The Clintons are a political couple, certainly, but not a dynasty. Think what people may of the Clintons, love them or hate them, but as pedantic as this may be as I've said before I cannot consider them a real dynasty (yet). A dynasty implies a line of power that stretches more than a generation. Chelsea is influential, sure, but she isn't a politician (for now). Would it have been more difficult for Hillary Clinton to rise to her current position if she wasn't Bill Clinton's wife? Almost certainly. Does Hillary have a large base of support, funding, and so on thanks to her husband? Obviously. But that's all there is, in terms of relations - a simple marriage does not make a dynasty. The Bushes are certainly a dynasty - they've had high-ranking politicians for, what, four or five generations now?
Alas, this knee-jerk reaction to dynastic political families in America is something that I find understandable but ultimately amusing. Political dynasties have always been around in America, like it or not. Who remembers the Adams, the Tafts, the Roosevelts, the Kennedys, the Rockefellers? These families all had way more people in their family in high positions of power than the Clintons will likely have in my lifetime. I bet you in some alternate universe we've already had four or five Kennedy Presidents. If the Clintons have to be a dynasty, then they're relatively miniscule in comparison.
But I suppose it doesn't really matter. People will view the Clintons as if they've had a century-long reign over America, and so be it.
probably, as smart and driven BC is.
