Two Presidents for the Price of One: Co-Presidents Michelle, Bill and Cindy
May 6th, 2008 | 8 responses
What do you have when you have two intelligent people who are married to one another and are suddenly in the White House and it’s 2008 not 1778?
I think you have some amalgamation of at least a president and a half, if not a dual presidency.
Can one reasonably expect in this day and age for high profile spouses to suddenly become just gravy for the biscuits? Rather than one of the Entrees?
Bill Clinton will be as much President as Hillary Clinton, in terms of advice, policy development, insight, contacts, savvy, strategy, support, and one of his greatest gifts… humor. Though there’s been some criticism of him overshadowing his wife with his own intelligence on this campaign, I think it must be difficult for a sharp player to show up in some diminished version of himself. Though that’s been the tack of most First Ladies of the past, I doubt whether we’ll see that “Oh just ignore little ol’ me’” again in any President’s spouse, regardless of gender.
Michelle Obama will definitely be as much President in her own way as Barack Obama. I think if we note how spouses are conducting themselves on the campaign trail right now, those are the indicators of how the spouses will be and even more so, once in the White House.
Regarding Co-President Mrs. Michelle Obama, we’d likely see what we see now;
she has her own ideas on matters, lobbies her ideas, speaking on all matters that arise as well, and is seen side by side most all the time with her husband, speaking, he and she, in tandem, as one force with two developed minds.
Mrs. McCain, is quite younger than her husband, by 18 years (she’s 53 this month), and is not of his generation’s roots. She was a teenager in the 1960s when saying what one thinks was considered the new normal. Cindy McCain, though seemingly deferential in public, speaks her mind, like Mrs. Reagan. She’s critiqued President Bush, and also countered Mrs. Michelle Obama’s remark about being proud of America for the first time in her life.
Mrs. McCain would be a cookie-mommie/ executive/ co-President. She’s inherited 100M from her family, sits on national boards, and is head of her own family’s foundation. As co-President, and as a person formally addicted to painkillers and also suffering a near-fatal stroke four years ago, and also as a former teacher of special needs children, she will be particularly strong in shaping policy to help the downtrodden.
What used to be called “pillow talk” between spouses, one of which occupied high office, is now ‘policy talk’ in full daylight. Observe the spouses now to see the co-Presidents you will be accepting/ electing later.
correction: Mrs. McCain may have inherited less than 100M. This is, according to various sources, what her ‘worth’ is financially.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
8 Responses to “Two Presidents for the Price of One: Co-Presidents Michelle, Bill and Cindy”
I don't welcome this shift in thinking. There's no other job that I can think of where a spouse is presumed to be part of the package- if one person interviews for the job, the interviewer doesn't assume that on some days, the person's spouse will show up for work or answer some of his/her calls or correspondence.
For me, it has nothing to do with wanting women to assume a subservient role; if a woman is qualified for the office, let her get elected. Same for a man whose spouse is qualified- but if he isn't the one running, he shouldn't be considered to be a policy maker in any way.
Of course there is and has always been pillow talk and always will be- but that's different. Ultimately the decisions are made by the one who was voted into office- any personal relationships may influence that (and marriage partners certainly usually do have some influence) but that's different than saying that the spouse has earned a seat at the cabinet meetings or in directly shaping policy.
I don't know for sure CStanley, and nice to see you incidentally; we were looking for your points of view yesterday on the posts about Eight Belles, your special expertise…
With regard to co-presidencies. I am not certain, but I have never seen this high a profile in the spouses of those running for office; it's not just the density of spousal appearancees; it's the pressured speech tone, the body language of the spouses, the words as well; each is clearly a perons in their own right, not a 'honey you be the star, i'll be the audience' kind of person/people/ presentation
I dont believe I'd like co-presidents, and I meant the term a little tongue in cheek, but i do see 'broad daylight' displays of the spouses speaking like, talking like , as though…. in ways that heretofore have often also gone on, but way way behind the scenes
I also know, as do you and many others, that there are all kinds of spouses of people in high office; truly shy and reitring ones, ones that have NO interest in their mate's political ambitions, ones who 'put up with it all, and try to hold a semblance of family life for small children, and are seldom seen on the road or in anything having to do with the Presidency. But also, there are those who are every bit as aimed toard having that presidency as their mate is. And sometimes, even more than their mate
I think Mrs. McCain is less so, but Mr Bill and Miss Michelle are right out there running hard. One way perhaps to weigh this, is take away Barack, take away Hillary… would their spouses still have an electorate audience? I muse, perhaps so.
dr.e
CStanley, I'm inclined to agree with you, but I'm hard pressed to think that Bill Clinton isn't qualified to be president. I mean, he's the only one whose done it before of any of them! Hillary would be a fool to pass up his immense knowledge of the inner workings of the presidency, in addition to his numerous contacts and alliances (the downside being, of course, that she also inherits his enemies). Of course I think you should vote for the person running for president, not her spouse, even if that spouse is an ex-president, but I also think that assuming a certain level of involvement in the specific case of Bill Clinton isn't inappropriate.
I think Bill's involvement could be sanctioned if it's done properly- by appointing him to a specific position. I do not think he should be a general co-president though, because even though he's been vetted and elected before it doesn't mean that he's the person who is appropriate to lead the country now (and I don't think it should be presumed that this is what the voters would be choosing.) To some extent, this may be what some of the opposition to Hillary is about- that we don't want to elect Bill for a third term. There're several reasons for that: one is just the general principle of term limits that would be violated, another is that it'd be too murky to not know who is responsible for policy, and third and probably not least is that Bill certainly seems less able to control his temper now than he did during his presidency.
Dr. E: From the little bit that I skimmed yesterday, I'd say I'm in agreement with what was written about the racehorse industry. In fact from just a casual reading, I think this may be one of the rare times that I completely agree with PETA. The drug and painkiller issue is a tough one because as a veterinarian we often have to weigh the benefits of such treatments against the fact that animals themselves can't understand the need to rest or restrict their own activity. And of course, when the animal's owner feels that he can ignore that advice as well, and either neglects or purposely contradicts it, then the results from the animal are disastrous. But it makes for a difficult ethical position for veterinarians- withhold pain medication, which is obviously inhumane in some cases, or know that by prescribing it you risk the animal's health and welfare as well if the owner or handler will not follow medical advice?
To perhaps better explain my point about Bill- again getting back to my analogy (an imperfect one, but still…) about a job interview. Even if a person's spouse is very qualified and has held a similar (or the same) position as the one that's being sought by the current interviewee, it's still not assumed that there are going to be two people filling the role instead of just one. And it should work both ways- no one should be voting for Hillary because they WANT Bill back in the WH, and no one should vote against her if the reverse is true. I realize that this is how I think it should be, and it doesn't match the reality, but I still find it problematic and I think the idea that we should have more involved “First Spouses” is part of the problem.
dear CStanley, I am going to post your excellent comment re Eight Belles over at the article on her death at the racetrack and PETA's response, http://themoderatevoice.com/society/death/19387…
Thank you, that's valuable to reprise 'risk vs benefit' and that animals cannot always be made to rest. You are with many others agreeing for once with PETA. Very much appreciate your expertise.
dr.e
[...] Continue Reading [...]
The only candidate that presents this co-presidency threat is Clinton, who arrogated the undefined, unvoted-for position of co-President after 1992 and which behavior was responsible in large part for the US public's revulsion driving the 1994 elections. The Bushes have not behaved this way and there's no logical basis for suspecting the co-presidency phenomenon will be routine and should be anticipated, even expected. Logically we can assume there won't be such a thing, particuarly when this hasn't been normal practice and the public found it so objectionable.