The Clinton Co-Presidency

I've been thinking that the real importance of Bill's "energetic" interventions on behalf of Hillary has less to do with his controversial statements and more to do with a growing perception that he is running for co-president. The real 'Bill problem' might be that he is starting to turn people off to the idea of Hillary in the White House, because whatever they might feel about her, they don't want Bill in the White House.  He's not some non-descript Mr. Thatcher--he's a former president of the United States with some bones to pick, and he will not stand meekly by. Gary Wills makes that point in today's NYT:

One problem with the George W. Bush administration is that it has brought a kind of plural presidency in through the back door. Vice President Dick Cheney has run his own executive department, with its own intelligence and military operations, not open to scrutiny, as he hides behind the putative president.

No other vice president in our history has taken on so many presidential prerogatives, with so few checks. He is an example of the very thing James Wilson was trying to prevent by having one locus of authority in the executive. The attempt to escape single responsibility was perfectly exemplified when his counsel argued that Mr. Cheney was not subject to executive rules because he was also part of the legislature.

We have seen in this campaign how former President Clinton rushes to the defense of presidential candidate Clinton. Will that pattern of protection be continued into the new presidency, with not only his defending her but also her defending whatever he might do in his energetic way while she’s in office? It seems likely. And at a time when we should be trying to return to the single-executive system the Constitution prescribes, it does not seem to be a good idea to put another co-president in the White House.

This could be a theme to be developed in Obama's favor if Hillary doesn't take steps to rein Bill in.  Is he rein-inable?  It's not about his role as 'heavy', but about whether he's controllable. He may be doing everything he does with Hillary's approval; nevertheless,  he makes Hillary look weak insofar as she is unable to tie down her loose cannon of a husband, and this could sour a lot of people who might otherwise want to vote for her.  Not sure about that, but it's something to consider.

Comments

[Matt Zemek]

Hopefully, the double-teaming of Obama along subtle and not-so-subtle racial lines, which has clearly resulted in the Kennedy clan's endorsement, is and will be an indicator of a real shift in significant portions of the Democratic Party voter base.

"In the name of the Father, and of the son"--Ted Kennedy anointing Obama makes that phrasing literally true on a number of levels.

Now it's up to the Holy Spirit...

[anon]

Obama is still getting romped in the polling thus far:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

Nevertheless, Kennedy's endorsement should help a little (although it's hard to see Obama making up an over 30 pt. deficit in Massachusetts in particular even with the endorsement). One final note. Is it just me, or has MSNBC gone completely off the deep-end and become a twenty-four infomercial for Obama. Chris Matthews basically salivates at the mouth every time he speaks about Obama, and they constantly reference the passing of the torch between Kennedy and Obama, as if Kennedy, the exemplar of nepotism, holds on kind of torch whatsoever.

If I were Hillary Clinton, I would seriously consider the same kind of deal Rupert Murdoch made with Tony Blair in trying to garner favorable media coverage against the stench and bias of MSNBC.

[anon]

With regard to Kennedy, how can any self-respecting Catholic support a guy who voted for the right of doctors to let babies who survive abortion procedures to withhold medical treatment or nourishment from that innocent life?

Where are Kennedy's moral principles? Is he really a Catholic or does he just use it? Abortion is a difficult issue, but killing babies outside the womb is morally incomprehensible.

[Matt Zemek]

Anon -

Are you saying what you're saying just for theater and effect, or because you didn't know about Ted Kennedy's private life?

(It's been a longstanding point of public record that his stream of failed marriages, annulments and other embarrassments--aside of Mary Jo Kopeckne, of course--have rendered Uncle Ted as a nominal Catholic in terms of his private practice.)

I would add that it's disingenuous to be lighting into Obama and/or Obama supporters when Hillary is fundamentally standing on the same basic terrain.

If you wanted to explore an actual DIFFERENCE between the two candidates, Hillary is a hawk and Obama not a hawk. That's a salient moral issue to bring up here.

[anon]

"If you wanted to explore an actual DIFFERENCE between the two candidates, Hillary is a hawk and Obama not a hawk. That's a salient moral issue to bring up here."

How is Hillary a hawk when she has said numerous times that she wants to get all (or nearly all) American troops out of Iraq by the end of the year? The difference between the two is that one has shown leadership and persistence in a cause (Healthcare; SCHIP) whereas the other has not shown leadership on any issue or in any cause in his whole public life. Of course, while Obama did take the over 130 votes of 'present' (abstention) during his time in the Illinois State Legislature, he did think it worth his while to take the time to vote to give the right of doctors to kill babies outside the womb.

The only way I see any Republican beating the Democrats is if a terrorist attack occurs. This is compounded by the notion presented by Pat Buchanan: that if Obama were to be the nominee, are the American people going to trust a community organizer (he's spent most of his time in the Senate as running for president) to take over the military in a time of crises?