One of the reasons progressive voters often give for their tepid support of Hillary Clinton's candidacy is "the United States doesn't do dynasties." That's a valid concern, and the thought of 32 years of absolute political power in the United States alternating between two families makes me more than a little uneasy. But, describing the Clintons as some dynastic line in American politics strikes me as a bit unfair.
Bush the first and Bush the lesser descend from Prescott Bush, a two-term US Senator who before public service held a string of high-profile manufacturing positions before becoming a powerful investment banker and serving on the board of CBS. (Much has been made of his ties to Nazi industrialists; less well-known is his early leadership of both the United Negro College Fund and Planned Parenthood. A study in contradictions, this one.) His father was a railroad and steel executive and also a federal government official in charge of coordination and assistance to major weapons contractors. In other words, this is a family that has always walked the corridors of power.
Bill Clinton, on the other hand, was the son of a traveling salesman and adopted son of a partner in a car dealership. Hillary Clinton's father was a small business owner and her mother was a stay at home mom. This is hardly the stuff of dynastic legacy; in fact, it looks a lot like the plain ol' salt of the earth middle America that we consider to be the barometer of virtue in this country.
I'm pretty much in the "I'll vote for Hillary if they nominate her" camp; but at this point I'll vote for a defrosted Stouffer's microwave lasagna before I vote for a Republican. However, I don't think fear of an American dynasty is a reason not to vote for her; the Clintons look less like a dynasty than a couple of people who busted their humps to make something happen.
Then again, who the hell knows what Chelsea has in mind...