experience. It will frequently draw the wrong lesson from errors. The Bush presidency is living proof of how and why 'dynasties' fail and the destructive potential of nepotism for a society. This doesn't mean that experience cannot be valuable to those capable of learning from it. It wasn't experience or lack thereof that made Bush a poor president. He is a man that would have had difficulty being elected dog catcher if it weren't for the power and influence of his family. Whatever else anyone wishes to say about Bill Clinton they must admit that he climbed to the heights he reached on his own. It's probably more Bushs' lack of resourcefulness, talent, and character that attracted the arrogant circle that worked behind the scenes to get their boy elected. They concluded correctly that he would be of little or no threat to their agenda because he didn't have a mind or idea of his own.