Some on the left are questioning whether they really eventually want Bill Clinton back in the White House in 2009 in, essentially, an undefined but potentially powerful role. That's good. But the rationale they're using is bad:
"Think about it. A former president, who knows the inner workings of government intimately, would be back in the White House. He may have no official title or role. Yet he would, it's fair to assume, be deeply enmeshed in both politics and policy. To what extent would this constitute a co-presidency? Writing in the New York Times on Saturday, Garry Wills noted that America's founders had wrestled with just this question and decided executive power had to be invested in one person for the sake of holding that person accountable. Wills - who has written glowingly about Hillary in the past - directly compared Bill's possible role to the one being played now by Dick Cheney and concluded that "it does not seem to be a good idea to put another co-president in the White House"."
But what both Garry Wills and The Guardian miss is this: Mr. Cheney was ELECTED. His name was on the ballot. He has a constitutional role. And there's a decades-long tradition of vice-presidents having advisory and policy roles in an administration. There are no such things for a First Lad.
Still, it's good to see some on the left questioning the Clintons.
