Well, RFK, as well as Bill Clinton, are both political animals in their own right. I thought nepotism was more like, your old college roommate, a guy you owed money to, or something like that. If someone you have known for a long time happens to be qualified for the job, most people won’t have a problem.
In all honestly, a lot of people will just have problems because htey hate the Clintons, Bill especially. They’re still trying to blame shit on that guy, and he’s not even in office.
Interesting - shades of GWB and Colin Powell, when you put it that way. They managed that by keeping Powell out of the limelight - but you can only imagine what the rumors would be like if people felt that the White House was shunning the Secretary of State when he’s also the President’s husband. An administration with both Clintons serving in such a high capacity would be a media wetdream, I’ll say that much. People could get very tired of them.
It was about her being a personal employee with unexceptional qualifications.
So, let me get this hypothetical straight:
You’re an important politician in the Democratic Party. After two straight years of working your ass off, you’ve gotten elected President of the United States. The country and the world watches as you, untested and trying to secure a place in history…
…hands one of the most powerful, respected jobs in the country to someone with more experience at your own job than anyone else, with huge popularity, and a tendency to go off in their own direction based on what they want. Someone who will overshadow you at every press conference, who will innately sap your limelight, someone who will be seen as the mover and shaker dictating your policy for you.
I can assure you, Bill Clinton is on nobody’s short list for Secretary of State.
…and a woman.
There’s no good reason to appoint Bill as Secretary of State, no matter who wins the White House, and no matter how good he would be. Former presidents are de facto ambassadors for the United States, especially when the current office holder gives approval for a particular mission.
If Bill were to visit another country with the understanding that he represents the current administration, the other country will listen to what he says. Furthermore, I expect Bill would rather prefer the flexibility of not being an official part of the government. Nothing would be gained by making him SoS.
In a Hillary Clinton presidency, should such a thing occur, I have no doubt that Bill would take on a (perhaps super-sized) role like prior that of prior first ladies – think Elanor Roosevelt. Whatever his behind the scenes influence as spouse, I doubt that he’d be given any official role.
To the extent that first ladies have been treated as ambassadors at large, he’d do that, representing the country at funerals of foriegn leaders and going to conferences relating his charitable concerns, and smiling at numerous meet and greets. Admittely, in the past six years, he’s developed a formidable charitable orginization, larger than some of the causes championed by many recent first ladies, but I have no doubt that would be where his public efforts would be focused.
…and, btw, not a personal employee. I don’t know where you got the idea that this president, or any other, personally pays the salary of the White House Counsel.
Sigh … Miers’ primary qualification, the reason she got the taxpayer-paid job, was having previously been Bush’s *personal * attorney, i.e. a *personal * employee. :rolleyes:
Now, where did *you * get the idea that it matters enough to quibble about a tenth as much as you already have?
I’m just trying to understand this progressive idea that woman = housekeeper. It’s foreign to me. Quibbling that a misogynist joke isn’t one because of a different aspect of the joke is besides the point. If you want to make misogynist jokes, then at least man up to the fact you made one. She was called a “housekeeper” because she was a woman, not because she was an attorney.
The only one to make that connection is you. It never even crossed my mind. To me, the point is that she was an unqualified bobo from his personal entourage. She was “the help.” If she was a man, I might have said “driver” or something.
That would be an equally stupid ‘joke’, though I suppose without the sexist connotations. What hath become of the revolution when such as you put down the lower classes?
-XT
No need to raionalize this. I’m simply pointing out that to the extent your comment was a joke, it was a misogynist one. That’s all. If someone popped into the Barack Obama thread and referred to him as a “field hand”, you’d laugh at the idea that the poster was simply pointing out his lack of experience wrt the presidency, and rightly so.
Actually, we’d be witnessing Bill’s embarkment upon his third term as President:
I see the poor joke side, but I am less than convinced as to the sexism. He was coming up with a common job requiring little to no qualifications. He was also looking at the personal employee aspect which, while you remind us that she was not payed directly by the president, was close enough for the purposes of the throwaway joke.
It is not misogynisitic to use a position that is commonly held by women without higher job skills (such as housekeepers seem to be based on my limited experience) as the punchline in a joke about a woman who is unqualified. It would be sexist to suggest that she is unqualified because she is a woman, which is not at all what happened.
Your comparison with Obama is inappropriate only in as far as “field hand” in this scenario would likely be felt to be related to slavery, or at least could be easily misconstrued as such, and thereby be thought a racial slur. If someone referred to him as the janitor I doubt it would result in the same problems and would be a simple, if lame, joke, just like the one you are criticising.
Though you often make insightful posts and provide the invaluable service of forcing the liberal posters on this board to examine their motivations and use consistent standards when judging the actions of both liberal and conservative politicians, I don’t see that happening here. Here it seems you are just picking a nonexistent nit for the sake of being difficult. It is usually liberals who are accused of being overly PC, but you seem to be using an overly rigid metric for offense just to score points against DtC
I think he’d do a great job, but I don’t see a former president taking a demotion. I don’t think it’s ever happened, has it? Could be wrong there.
He’ll have enough power with his wife as president. Lots of big stuff would be discussed behind closed doors. That’s just basic married-couple M.O.
Andrew Johnson went back to the Senate after serving as President.
Wow. Thanks! Go figure.
And since then 70s any former President or Vice-President who’s elected/appointed to the Senate becomes the Deputy President pro term.
Quite frankly, I’d hate to see Bill back in any position of power where he can conceivably be blackmailed over his latest sexual conquest.
Although in light of the Foley scandal, you have to wonder if anyone’s immune to this sort of thing. Still, it’s dumb to go with a known track record of indiscretion.
(learning German…“Is your daughter eighteen?”)