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.
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’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.