No Way – No, Sir – No, Thank You, But No…
…and numerous other variations on the theme – all directed at a trial balloon being floated by some that Bill Clinton take over his wife’s Senate spot following her now-confirmed status as SoS-designee:
In an op-ed column last week in The Washington Post, journalists Karl Meyer and Shareen Blair Brysac urged [New York governor David] Paterson to “send Bill Clinton to the Senate.”
If that happened, Clinton would become the third former president to go from the White House to Capitol Hill.
President John Quincy Adams lost his re-election bid in 1828. Two years later he returned to Washington after winning election as a congressman from his home state of Massachusetts. He served in the House of Representatives until his death in 1848.
President Andrew Johnson also served as a Senator from Tennessee in 1875, 7 years after the Senate acquitted him of impeachment charges. He died a few months after taking office.
Bill Clinton would bring gravitas to the job, and he obviously knows his way around Washington.
But some Democratic strategists who used to work for Bill Clinton don’t think the former president would want to go from leader of the free world to being the junior senator from New York. Clinton’s office deferred to Paterson’s office when asked for a comment.
Gravitas? Bill Clinton? He of the famous roving zipper? Sure, you can be a philanderer and still be smart, capable, etc., etc. – but a man who has ‘relations with that woman’, when that woman is a twenty-year-old intern, is not a man who brings ‘gravitas’ to an office.
Besides, Obama (showing himself to be a shrewd judge of character) is said to absolutely despise Clinton (Bill, that is), and we’ll be seeing MORE than enough of him over the next four years. Mark my words – if Bill Clinton isn’t involved in a fairly major scandal before the 2012 election, I’ll send each of you a check for $1*.
*(minus $1 shipping and handling fee. Offer void in Alaska, Hawaii, the continental U.S., and any other place that can be located on Google Maps. Tax, title, and license due at signing. Decision ’08 hereby excludes itself, and its numerous employees, from any liability based upon your acceptance of this offer, which expired at midnight on November 30th)…
Its a good idea. Compared to Chuck Schumer, he is Barry Goldwater.
Plus, inside the Senate, his capacity for making trouble for Mr. Pals Around is vastly increased.
Senate is only boring if you take the committee crap seriously. He can finally make speeches practically unlimited in duration. He will set back the Dem agenda by 6 months.
I seem to recall speculation before the primaries started that then-gov. Spitzer would appoint Bill to the Senate to replace Hillary.
But I’ve heard more recently that Chuck Schumer is tired of being upstaged by his nominal junior, so he wants Paterson to appoint a relative nobody.
Nice to know about Johnson, though. It’s surprising that, having lived in Tennessee for 24 years, I didn’t know that.
Wasn’t Cuomo’s name being tossed around too?
Boy, if part of placing Hillary at State was to get her on the the team while removing a potential rival and dissenting Senate voice, putting Bill in her place pretty much eff’s up that plan…
Here’s my, long-standing, take on Bill: how can we miss you if you never leave?
Forgot to add yesterday that as a “skirt chaser”, he is no worse than Ted Kennedy or Chris Dodd for instance
(probably better because no deaths amomg his flings yet)
Plus he is a patriot and you can’t say that about all the current Dem senators.
Hey, we’re talking about Bill Clinton and questioning the patriotism of Democrats! Did I fall asleep and wake up in 1995?
That said, I’m basically with Andrew Sullivan. Whatever I think of the political merits of the male Clinton (to which I say: “eh, could be better, could be worse”), I just plain can’t handle the psychodrama any more. Watching Bob continually recite the GOP’s talking points from the 90s is more than enough for me.
Ryan, you are so predictable.
That last para was Ryan chum and right on cue, here’s Ryan…
Here’s the question: I know that the leftist illuminati is trying to bring together as many old timers as possible.. but after being out of politics for the past eight years, does Bill even want this job? I haven’t heard that mentioned yet.
I’ve heard Andrew Cuomo mentioned as well. Christine Quinn, speaker of the NYC Council is one of the lesser-knowns suggested.
If the following report is true, this is a trial balloon which just got popped.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/02/bill.clinton.senate/index.html
Yep, it appears Clinton is not interested (smart move – it would slow him down with the honeys)…
I don’t understand this:
“I know that the leftist illuminati is trying to bring together as many old timers as possible.”
There just aren’t that many Democrats with executive work experience who didn’t work for Clinton in the 90s. How badly do we really want people who don’t have experience in the Clinton administration (read: virtually no Democrats with work experience) to be in charge of things? I’m no Clinton lover, but I think Obama needs to put new folks at lower levels and let them work up through the channels while older folks hold down the top. At least, that’s how I would do it if I were interested in getting this governing thing right.
How badly do we really want people who don’t have experience in the Clinton administration (read: virtually no Democrats with work experience) to be in charge of things?
You (Democrats) wanted it badly enough a month ago to elect a a neophyte who has never accomplished anything of significance during his time in government because he ran against the policies of the last 20+ years.
Correction: he ran against the policies of the last 8 years.
Which is “change” that couldn’t come soon enough for most of us.
Well, I’m not a Democrat, so I think I only bear the responsibility of believing Obama was the better choice vis a vis John McCain. That was manifest, so whether he’s a neophyte is ultimately not useful for evaluating my vote.
That said, the argument is as much a red herring as it ever was. The President doesn’t manage the bureaucracy in nearly the same way his Cabinet secretaries do. Obama’s a CEO, not a supervisor.
The “change” I see is of the superficial variety in that the individuals have changed, but I’m not seeing a lot of policy change. He isn’t President yet so we will have to see, but Gates at Defense, Clinton (a lefty hawk) at State, and Obama’s vote on wiretaps seem to indicate less policy change than Obama’s supporters (rightly) expected.
[Inorrection]: he ran against the policies of the last 8 years.
You mean like NAFTA?
“You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, a lot like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy towards people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” — Barack Obama
In general, the “change” theme started in the primaries. Hillary Clinton was criticized profusely by the official Obama campaign and the unofficial Obama campaign (NBC, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo, et. al.) for being unable to bring change because she would keep the same people who were in the Clinton administration. She was criticized for standing with Wes Clark and Madeline Albright in Iowa — specifically because she could not be seen as an agent of change when flanked by members of the old guard.
Ever consider even trying to get your facts right, Jacques?
Well, I’m not a Democrat
Okay then: You (people who voted for Barack Obama) wanted to get rid of the Clintonistas so badly that you voted for someone whose never proven he can be successful in governance or in passing major legislation.
Obama’s a CEO, not a supervisor.
On that point, what major corporation in its right mind would hire a half-term US Senator as a CEO.
Aaron: Any of the big 3!!!
And, did Ryan say he voted for Obama in the primaries?
Your ability to come up with red herrings amazes me.
Mike is correct. I see no reason that my preference for Barack Obama over John McCain – which, as I’ve pointed out, was not even a slightly difficult choice – should say anything about my opinion of the Clintons or their associates. Having voted for Obama in the general election commits me to the position of wanting to get rid of the Bush Administration – or, more accurately, of wanting to avoid electing a man even less qualified and more obviously dangerous to the world than George W. Bush – but it doesn’t commit me to any position on the Clintons.
Or, if you prefer:
“You (people who voted for Barack Obama) wanted to get rid of the Bush administration so badly that you voted for someone who’s never proven he can be successful in governance or in passing major legislation when presented with alternative of voting for someone who has demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that he is so utterly reckless, uninformed, and stupid that making him President would be a mistake of epic proportions.”
That would be the correct statement, perhaps.