The Real Problem With Hillary

I have grappled with the problem of Hillary Clinton's prospective presidency for a while.  Part of the problem is that I really don't like HER.  But lately, I've been reminded of another very real problem, as we've seen Hillary's husband, the former President, campaigning ostensibly for her, but in a way very reminiscent of the way he campaigned for himself. Andrew Sullivan nails it today.  The biggest potential problem with Hillary is not one of her personality, or even one of her politics: it's the question that it raises about the respect the Clinton's are likely to have for the Constitutional order.

But the trouble with such an arrangement is not its tabloidy and democratically primitive charms. It is its under-appreciated threat to democratic accountability and even the Constitution. In the first Clinton term, we had an unprecedented situation where a woman elected to nothing and with no Cabinet rank was given responsibility for the entire healthcare system. She was accountable largely to a man she was married to - not the American people. She functioned not as the traditional spouse of a president, but as a free-floating second president whose line of authority was at once clear (no one dared cross her) and confusing (what legal authority does she have anyway?).

And the same questions that were raised during Bill Clinton's administration about Hillary's role, would be amplified during a Hillary Clinton administration: who would dare question the actions of a former president (he wouldn't be, after all, just another guy married to the President)?  But who would he be accountable to?  The lines seem fuzzy to me.  Better, I think, not to elect Hillary Clinton.  I'm not enamored with the policies of Obama, Edwards, or any other Democrat who might appear on the scene, but it seems that they, at least, wouldn't have this probem.

Some might say that we have the same problem, though, with George W. Bush and his father--the dynastic effect.  I tend to believe, though, that whatever problem there are with the Bush dynasty, this particular problem is much less than it would be with the Clintons.  Bill Clinton would, presumably, be living in the White House; he would have normal access to the President which would be away from the public eye.  The Bush's on the other hand, seem to have maintained a more normal parent/adult child relationship.  Certainly daddy Bush has access to picking up the phone and giving his son advice, but there's no sign that the son has ever used the father for anything policy related--dad's role seems pretty much limited to having worked with Bill Clinton on relief efforts for the tsunami and Hurricane Katrina.  The Clinton COUPLE, though, has a history, and it's one that voters--and right now Democrat voters--ought to consider carefully: do we really want a former President living in the White House, with the power of both his past and his wife's presidency? 

Be sure to read the rest of Sullivan's piece.

LLE