January 29, 2008

Co-Presidency Fears Gaining Momentum

I mentioned last week that I thought the idea of Bill Clinton back in the white house was pushing the envelope in interpreting the 22nd amendment. From the Washington Post Blog;

The real concern may be a co-presidency, which raises intriguing constitutional questions. Is Bill Clinton pulling a Putin -- or a Kirchner? The Russian president couldn't seek re-election again, so he tapped a relatively unknown crony to run as his candidate in March, and is largely expected to continue running the show behind the scenes (maybe even as prime minister). Nestor Kirchner of Argentina decided not to run for re-election last fall, but made way for his wife Cristina to win the presidency and keep the Pink House in the family.

They are tacitly campaigning for us to accept an oligarchy. I know, I know there is already a secret cabal of old white guys running the country now.) But there is little doubt that Bill would love to be the Power Behind the Throne, Constitution be damned. From Wikipedia;

The phrase power behind the throne refers to a person or group that informally exercises the real power of an office. In politics, it most commonly refers to a spouse, aide, or advisor of a political leader (often called a "figurehead") who serves as de facto leader, setting policy through influence or manipulation.

Off topic but an interesting take on Bill. From Victor Davis-Hanson;

4. The problem is not that Bill Clinton occasionally lies—he does. But instead, almost serially he exaggerates and fudges—and in ways beyond not inhaling or redefining “is”, or insisting oral sex is not sex. The result is a Forrest Gump like effect, that we are to believe he and Hillary were the font of every almost every liberal gift of the last quarter-century—Yale, then Arkansas being the Mecca of social change.
5. It would be cruel, but understandable to ask amid these long encomia on Hillary’s character, her talent, and her morality—prefaced by Bill’s commentary that he almost alone realized her singular gifts, why in the world, then, did he spend over thirty years trying to escape her in almost every way imaginable? Why if she walked on water, did he find company, carnality, conversation with Paula Jones or Gennifer Flowers, or feel the need to talk trash and more with Monica? In other words, he is asking the voter to take on a partnership, a political marriage if you will, that he, mutatis mutandis, never would or has.

No comments: