June 20, 2007

Democratic Fire Sale Renewed

Remember the 1992 presidential campaign, and the two-for-one deal offered by Bill Clinton? A vote for Bill also got Hillary as a bonus. Now, Carl Bernstein tells the London Telegraph, Hillary has renewed the offer -- but Bill will run the White House behind the scenes.

At Heading Right, I look at the implications of this end-run around the 22nd Amendment. If Bill has better political judgment than Hillary, then why isn't the Democratic Party looking for a President who can stand on his/her own two feet instead?

UPDATE: 22nd Amendment, not 25th. Back to civics class! Thanks to CQ commenter AA for the correction.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/cq082307.cgi/10291

Comments (21)

Posted by jay | June 20, 2007 7:10 AM

I am wondering why the Dems don't put Bill in as president of the DNC. He is probably the best politician that the Dems have had since JFK or FDR. Also he wouldn't make 1/10th as many gaffs as Howard Dean.

Posted by Hagar | June 20, 2007 7:26 AM

I thought she was going to make him Attorney General so as to ensure the Justice Dept. freedom from undue political influences?

Posted by Monkei | June 20, 2007 7:48 AM

Gosh if only Laura was running the WH behind the scenes!

Posted by Keemo | June 20, 2007 7:53 AM

While we are at it; remember this...

Terrorist pilot Mohammad Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree to release so-called "political prisoners."

However, the Israelis would not release any prisoners with blood on their hands.

The American President at the time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, "insisted" that all such prisoners be released.

Thus Mohammad Atta was freed.

Posted by starfleet_dude | June 20, 2007 8:08 AM

I'd take Bill Clinton as a shadow President any day over Dick Cheney.

Posted by Bachbone | June 20, 2007 8:30 AM

According to the two recent books about St. Hillary, she's a lot like Jimmy Carter - can't delegate much of anything. In addition, she rather enjoys the pithiness found in bashing opponents' heads to a bloody pulp. Slick Willie might be given a figurehead assignment, but St. Hillary would dictate his every move and have his Secret Service handlers reporting back to her every hour as to what Slick did to and with whom.

Posted by starfleet_dude | June 20, 2007 8:44 AM

Keemo, what you're recalling is actually a case of mistaken identity. From Wikipedia:

Initially, Mohamed Atta's identity was confused with that of a native Jordanian, Mahmoud Mahmoud Atta, who bombed a bus in 1986 on the Arab-occupied West Bank, killing one and severely injuring three. Mahmoud Mahmoud Atta, a naturalized U.S. citizen, was subsequently deported from Venezuela to the United States, extradited to Israel, tried and sentenced to life in prison. The Israeli supreme court later overturned his extradition and set him free; his whereabouts are unknown. He is 14 years older than Mohamed Atta. After the September 11 attacks, a general furor arose over the supposed failure of immigration authorities and the U.S. intelligence community to stop a known terrorist from entering the country under his true name. Eventually, The Boston Globe reported details from records at the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals detailing the detention and subsequent extradition of Mahmoud Mahmoud Atta from the U.S.

Posted by prolix | June 20, 2007 10:06 AM

Small quibble: I think the amendment you meant to cite is the 22nd, which establishes Presidential term limits. The 25th deals with succession and the the position of Vice President.

Posted by AA | June 20, 2007 10:21 AM

25th or 22nd?

Posted by John | June 20, 2007 11:08 AM

The really cynical view is that Hillary is saying this mainly to assuage nervous Democratic Party voters who remember her health care debacle, and that once sworn into office, she'll treat Bill in about the same manner Lyndon Johnson treated Hubert Humphrey while president, keeping him as far away from any real power in order to avoid having to share the limelight with her more personable husband.

If that's true, than even Bill may be in for a surprise after Jan. 20, 2009, as his wife's control-freak nature reaches its natural conclusion after she achieves the ultimate goal. Of course, since there would then be a 2012 election to think about, if the first year or so of a Hillary administration went about as well as Bill's first two years did, there's always the chance that down the line she would need him as much as he needed her after the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and you could see another deal between the Clintons simply for political convenience.

Posted by Monkei | June 20, 2007 11:23 AM

Keemo, what you're recalling is actually a case of mistaken identity. From Wikipedia:

Don't let truth ever get in the way when one is bashing Bill Clinton.

Posted by The Fop | June 20, 2007 11:26 AM

When the 22nd amendment was ratified, I'm sure no one thought that a woman would ever become president. If they did, I would think that there would be a good chance that they would add a caveat to the amendment saying that the husband or wife of a former president could not run for president, as it would constitute a co-presidency that could run for a total of four terms.

You could make the same argument about two brothers or a father and a son becoming president, but it's not the same thing as a husband and a wife, for the same reason that a husband can't testify against their wife in a courtroom. The first lady occupies the White House along with the president. I have no problem with George W. Bush taking his wife's opinions into consideration when making decisions. But Laura Bush should not be able to put her two cents in for eight years and then run for president herself and have a former president putting his two cents in during her presidency.

It would be one thing if she got a divorce or if her husband died, but as long as they're still married, it shouldn't be allowed.

Posted by Keemo | June 20, 2007 12:21 PM

There are (3) different stories regarding Atta's involvement with the 1986 bus bombing floating around the internet; all three are conflicting.

This is the story I read recently:

http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/newsweekpentagonalert.htm

monkei;

You readily accuse Bush of everything from taking the "worst president" honors away from Carter, to killing American soldiers on purpose, referring to them as "meat"; but yet you give Clinton a pass on having been weak regarding the threat that OBL and AQ... OBL and AQ had been attacking and killing Americans for at least 10 years prior to the Bush presidency, but yet you give Clinton a pass.

"Don't let the truth get in the way"; seems to apply to most of us quite frankly... I admit guilt in this area, that is for sure. My blinders are coming off rapidly though, with this bullshit shamnesty bill getting pushed by both parties...

Posted by Hagar | June 20, 2007 12:36 PM

Bill and Hillary come as a pair; like Ma and Pa Ferguson of Texas fame.

Posted by starfleet_dude | June 20, 2007 12:42 PM

Keemo, the article you cite was dated September 24th, 2001 and subsequent reports corrected the case of mistaken identity, as noted in Wikipedia.

Posted by Del Dolemonte | June 20, 2007 1:36 PM

starfleet_dude sez:

"I'd take Bill Clinton as a shadow President any day over Dick Cheney."

LOL, you forget to include the "H" word, Scotty.

By the way, tell us about those no-bid contracts Bill Clinton gave to Halliburton during his war of choice in Kosovo...

Posted by Monkei | June 20, 2007 2:16 PM

You readily accuse Bush of everything from taking the "worst president" honors away from Carter

No, you are wrong there, he is the worst president since Hoover, not Carter. Carter was the worst president BEFORE Bush II and after Ford.

I am not aware that I ever said Bush killed American soldiers on purpose, if I did I was wrong and misquoted. I do think he is an idiot and bullheaded and unwilling to accept wrong decisions on so many levels and on so many issues. I am sure he does not want to kill American soldiers on purpose though.

but yet you give Clinton a pass.

Both have had problems, Bush's problems have been intelligence and intelligent issues, Clinton's has been moral. How does that work for you. Maybe, if we had Clinton's intelligence with Bush's morals we would be better off?

By the way, tell us about those no-bid contracts Bill Clinton gave to Halliburton during his war of choice in Kosovo...

Gee Pineapple ... what are you saying here, that Bush is as bad as Clinton, or Clinton is as bad as Bush?

Posted by AA | June 20, 2007 3:40 PM

UPDATE: 22nd Amendment, not 25th. Back to civics class! Thanks to CQ commenter AA for the correction.


A personal acknowledgement from Captain Ed! OMG. I’m not worthy.

Now if I could just get James Lileks to use one of my contributions. A guy can dream…

Posted by Del Dolemonte | June 20, 2007 11:28 PM

monkei said:

"Bush's problems have been intelligence and intelligent issues, Clinton's has been moral. How does that work for you. Maybe, if we had Clinton's intelligence with Bush's morals we would be better off?"

Maybe if Clinton had been less distracted by "moral issues", bin Laden wouldn''t have been so pissed off at him? Ozzie actually wanted to pull off the attacks before Clinton left office. Atta said they needed more time to train. He was right.

You also conveniently forget the simple fact that Clinton could just as easily been fooling around with an "intern" who was really an intelligence operative from another country.

As for insulting Bush's intelligence, please! You're like an old TV show repeat from 2002.

And as for Halliburton, Lydnon Johnson was worse than both of them combined, as he jumped into bed with the firm in 1936. His widow Lady Bird is still a member of their Board of Directors.

Needless to say, the no-bid contracts Lyndon gave to Halli were unreported at the time, and pooh-pooed by the people on your side of the aisle.

Posted by jaeger51 | June 21, 2007 1:31 AM

Bill agreed to the deal only if he was allowed to interview the interns. Seriously, though, you can say one good thing about ol Bill: he was smart enough and self serving enough to avoid doing the usual leftist economy messing so avoided the usual Dem economic slump caused by tax-raising. Terrible on foreign policy and cultural issues though.

Posted by Monkei | June 21, 2007 7:11 AM

As for insulting Bush's intelligence, please! You're like an old TV show repeat from 2002.

Gee what's wrong with that, afterall there is a whole TV network out there who airs nothing but TV repeats. Maybe if GWB wasn't constantly repeatedly bolstering his incompetancies and ruining the GOP it would go way ... but he remains and so it goes.