Dear New York Times

A dynasty, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is "a succession of rulers of the same line or family."

So, you see, it's kind of hard to talk about the Clinton "dynasty," especially in the same sentence where you talk about the Bush dynasty.

The Bush family has produced a powerful Senator (Prescott, the current President's grandfather), a Congressman/Ambassador/CIA head/Vice-President/President (George H.W., the current President's father), governors of two large states (George W. and Jeb), and the current President (George W.). And that's just the big political accomplishments, and not all the Barbara-Bush-is-distantly-related-to-Franklin-Pierce nonsense, or the plum appointments given to cousins and the like.

The Clintons? Bill has the longest resume: governor of tiny Arkansas, President for two terms. Hillary is a first-term Senator, albeit from a large and powerful state. And that's it. Period.

These two lists of political achievements are hardly equivalent. It would be like comparing, say, Oliver Cromwell's "dynasty" alongside the Tudor Dynasty. It's just stupid.