The New York Times has published an article about the various distant relationships of the presidential candidates. Writing in "Six Degrees (at Least) of Contenders for President," New York Times reporter Cate Doty noted, "In other words, the revelations did what they were meant to do, which was to spread a little publicity for a nonprofit group that revels in historic minutia...".
I was pleased when the reporter also quoted me in the last paragraph of her article.
You can read "Six Degrees (at Least) of Contenders for President" on the New York Times' web site at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/31/business/media/31ancestry.html?ref=media.
Congratulations, Dick, on being quoted in the Times. That's one for your Family Tree notebooks!!!!
Posted by: Jan | March 31, 2008 at 02:50 AM
My husband and I laughed when we heard about this article. I've been doing our genealogies for years, and realized early on that his ancestors and my ancestors were contemporaries in several different places, making it very likely our families have actually known one another over and over again. My husband's brother and his wife have discovered that they are cousins a few times removed. Yes, I think we're all related when it comes right down to it.
Posted by: Charlotte | March 31, 2008 at 02:56 PM
I loved your comment! Especially since I recently discovered that my son-in-law is related to my husband's daughter-in-law. My son-in-law doesn't like this person so when I toldhim she was his X-cousin X times removed, his comment was, "And, she can stay removed!" I love it!
Posted by: Kat Wolf | March 31, 2008 at 07:58 PM
Yes, this was a clever marketing gimmick, but really nothing more than a sound byte. Like they say "If you want your genealogy done for free...run for public office!"
Posted by: Dan Lynch | April 01, 2008 at 03:31 PM