As Daniel Politi points out, Kristof's op-ed for the Times isn't exactly the first time we've herad the issue of a potential Bush-Clinton Presidential monopoly of 24-28 years discussed, though Kristof's clearly pleased to be bringing it to we, the dear readers', attentions. The link to Hendrik Hertzberg's New Yorker "Comment" from October ["does he really think the issue hasn't been discussed?"] will lead you to a nice little Hertzbergian -- smart, reasonable, always well-written, never memorable -- from October 29, 2007. Hertzberg acknowledges that "a cover story in the Economist a couple of weeks ago," but The Economist has actually been talking about a Clinton-Bush White House lock for longer than that.

The magazine's May 10, 2007, edition "United States" section included a long piece on the two-family system that got it right, right away, long before Hertzberg, Kristof, et al.

Slate Research Interns' Punishment: 2 weeks exile to the Condi/Hillary/Nancy Pelosi couture beat.