Two for One in 2008

If Hillary Clinton wins the 2008 Presidential election, then according to the London Telegraph, the United States will get two Presidents for the price of one. The Telegraph reports,

Carl Bernstein, one of the reporters who broke the Watergate scandal which brought down Richard Nixon, told The Daily Telegraph that the couple would operate a joint presidency in which Bill would advise on policy and tactics as well as act as trouble shooter.

"There is no question in my mind it would be a co-presidency because he has better judgment than she does on most political matters. He would be a constant presence," said Mr Bernstein.

Captain Ed asks the question, 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?. This is so true. It is becoming more and more apparent that the Democrats are trying to bring back a second Bill Clinton Presidency under the auspices of his wife.

Didn't we already try this two-for-one idea in 1992? And my memory says that it was not much of a success. However the more important point is that if this report is true, it also brings up a Constitutional question. The 22nd Amendment to the Constitution clearly limits Presidents to serving only two terms. Yet it seems that the Clintons are trying to make an end-run around this by having Hillary President in name while Bill actually runs the country. One would question how a judge would interpret this, but I think the only legal answer would be for the Judiciary to make sure Bill has no policy role whatsoever in her new government.


This seems to me to be precisely the kind of situation that the 22nd Amendment was designed to prevent. But it perfectly sums up the Clintons' approach to life- if the letter of the law prevents it, find a way to sneak around so that they can continue to do what they wish. Look at Hillary's commodities trading. There seems to be little doubt that she broke the spirit of the law if not the letter, yet it benefitted her, so the law was seen as no barrier. This idea of being above the law was also on view in Bill's troubles with his various floozies. The Clinton Presidency has often been called "imperial" in nature, and Hillary's influence in it was immense. Do we really want to go through all this again? And this time, we would have President Hillary- a confirmed ideologue as opposed to the essentially lazy Bill. We can only hope that the American pepole will reject this attempt at the ballot box.

Hat tip to Ed Morrissey.