Andrew Sullivan writes:

The idea of America being run by two families for two decades is anathema to
such conservatives, as it is to many liberals. There is something inherently
corrupting about it - not just corrupting of them, but corrupting of us. The
experience of such power - presiding over the most powerful nation in modern
history - cannot but corrupt; and our decision to delegate real decisions to
various royal families while boning up on the latest news from Britney Spears is
a sign of real decadence. In a war this dangerous, it's positively reckless,
especially given the vast new neo-monarchical powers this administration has
seized and will, in large part, bequeath to the next president. We have learned
how one such succession has worked out. We should be extremely leery of another.

I am sympathetic to the concern about the emergence of the dynastic presidency. But it rings pretty hollow for me when folks who had no problem ignoring the current President's lineage trot it out as some kind of automatic disqualifier against Hillary Clinton.

With the increasing consolidation of mass information channels and the importance of campaign fundraising, the incumbency advantage continues to grow in strength. This makes it doubly important to ensure related candidates are actually qualified and sufficiently experienced on their own terms, and not simply a figment created by the previous President's friends looking to get themselves back in good favor.

That said, I think Hillary Clinton has passed that bar. To those who bemoan her as simply a junior Senator, I would remind them that her two main competitors have together won as many statewide elections. As for the rest of her resume, it is to voters to decide whether they prefer eight years in the White House to 20 years as a trial lawyer or a decade as a community organizer. All three have fundamentally different backgrounds, but I think they are all equally valid in assessing the formation of that candidate.