It was during the 1992 campaign that candidate Bill Clinton first noted that with his well-informed, highly motivated spouse, the nation could enjoy the prospect of having two presidents for the price of one by electing him.
Once elected, Clinton put his potential co-president in charge of reforming the nation’s health care and the rest is history both Clintons would just as soon forget.
But now, as the second Clinton maintains her strong position in the race for the Democratic nomination, the two presidents for the price of one prospect is being raised once again and not necessarily as a good thing. Even those who regret the constitutional amendment that prevented Bill Clinton from being elected a third time in 2000 and saving the country from all that followed are a tad uneasy about his reincarnation as a first gentleman/co-president/ambassador to the world or whatever.
Even if Bill Clinton could become a really splendid presidential partner — and there can be no guarantee of that — the idea of two presidents Clinton has the ring of one too many.
As The New York Times reported Sunday, the former president appears to be performing well in his role as adviser, cheerleader, fundraiser and reminder of the good things that happened in his two terms but this does not necessarily guarantee a similarly stellar bit of role playing once she — and he — are installed in the White House.
On top of all that, we have the wholly unpleasant reality that in electing Hillary Clinton, we will have created a dynasty composed, as Joe Klein put it in the current Time, of two “strange” families.
Since 1989, we have lived through the presidencies of people named Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush and Bush. The election and the hoped for success of Hillary could extend that line to Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton and maybe Clinton again.
That would add up to our being presided over by those two families until January 2017. That is a period as long as the presidencies of Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.
But it could be worse. Consider a presidential succession that reads Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush and Giuliani.
So I suppose having 2 Clinton co-presidents in the White House would be godawful. What if Clinton1 "had" another intern? What if Clinton2 didn't agree with Clinton1 on policy?
Besides that, can you imagine how namby-pamby and wishy-washy and faux-moderate policies would emit from this pair? It would be like having a more honest and ethical Guiliani that didn't have to kowtow to the Christian right.
Posted by: Charley on May 14, 2007 6:58 PMI think we should just elect a real person, a corporation, and be done with the whole charade.
Posted by: Buck on May 14, 2007 8:33 PMI suspect it's a law of nature that presidents have to come from "strange"families.If you come from a Leave it to Beaver type of family, you don't grow up to be the kind of person (i.e. a crazy person, at some level) who would do the necessary to become president. Of this country anyway. What we have set up is an obstacle course to the White House that no honest, decent, sensible and intelligent person could possibly succeed at. That's why the best candidates in so many presidential campaigns flame out before they get their party's nomination and if nominated, get defeated. If a politician ever actually told the truth, unremittingly and fearlessly, we wouldn't vote for him. We demand to be lied to and we punish any candidate who won't do it.
Posted by: CCRyder on May 14, 2007 9:15 PMDon't personalize this -- personalities are a distraction. The problem is with the weird phenomenon of two-party corporatism.
Posted by: Martha Bridegam on May 15, 2007 1:01 AM