An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Dear Bill – Just Say No

Clinton.jpgRumors are now swirling that New York Governor may choose a “caretaker” Senator for Hillary Clinton’s seat, as was also diligently reported below by our Editor-in-Chief. In general, this strikes me as a sound plan (and far better than looking at Carolyn Kennedy) but a more alarming prospect would be the idea of Bill Clinton as the caretaker in question.

The former president is among several boldface names being touted as possible “caretakers” for New York’s Senate seat — people who would serve until the 2010 elections but wouldn’t be interested in running to keep the job.

As the process of picking Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s replacement gets messier, the option may become increasingly attractive to Gov. David Paterson, who has sole authority to name a successor.

This choice, should it be made, would have to go down in history as one of the greatest examples of leaping out of the frying pan and into the fire. It’s difficult to even begin listing the reasons why this would be a terrible choice, even if President Clinton were interested in doing it. At the top of such a list would surely be the fact that New York, like the rest of the states, deserves two serious, dedicated Senators doing the state’s work in the upper chamber without derailing the entire process. Clinton would be an immediate distraction and sideshow, sucking all of the air out of the room and turning efforts at serious work into a media sideshow.

Also, one of the chief objections to Caroline Kennedy (among many) is that we really don’t need dynasties running our Federal government. Picking Clinton yet again for such an influential position would send exactly the wrong message. There is also a question of appearances of propriety. Do we really want someone in an influential Legislative position who is married to the Secretary of State? (A position which is a key role in the Executive Branch.) There are already questions swirling about Bill’s library contributions and other financial activity as they relate to Hillary’s assumed upcoming role in the State Department. Shall we compound those conflict-of-interest questions by putting her husband in the Senate?

Lastly, why would Bill Clinton, already having finished an amazingly successful story arc to the peak of political power, want to return – even for a couple of years – to be one of one-hundred members of the U.s. Senate? He has done his part and moved on to a new role in private life and charitable efforts. Such a story line could be cut short if Bill Clinton would step up to the microphone this weekend and politely state that he is flattered to be considered but is not interested in the job. Please, Bill. Turn it down. You’ve done your time and many of us greatly appreciate your service, but it’s time for some new blood. Just say no, Bill. Please?

  • The biggest strike against Bill Clinton would be his rhetorical misconduct during his wife's primary battle. But I have to disagree with you on just about every other reason here.

    Clinton would be a high profile member of the Senate, yes. But he would only be a distraction to media types who seem to live and die for the Clinton drama that they've mostly fabricated. Being high profile does not mean that he wouldn't be a "serious" Senator. Being high profile would give him more latitude to sway opinions and votes.

    Appointing Bill Clinton to the Senate would be nothing like appointing Caroline Kennedy. She's not an accomplished politician, whereas Bill Clinton proved to be a successful PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. You can call him many things, but a legacy hire would not be one of them.

    As for conflict's of interest, I think you're just being paranoid. As a Senator he would have far less power to grant favors to his overseas donors than his Secretary of State Wife, and what power would he have specifically to help her? I've got another question for you, should Jeb Bush have resigned as Gov. of Florida when Dubya became President?
  • It's also worth adding that the people of New York who elected Hillary would likely have voted for Bill, since they have a largely similar political ideology and style.
  • GeorgeSorwell
    You know, earlier today you posted commentary giving philosophical, practical and fantastical defenses of the right of the soon-to-be-indicted-over-that-very-Senate-seat Governor of Illinois to appoint anyone he likes to an open Senate seat.

    But over the last few weeks you've been complaining that the Governor of New York might appoint someone you don't approve of to an open Senate seat.

    As they say on the internet: WTF?
  • pacatrue
    B. Clinton seems somewhat reasonable to me actually if this is indeed intended to be a caretaker senatorship. It's quite common to appoint a spouse to replace a deceased member of Congress, and, unlike Kennedy, B. Clinton is clearly qualified. Now if he would also want to run to hold the seat in 2010, I agree that's not in NY's interest.
  • Georg, you may have been dipping into the eggnog a bit too hard. Nowhere have I stated that Governor Paterson *can't* appoint anyone he likes who meets the basic constitutional requirements. He can appoint his own wife, one of his relatives, or even me! (And may I just say in advance, I accept, thank you very much.) The point is, even though he *can* that doesn't mean I think he *should* in some cases. As far as Illinois goes, Blago has already made his selection and I have not defended the Governor's honor nor innocence, but only his legal right to make an appointment at this time. It's not that Roland Burris would have been my personal first choice, but the choice has been made, Burris meets the minimum qualifications and it should be a done deal. Where precisely do you see the conflict in this?
  • kritt11
    I love Bill, warts and all, but I can't see him having the patience for the slow-paced Senate. OTOH, he could really move Obama's agenda along - and is a better choice than Caroline K-- who would probably make a good federal judge appt.
  • GeorgeSorwell
    Jazz--

    I never said you said Patterson *can't* appoint anyone he likes. (See how easy that was?)

    You are complaining about "the message" Patterson would be sending by appointing one of these people you don't approve of.

    But for Blagojevich, you defend his right as a sitting Governor to appoint anyone he likes without any concern for "the message" he's sending.

    If the people of Illinois no longer wish the Governor to have this power, they are able to change it to mandate special elections through their representatives.


    Isn't this equally true of the people of New York?
  • Bill Clinton leaving his foundation work to be a Senator. Oh brother. Sure.

    Still, got a chuckle out of this preposterous idea.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC