I’m a fan of Obama myself, but could imagine worse developments than having him appointed to the S.Ct.
[QUOTE=tds1273]
If not in the First Lady role, could Bill be made UN Ambassador?
He would be just a wee bit of an improvement from John"The 'Stache"Bolton.
[/QUOTE]
I just don’t see Bill filling an official role. It’s better to have more people dependent upon you for their position. Any position you put Bill in is one less high profile favor owed to you. Bill would be better utilized for back channel diplomacy, which is often more important than the official stuff anyway. The Clintons must have learned this very effectively during Bill’s Presidency when George HW Bush was running Middle-East Foreign Policy on the back line as a civilian while he was President due to the fact that many of the Arab leaders were his buddies. Bill Clinton in his capacity as the head of the Clinton foundation can do some amazing extra-curricular development work that doesn’t necessarily require public funds, but can be a way for billionaires to ingratiate themselves to the American President.
[QUOTE=mswas]
Doubtful, it would be a waste of Bill’s potential. He would serve the country best as First Lady making unofficial diplomatic visits all across the world and running the Clinton Foundation than he would as a fill in Senator. I bet there are a lot of people for whom that position would be an upgrade, Bill isn’t one of them. Spitzer would do well to appoint someone who will owe him a favor, rather than someone to whom he would owe a favor.
[/QUOTE]
Besides, Spitzer isn’t particularly close with the Clintons. He did endorse Hillary, but there was some anger in the Clinton camp that the endorsement was very long in coming. Spitzer in turn was unhappy that Clinton hadn’t publicly said much to support him when he was embroiled in a dispute with a labor union, and when he faced budget fights.
Moreover, there are lots of politicians in New York who are waiting for their chance at higher office. Some of them are Democrats who missed out on an opportunity for this when the Clinton coronation came around the first time. While the political establishment has adjusted to this for the most part, if it happened again it would tear the Democratic party to shreds in the state.
I’d like to hear panache45’s reaction to any of these posts, if he has one.
[QUOTE=mswas]
Bill Clinton in his capacity as the head of the Clinton foundation can do some amazing extra-curricular development work that doesn’t necessarily require public funds, but can be a way for billionaires to ingratiate themselves to the American President.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not opposed to most of what Bill Clinton is doing, but the nexus of this work and his wife’s political activity raises interesting ethical questions.
I think a similar case can be made for John Edwards’ “charity” that allowed him to remain politically viable between elections while avoiding completely spending and disclosure regulations that accompany normal political activity.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
With all due respect, that’s just stupid. He could have a SecState as effective as he could be, under his direction, and still do lots of other things besides. As president, he’ll have much more leverage to heal wounds, to the extent that wounds need to be healed.
[/QUOTE]
What?? Is it 1974 again… oh right!
[QUOTE=mswas]
Doubtful, it would be a waste of Bill’s potential. He would serve the country best as First Lady making unofficial diplomatic visits all across the world and running the Clinton Foundation than he would as a fill in Senator. I bet there are a lot of people for whom that position would be an upgrade, Bill isn’t one of them. Spitzer would do well to appoint someone who will owe him a favor, rather than someone to whom he would owe a favor.
[/QUOTE]
Hmm…why did I suddenly picture Bill Clinton as some sort of Operatic ‘gentleman seducer’ wearing a feathered mask? Well, better call the therapist.
-Joe