The biggest strike against Bill Clinton would be his rhetorical misconduct during his wife's primary battle. But I have to disagree with you on just about every other reason here.
Clinton would be a high profile member of the Senate, yes. But he would only be a distraction to media types who seem to live and die for the Clinton drama that they've mostly fabricated. Being high profile does not mean that he wouldn't be a "serious" Senator. Being high profile would give him more latitude to sway opinions and votes.
Appointing Bill Clinton to the Senate would be nothing like appointing Caroline Kennedy. She's not an accomplished politician, whereas Bill Clinton proved to be a successful PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. You can call him many things, but a legacy hire would not be one of them.
As for conflict's of interest, I think you're just being paranoid. As a Senator he would have far less power to grant favors to his overseas donors than his Secretary of State Wife, and what power would he have specifically to help her? I've got another question for you, should Jeb Bush have resigned as Gov. of Florida when Dubya became President?
ChrisWWW
· 11 months ago
It's also worth adding that the people of New York who elected Hillary would likely have voted for Bill, since they have a largely similar political ideology and style.
GeorgeSorwell
· 11 months ago
You know, earlier today you posted commentary giving philosophical, practical and fantastical defenses of the right of the soon-to-be-indicted-over-that-very-Senate-seat Governor of Illinois to appoint anyone he likes to an open Senate seat.
But over the last few weeks you've been complaining that the Governor of New York might appoint someone you don't approve of to an open Senate seat.
As they say on the internet: WTF?
Jazz
· 11 months ago
Georg, you may have been dipping into the eggnog a bit too hard. Nowhere have I stated that Governor Paterson *can't* appoint anyone he likes who meets the basic constitutional requirements. He can appoint his own wife, one of his relatives, or even me! (And may I just say in advance, I accept, thank you very much.) The point is, even though he *can* that doesn't mean I think he *should* in some cases. As far as Illinois goes, Blago has already made his selection and I have not defended the Governor's honor nor innocence, but only his legal right to make an appointment at this time. It's not that Roland Burris would have been my personal first choice, but the choice has been made, Burris meets the minimum qualifications and it should be a done deal. Where precisely do you see the conflict in this?
pacatrue
· 11 months ago
B. Clinton seems somewhat reasonable to me actually if this is indeed intended to be a caretaker senatorship. It's quite common to appoint a spouse to replace a deceased member of Congress, and, unlike Kennedy, B. Clinton is clearly qualified. Now if he would also want to run to hold the seat in 2010, I agree that's not in NY's interest.
kritt11
· 11 months ago
I love Bill, warts and all, but I can't see him having the patience for the slow-paced Senate. OTOH, he could really move Obama's agenda along - and is a better choice than Caroline K-- who would probably make a good federal judge appt.
GeorgeSorwell
· 11 months ago
Jazz--
I never said you said Patterson *can't* appoint anyone he likes. (See how easy that was?)
You are complaining about "the message" Patterson would be sending by appointing one of these people you don't approve of.
But for Blagojevich, you defend his right as a sitting Governor to appoint anyone he likes without any concern for "the message" he's sending.
If the people of Illinois no longer wish the Governor to have this power, they are able to change it to mandate special elections through their representatives.
Isn't this equally true of the people of New York?
GreenDreams
· 11 months ago
Bill Clinton leaving his foundation work to be a Senator. Oh brother. Sure.
Still, got a chuckle out of this preposterous idea.
All Comments
Clinton would be a high profile member of the Senate, yes. But he would only be a distraction to media types who seem to live and die for the Clinton drama that they've mostly fabricated. Being high profile does not mean that he wouldn't be a "serious" Senator. Being high profile would give him more latitude to sway opinions and votes.
Appointing Bill Clinton to the Senate would be nothing like appointing Caroline Kennedy. She's not an accomplished politician, whereas Bill Clinton proved to be a successful PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. You can call him many things, but a legacy hire would not be one of them.
As for conflict's of interest, I think you're just being paranoid. As a Senator he would have far less power to grant favors to his overseas donors than his Secretary of State Wife, and what power would he have specifically to help her? I've got another question for you, should Jeb Bush have resigned as Gov. of Florida when Dubya became President?
But over the last few weeks you've been complaining that the Governor of New York might appoint someone you don't approve of to an open Senate seat.
As they say on the internet: WTF?
I never said you said Patterson *can't* appoint anyone he likes. (See how easy that was?)
You are complaining about "the message" Patterson would be sending by appointing one of these people you don't approve of.
But for Blagojevich, you defend his right as a sitting Governor to appoint anyone he likes without any concern for "the message" he's sending.
Isn't this equally true of the people of New York?
Still, got a chuckle out of this preposterous idea.