First of all, I know the new thinking is that a lady asking her husband for help is highly patriarchal, etc. Except, in the case of Bill and Hillary Clinton, her husband is conveniently one of the most popular presidents of the modern era, and whether through luck or skill, America did well during his era.
So if Hillary has Bill sitting there in the oval, and she asks him for advice on who to appoint to the cabinet, what he would have done whenever a major decision has to be made, what he would have said, and so on and so forth, this is totally Constitutional, correct?
Hillary can appoint Bill Clinton as her assistant or something so he has a legal right to be there, correct? He can’t occupy a cabinet post because those posts are in the line of succession, but he could occupy a position similar to that of Obama’s Reggie Love, right? (“body man”)
For potential Clinton voters, this is a major selling point. Clinton kept the USA out of major wars, cutting and running instead of sending more men to die when Somalia happened, it was a time of significant prosperity and economic growth. America could do worse than another 8 years of Bill Clinton.
There is nothing in the Constitution that addresses the issue of spouse as consultant or advisor. There is also nothing in the Constitution that addresses the matter of a president confiding in or seeking advice from personal friends.
My guess would be that the spouses of Jane Adams and Dolly Madison sought their advice while the spouses of Martha Washington and Mary Todd Lincoln did not.
It is certainly likely that, if elected, Hillary Clinton would seek Bill’s advice, given his reputation as an effective politician.
It’s not true that he can’t occupy a cabinet post because it’s in the line of succession. After all, we’ve had Henry Kissinger and Margaret Albright as Secretary of State, and both are ineligible to the presidency (as both are naturalized citizens). They are simply skipped in the line of succession.
The President can ask anyone she wants for advice. If the advice requires knowledge of sensitive materials the advisor would need a security clearance, easy enough for a former president one would think. Bill could take a cabinet position, though it seems unlikely, he just wouldn’t be in the line of succession.
Hillary Clinton can certainly ask Bill to take on such a role, just as Bill had Hillary play a similar role during his presidency. When Bill was president, not only did Hillary play a part in the picking and vetting of top administration officials, but she was also appointed by her husband to lead (the ultimately unsuccessful) health care reform plan.
I guess what I’m wondering here is if Hillary goes with Bill’s ideas say, 90% of the time, doesn’t this make Hillary’s rein the era of Bill Clinton II? That sounds kind of like the shady stuff that Putin has done to avoid similar term limit restrictions in Russia…
I think you’re wandering away from factual questions appropriate for GQ, but I suspect that were she to win the presidency, there’s no way that Bill Clinton is the shadow president. She would be running things herself.
I understand this is a thread skirting the edge of GQ and more opinionated forums. Still, isn’t it a well establish fact, with many references, that Putin has taken actions to dodge term limits and that he de facto has near dictatorial power over Russia? I’m asking if in the United States, if Hillary de facto allows Bill Clinton to rule for another 8 years, if this in fact is comparable to Putin’s actions and if the Constitution or the Supreme Court is likely to prevent it.
There are significant differences between the two situations (the fact Putin and Medvedev are not a married couple is not even the most significant of them). I’m not even sure there is a debate here.
It is possible than Bill and Hillary respect each other and are in harmony with each other. Our “first parents” might do the exact same things as political leaders in round 2 of their reign if this is true, and it won’t matter who’s name is on the door. If this is the case, and it is legal per the Constitution and the current crop of Supremes, it *will *be the Second Clinton administration.
This is actually a solid reason to vote for Hillary - even if you don’t like her, you’re voting for a proven leader who ruled over one of the best 8 year periods* in recent American history. Whether or not it was luck or skill*, it’s still a better bet than, say, voting for Jeb Bush.
I’ve had the impression that Putin has some kind of life or death hold on Medvedev and could have the man killed if he steps out of line. Maybe this is incorrect, but it would be normal for Soviet politics.
*This isn’t an opinion. The factual basis is that during 1992-2000, America had enormous economic growth and a brief budgetary surplus. No major wars were fought and a very small number of servicemen and women lost their lives. The global reputation of America was excellent. I’m being objective in stating I can’t say whether this was because Bill Clinton was a good leader, or if he was just lucky. Nevertheless, it is a rational choice to vote for a leader based on this record because the explanation that success was due to good leadership and not just luck is a rational one. Maybe Steve Jobs and Warren Buffet were also just lucky, but you would have been wise to invest with them.
This is correct, but he still can’t be in his wife’s cabinet, because of a law passed after Bobby Kennedy was his brother’s attorney general. Presidents can’t employ their relatives (which includes spouses).
