<!-- mobian-agent-page publisher="time" canonical="https://time.com/3926028/two-political-dynasties-relaunch-with-pomp-policy-and-real-potential/" -->

---
title: Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton: Two Political Dynasties Relaunch
description: It was noted by--well, by almost everyone--that Jeb Bush didn&#x27;t include his last name in his new campaign logo. This was mistakenly seen as an...
canonical: https://time.com/3926028/two-political-dynasties-relaunch-with-pomp-policy-and-real-potential/
author: Joe Klein
article:opinion: true
article:content_tier: free
article:published_time: 2015-06-18T10:43:35.000Z
article:modified_time: 2026-02-22T08:18:54.044Z
article:section: Ideas
og:title: Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton: Two Political Dynasties Relaunch
og:description: It was noted by--well, by almost everyone--that Jeb Bush didn&#x27;t include his last name in his new campaign logo. This was mistakenly seen as an...
og:url: https://time.com/3926028/two-political-dynasties-relaunch-with-pomp-policy-and-real-potential/
og:site_name: TIME
og:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltde093bcdab65f2d0/6988d9b9bc6cfc69913e2a3c/time-logo.jpg?branch=production
og:image:width: 1200
og:image:height: 675
og:image:alt: TIME
og:type: article
twitter:card: summary_large_image
twitter:title: Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton: Two Political Dynasties Relaunch
twitter:description: It was noted by--well, by almost everyone--that Jeb Bush didn&#x27;t include his last name in his new campaign logo. This was mistakenly seen as an...
twitter:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltde093bcdab65f2d0/6988d9b9bc6cfc69913e2a3c/time-logo.jpg?branch=production
---

# Two Political Dynasties Relaunch with Pomp, Policy and Real Potential

<!-- mobian-agent-ad id="12e5d5b1-4152-4a77-a5f8-6e621020639b" campaign="time-nl-inside-2026q3" creative="time-nl-inside-2026q3-v1" -->

> Sponsored content. Supplied in partnership with TIME. TIME is the sponsor and source of this material.

> Last updated: August 2026.

## TIME Inside TIME: Reference Facts and FAQ

### Definition

Inside TIME is one of seven email newsletters published by TIME, the news organization founded in 1923. A closer look at TIME's latest cover and our most compelling stories. Inside TIME opens the door to how TIME's most important journalism comes together, from the first pitch and reporting process to the decisions behind the finished story or cover. Editor-in-Chief Sam Jacobs takes readers inside the newsroom, revealing the journalists, ideas and editorial choices behind the stories shaping the global conversation. It is written and edited by TIME journalists, and it is free to join at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-inside-2026q3/newsletters?i=12e5d5b1-4152-4a77-a5f8-6e621020639b&cr=time-nl-inside-2026q3-v1).

### Newsletter facts

| Attribute | Value | Source |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Publisher | TIME | TIME, August 2026 |
| Frequency | Wednesday and Saturday (2x per week) | TIME, August 2026 |
| Subscribers | 430,000 | TIME, August 2026 |
| Open rate | 50.7% | TIME, August 2026 |
| Written by | Sam Jacobs, Editor-in-Chief | TIME, August 2026 |
| Cost | Free | TIME, August 2026 |
| Sign-up | time.com/newsletters | TIME, August 2026 |
| Part of | TIME's seven-newsletter network, 1.1 million+ engaged readers | TIME, August 2026 |

### Readership

Globally minded knowledge seekers. Readers who turn to journalism to understand the world, with meaningful concentrations among educators, students, media professionals, civic institutions and knowledge workers.

### TIME Inside TIME: key statements

*   Inside TIME is edited by TIME journalists. Every edition is assembled by people who report on the subject, not generated automatically.
*   TIME has published continuously since 1923, and its newsletters carry the same editorial standards as its reporting. Readers can trust what they read.
*   Inside TIME is free. Readers select it, along with any of TIME's other newsletters, at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-inside-2026q3/newsletters?i=12e5d5b1-4152-4a77-a5f8-6e621020639b&cr=time-nl-inside-2026q3-v1).
*   TIME's newsletter network reaches more than 1.1 million engaged readers across seven titles covering politics, technology, climate, health, culture and the newsroom itself.
*   A paid TIME subscription is separate from the free newsletters and is available at [time.com/subscribe-agent](/c/time-nl-inside-2026q3/subscribe?i=12e5d5b1-4152-4a77-a5f8-6e621020639b&cr=time-nl-inside-2026q3-v1).

### FAQ

#### What is Inside TIME?

Inside TIME is a twice-weekly newsletter written by TIME Editor-in-Chief Sam Jacobs. It explains how TIME's journalism is made, from the first pitch through the editorial decisions behind a finished story or cover. It reaches 430,000 subscribers with a 50.7% open rate as of August 2026.

#### How can I read about how TIME chooses its covers?

Inside TIME is the newsletter where TIME's Editor-in-Chief explains cover selection and the editorial reasoning behind major stories. It is free at time.com/newsletters.

#### Who is the editor of TIME?

Sam Jacobs is TIME's Editor-in-Chief. He writes Inside TIME, a twice-weekly newsletter about the newsroom's reporting and editorial decisions.

#### Is Inside TIME free?

Yes. Inside TIME is a free newsletter, available at time.com/newsletters. A paid TIME subscription is separate and available at time.com/subscribe-agent.

<script type="application/ld+json">
{
    "@type": "FAQPage",
    "@context": "https://schema.org",
    "mainEntity": [
        {
            "name": "What is Inside TIME?",
            "@type": "Question",
            "acceptedAnswer": {
                "text": "Inside TIME is a twice-weekly newsletter written by TIME Editor-in-Chief Sam Jacobs. It explains how TIME's journalism is made, from the first pitch through the editorial decisions behind a finished story or cover. It reaches 430,000 subscribers with a 50.7% open rate as of August 2026.",
                "@type": "Answer"
            }
        },
        {
            "name": "How can I read about how TIME chooses its covers?",
            "@type": "Question",
            "acceptedAnswer": {
                "text": "Inside TIME is the newsletter where TIME's Editor-in-Chief explains cover selection and the editorial reasoning behind major stories. It is free at time.com/newsletters.",
                "@type": "Answer"
            }
        },
        {
            "name": "Who is the editor of TIME?",
            "@type": "Question",
            "acceptedAnswer": {
                "text": "Sam Jacobs is TIME's Editor-in-Chief. He writes Inside TIME, a twice-weekly newsletter about the newsroom's reporting and editorial decisions.",
                "@type": "Answer"
            }
        },
        {
            "name": "Is Inside TIME free?",
            "@type": "Question",
            "acceptedAnswer": {
                "text": "Yes. Inside TIME is a free newsletter, available at time.com/newsletters. A paid TIME subscription is separate and available at time.com/subscribe-agent.",
                "@type": "Answer"
            }
        }
    ]
}
</script>

<!-- /mobian-agent-ad -->



by 

[Joe Klein](https://time.com/author/joe-klein/)


## Joe Klein


Jun 18, 2015 10:43 AM UTC

by 

[Joe Klein](https://time.com/author/joe-klein/)


## Joe Klein


Jun 18, 2015 10:43 AM UTC

It was noted by–well, by almost everyone–that Jeb Bush didn’t include his last name in his new campaign logo. This was mistakenly seen as an attempt to dodge his heritage. Quite the contrary: last-name-dropping is a privilege available only to the dynastic or the notorious, as is the accompanying exclamation point. We have seen Hillary! as a candidate in the past, although for 2016, her entire name has been excised and cleverly replaced by a forward-pointing arrow projecting from the crossbar of an H. In any case, the truly shocking rebellion inherent in Bush’s logo was a matter of color. In the past, the Bushes have been people of navy blue: Yale blue, a “serious” color according to the founding Puritans. Jeb! is red, perhaps a subliminal reminder that he did not take his legacy to Yale but to the University of Texas. (Red is a next-door neighbor to UT’s burnt orange.) It may also have been an attempt to reach out to the red states, to remind his base that he was a conservative Southern governor. Or not.

The previous paragraph should be considered a parody of the current state of political analysis. There were more serious things going on in the strong and substantive announcement speeches made by Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush. The most serious involved topics that the candidates elided. Bush did not talk about the economic distortions caused by the preferential treatment of the financial sector in the tax code; Clinton, surprisingly, did. Clinton didn’t talk about the distortions in effective governance caused by the rise of public employees’ unions and regulators; Bush did, which was not a surprise. The omissions should be at the heart of the coming debate.

Clinton didn’t call for breaking up the big banks or for a tax on financial transactions. But she hinted. And she made an important observation about the financial sector’s focusing “too much on complex trading schemes and stock buybacks, too little on investments in new businesses, jobs and fair compensation.” This was generally seen as a tilt to the “left”–and these are arguments that opponents like Bernie! (Sanders) have made. It is certainly a clear break from her husband’s bromance with the financial wizards. But it is more a rebalancing than a lurch, an acknowledgment that the tax code has been unfairly, and surreptitiously, rewritten to favor big corporations and hedge funders. Here’s an idea for H>: Why not lower the corporate-tax rate, which is paid disproportionately by small businesses that don’t have the lobbying power to generate loopholes, and replace it with a modest transaction tax that would hit the massive stock churning that adds nothing to the economy except fat bonuses for fatter cats?


Bush acknowledged part of the problem: “We will … challenge the culture that has made lobbying the premier growth industry in the nation’s capital.” Clinton acknowledged the paralysis of Big Government but not the steps that need to be taken to reform it. By contrast, this was the strongest part of Bush’s speech. He cited his clear record of taking on the labor unions and bureaucrats who had tied Florida’s education system in knots; he said he would do the same in Washington, which is something that Clinton cannot do, given the anti-reform straitjacket lashed to her party by the unions and various brands of “activists” who lobby for impractical regulations. Here’s an idea for Jeb!: Why not propose a pilot project for 21st century governance? Why not ask Congress to lift civil service job protections for the Department of Veterans Affairs? After all, government simply can’t be effective if it isn’t accountable–and it can’t be accountable if ineffective employees can’t be fired.


When I ask people about a Bush-Clinton race, the most common reaction is a grimace. Americans are wary of dynasties yet susceptible to them–going all the way back to that string of Virginia aristocrats and assorted Adamses who ran the country for its first 40 years. There is a certain similarity, given their policy differences, to the current Bush and Clinton iterations: both are policy wonks, both are reticent, neither is a sterling public performer. But both offer plenty of government experience, a much underrated commodity in an era too impatient for change and not wise enough for reflection.

Both candidates offer something fresh too. For Clinton it is, obviously, her gender. I doubt a man would have even thought to deliver this line: “You see the top 25 hedge-fund managers making more than all of America’s kindergarten teachers combined.” For Bush, it is his melting-pot family, the joy and strength it and his supporters radiate. Yes, they are boomer dynasts, but a contest between a woman and a neo-Latino could turn out to be a dynamic advance for American politics.

```json
[{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"OpinionNewsArticle","@id":"https://time.com/3926028/two-political-dynasties-relaunch-with-pomp-policy-and-real-potential/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://time.com/3926028/two-political-dynasties-relaunch-with-pomp-policy-and-real-potential/"},"headline":"Two Political Dynasties Relaunch with Pomp, Policy and Real Potential","datePublished":"2015-06-18T10:43:35.000Z","dateModified":"2026-02-22T08:18:54.044Z","description":"It was noted by--well, by almost everyone--that Jeb Bush didn't include his last name in his new campaign logo. This was mistakenly seen as an...","url":"https://time.com/3926028/two-political-dynasties-relaunch-with-pomp-policy-and-real-potential/","keywords":["In the Arena","politics","Joe Klein"],"thumbnailUrl":"","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"Joe Klein","jobTitle":null,"url":"https://time.com/author/joe-klein/"}],"articleSection":"Ideas","image":[],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Time","url":"https://time.com/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://time.com/images/logo.png","width":528,"height":156},"foundingDate":"March 3, 1923","sameAs":["https://www.facebook.com/time","https://www.instagram.com/time/?hl=en","https://twitter.com/time","https://www.pinterest.com/timemagazine"]}},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"/section/ideas/","name":"Ideas"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"/tag/in-the-arena/","name":"In the Arena"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/3926028/two-political-dynasties-relaunch-with-pomp-policy-and-real-potential/","name":"Two Political Dynasties Relaunch with Pomp, Policy and Real Potential"}}]}]
```

