, 2007 3:03 PM

Why is it anti-Hillary to believe that the country needs to let the past go? It is time for a change. Someone who will put the focus back on the country and away from personalities. With the Clintons, it has always been all about the Clintons. How can we forget Hillary's claim of the "vast right wing conspiracy" out to bring down the Clintons. My personal belief is that the vast right wing conspiracy is currently at work to get her nominated, as their best and last hope to hang on to power and the office. (Karl's secret plan) I am one Democrat who believes no good will come from another 8 years of more of the same; divsion, impotence, and failure to change.

Posted by: FVP | July 25, 2007 3:15 PM

Whether or not it has an impact, it is a legitimate pitch. Why would it be otherwise?

And in a nation of 300 million people, why should we look for our leaders in only two families?

Posted by: J | July 25, 2007 3:42 PM

There are plenty of reasons not to vote for Hillary Clinton in a presidential contest other than the absurd premise that, should she gain office, her election would set the stage for Jeb, Chelsea, and the Twins to follow. I agree that this is a waste of media as long as it pretends to pose a serious argument. As a roll-in on The Daily Show, it might be worth a giggle or two.

Posted by: ABB | July 25, 2007 3:43 PM


Posted by: Michael1945 | July 25, 2007 4:15 PM

I don't quite understand why people find the need to lump the clinton presidency with either of the bush presidencies.

Policy was very different during Clinton's tenure, many things were implemented to put America on a different course, and several were successful. W's presidency has contained many rollbacks of what Clinton implemented, putting the country back where it was when his dad was around.

My point is yes, a Hillary election would continue the period of time these two families held office, but it's not accurate to lump them together as one regime.

And just for the record, I am not a Hillary supporter - I am totally undecided at this point!

Posted by: NMS | July 25, 2007 4:32 PM

Equating the Clintons with the Bushes ends at the fact that they both have been in the Presidency. Looking at the quality of the Presidencies things begin to diverge. Under Clinton we had peace and prosperity and 65% approval rating. Under W we have war and regular working folks scraping by harder for less and W's disapproval is 65%.

Neo-conservative never met a reality they liked so they whip up garbage like this to feed to their fellow swine to shore up their ever shrinking sty.

Posted by: ThinkingAmerican | July 25, 2007 4:48 PM

nope. the kid who made this video is right. family dynasties are not good for the country. 28 years of Clinton and Bush would be a historical fact if Hillary does two terms... not that long ago Bush Sr. wept on tv, ostensibly because Jeb had been unfaily treated in Florida, but I had the distinct impression he was weeping for Jeb's diminishing chances to hold the POTUS office because W's legacy is damaging...

Posted by: otter357 | July 25, 2007 6:44 PM

This is just crazy. As a Democrat I am offended that anyone would liken Bill Clinton's presidency, Mrs. Clinton's potential presidency with that of G.W. Bush's. Heck I'm offended that you'd liken it to Bush I! Bill Clinton was a great president and I am proud to have supported him, served him and helped push forward an agenda that truly helped this country. Certainly not perfect and don't agree with everything he did, but c'mon! If you support another Democrat, great, but let them gain the nomination based on MERIT and not knocking Mrs. Clinton. The right-wingers can do that for you. And I do not believe her nomination is a GOP wet dream, in fact I think they are scared to death of it. You all didn't live in NY in 1999-2000. Everyone said she was a carpetbagger, would never get elected, her negatives were too high and working woman didn't support her. Guess what???? She turned it all around and has been an excellent Senator. Is it too much to think she could do the same in the White House?

Posted by: polixter | July 25, 2007 7:42 PM

I'm a Democrat and I agree with the premise of the video, although it takes too long to send the message and weakens the argument by adding in Jeb, Chelsea and the twins. This country does not benefit when a few people hold power. Hillary has never truthfully answered the question of how her Presidency would not simply be a continuation of a Bill Clinton Presidency. It's almost an end run around Constitutional limits on Presidential terms. There are other options for President that don't bring this baggage with them and will better serve the nation in the end.

Posted by: GEVA | July 25, 2007 8:56 PM

GEVA's nailed it. Fellow Democrats: it's the baggage, stupid. Whitewater; Travel Office; Hillarycare; NAFTA; Chinese campaign contributions; late to Ruanda; late to Bosnia & Kosovo; missed Bin Laden; struck out on Israel/Palestine; the last-minute sleazo pardons. Not to mention Monica. Bill couldn't keep it in his pants, then tried to lie his way out - so he got impeached, and that led to losing the White House in 2000 (and whatever good Clinton did during his 8 years, Bush has erased). Hillary knew his horndog past, so when she backed him up, she was either a fool or lying to the country.

And her great Senate record? Nothing outweighs her acceding to the Iraq debacle.

Think the Republicans won't make hay of all that? If Hillary had the modesty to go for veep I'd respect her somewhat - but with the Clintons, it's ego first, never mind what's best for party or country.

Why would we want the 2008 election to be about all that - baggage?

Posted by: Bruce in Jersey | July 26, 2007 2:12 AM

I think you meant to point out the eight years of peace and prosperity.

The Good Friday accord ended The Troubles,
the Palestinian road map was drawn up during the Wye and Oslo accords. Things were in pretty good shape until the idiot took over in 2001.

Bosnia and Kosovo, late? Sorry we didn't make it there in time to kill them. We didn't lose a single soldier and the Balkans problem has been solved.

Whitewater - nothing
Travelgate - you have to be kidding.

Bring back Bill and Hillary and let the good times roll.

Posted by: Bruce in Jersey | July 26, 2007 1:56 PM

I think people are starting to learn that there is NO DIFFERENCE in the Bush or Clinton camp and that we need a person who is really in the know but not in the 'clique'.

Bush and Clinton are best buddies (via the CIA) and Hillary doesn't really intend to do anything but take your money while she waves the Marxist flag...

Please vote for a real American, one who isn't part of the shadow government, and who won't be manipulated by the CFR.

There is ONE, and if you do your homework you can find him in the lineup of R's, since he's the most popular candidate on the web. NH is voting for him.

Posted by: NH | July 26, 2007 2:41 PM

To the clueless, as the saying goes, there's not a dime's worth of difference, but they pretend there is so you'll think you have a choice.

Please vote ronpaul2008.com

He's #3 in fundraising and wins all the polls in NH.

Posted by: NH4RonPaul | July 26, 2007 2:43 PM

Tom Floccio was the first to bring this up. He even tosses in at least four of elder Reagan's years when then Vice President Bush seemed to be running things (a lot like Cheney is now). And he asks a question (and this from a liberal), 'Isn't it about time to end this two family dynasty?'

Posted by: Fascist Nation | July 27, 2007 3:53 PM

Bush/Clinton no difference. All CFR members. In fact all the "top tier" presidential candidates for 2008 form both parties are CFR members. Except one, Ron Paul. If you want real change, vote Ron Paul in your state's primary. I switched from Independent to Republican just so I can VOTE for Ron Paul in the Fla primary.

Posted by: Gabrielle, Orlando, Fla | July 29, 2007 11:47 PM

no-brainer, no votes for madam senator, any one naive enough to believe baby boy bush and vote for this God awful war deserves to go on vacation with the iraqi government. and starting a fight with obama and then sqauwking when he gets the best lines on you. pick on someone your own size, all the republicans, you have so much in common.

Posted by: e smythe | July 30, 2007 12:12 PM

Right, vote for Ron Paul, the faux libertarian who defends the freedom to choose to crack you skull open by not wearing seat belts or motorcycle helmets but who thinks women are too stupid to make their own reproductive choices and gay people are too immoral to make their own marriage decisions. Ron Paul, the candidate for young dumb straight white guys who are insecure about their masculinity and want everyone's lives regulated but their own.

Posted by: uh_huhh | July 30, 2007 10:19 PM

america has a higher re-election rate than the old USSR and the highest incarceration rate of any country on earth. land of the free, home the brave

Posted by: amerikkka | August 2, 2007 5:02 AM

At Least Bill was a great president of honesty and substance, hillary is a piece of garbage.

She can't even read for christ sakes and George W. Bush is even worse than any of the presidents all put together, even there all CFR Members, the worst of them all is defintely W.

In Fact he makes Nixon look like an angel.

I'm voting for Ron Paul in 2008.

Posted by: Afi K. James | August 5, 2007 2:59 PM

Iwill definitely be voting for Hilary and all Americans who remember how wonderful life was when Bill was our Pres will too. I believe that hilary is the most intelligent and experienced of all the candidates. Bill may have sullied the oval office a bit which is no one's business but his own, but not one of our precious youngsters died because of it. I guess that the Clintons just aren't the oil people that the Bush's are.
p.cox, Reno, NV

Posted by: Patricia A. Cox | August 9, 2007 1:36 PM

What a leap.

People who dislike her will thread any ridiculous thought together and their hate blinds their ability to be objective to her leadership qualities and ability to accomplish - rather than just "pitch" ideas.

I LOVE the way Madame President sounds. She's going to the Whitehouse and I'm going to help put her there!

Get ready for a revolutionary leadership that encompasses rational with compassion and leaves a legacy of accomplishment, dignity and seeds of growth that will continue decades beyond her administration.

People who dislike her aren't going to be swayed by anything in my posting. But at that moment in the voting booth - when it's just you and your better judgment - when you have just yourself to answer to - you know in your heart that she's a candidate who can get things done, will elevate the US in their global relations and will leave your world and the world of your family better than she found it. Go ahead, pull the trigger for your girl. You don't have to tell your buddies that you did the right thing (they'll do it too but won't admit it). Just watch the numbers roll in on election night.

But 4 years later, you'll know. A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for a progressive American future. Nothing like the mess we're in now. GWB blew it and the Republican's don't have a prayer (literally) this go around.

Posted by: Hill/Billy2008 | August 14, 2007 7:09 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2007 The Washington Post Company