Yes, one seems worse than the other. Partly because there's more history behind Bush, partly because we don't like conservatives. That doesn't change the fact that the odds of a husband and wife tandem being elected to the presidency should be extremely remote. That doesn't change the fact that the Clintons have amassed tremendous wealth as a result of their political careers (which, after so many millions, makes me recoil when I hear her compare her public service to teachers, firefighters, etc. Noooooo).
Time travel me back to 2000 and ask adult me if I'd be OK or repulsed by a law that prohibited family members of former presidents from being eligible for the presidency, I would've said I'm OK with that. Sounds like a check & balance situation to me. I mean, I understand that it would never happen but, if it did, I wouldn't be able to roll my eyes hard enough at anybody who decries the law for being oppressive or unfair to family members of former presidents.
I think it should've been a priority of the Democratic party for the past while to shuffle things up a bit. Her defeat in '08 should have triggered the party to move on and groom others. Instead, it kinda feels like the party has revolved around her since the election talk kicked up.