Peering into the crystal ball, it's quite possible that Senator Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States. The lingering question is, will she actually be president or will this be in reality Bill Clinton's third term?

It's come as something of a surprise how aggressively Bill has campaigned for Hillary and particularly so when one considers as a former president, he is something of the de facto leader of The Democratic Party. However, Bill has been anything but an elder statesman in this campaign and has gone after his wife's chief rival, Barack Obama, with a bare-knuckled, no-holds-barred zeal (potential Republican challengers take note) . President Clinton's words about Obama's opposition to the war in Iraq being a "fairytale" has angered Black voters, annoyed party elders like Ted Kennedy and James Clyburn who have suggested Bill "cool it" and angered pundits like Maureen Dowd of the New York Times:

If Bill Clinton has to trash his legacy to protect his legacy, so be it. If he has to put a dagger through the heart of hope to give Hillary hope, so be it.

If he has to preside in this state as the former first black president stopping the would-be first black president, so be it.

The Clintons — or “the 2-headed monster,” as the The New York Post dubbed the tag team that clawed out wins in New Hampshire and Nevada — always go where they need to go, no matter the collateral damage. Even if the damage is to themselves and their party.

Bill’s transition from elder statesman, leader of his party and bipartisan ambassador to ward heeler and hatchet man has been seamless — and seamy. link

and Bruce Feirstein in Vanity Fair put it even more bluntly:

For me, the most damning part of this week’s mini-meltdown wasn’t the lecture about the media being at fault for everything, or even the seemingly offhanded, passive-aggressive swipe that “When he put out a hit job on me at the same time he called her the senator from Punjab, I never said a word. And I don’t care about it today. I’m not upset about it.” Because, for me, the really damning thing was a series of sentences he uttered just before the Punjab remark, referring to complaints about the Clinton campaign in Nevada:

“It’s okay. And we’re not hung up about it. And we won anyway. We fought hard. And we won.”

In other words, We are running for president. Not Hillary. Not the junior senator from New York. But We—Bill and Hillary—in a de facto end-run around the 22nd Amendment.

We are not Argentina. We are not a banana republic. No CEO, no prime minister, no one in any public position, anywhere on this earth, could get away with a straight-faced claim that “I honestly believe my wife is the best candidate for the job.” Were it not so sad that we’ve arrived at this juncture in American politics, it would be laughable. link 2

Finally, Talking Points Memo's Joshua Micah Marshall mused about the possibility of a "Billary" presidency:

With the exception of a few days in early January I've gone on the assumption for many months that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. But I think Bill's actions have greatly diminished her. He has put her back under his shadow where she hasn't been for years.

For the moment, I doubt either of them is losing much sleep over that. Get through today and then worry about tomorrow. But I think she looks much smaller now. He's dominating the race. And that makes her look like a weaker figure -- something that will not wear well in the general election. And this campaign really suggests this is going to be some sort of co-presidency. When Hillary's getting knocked around by the folks on the Hill is Bill going to go Larry King to knock her enemies around? Will he be going off to foreign countries on his own little diplomatic missions?

I had assumed he'd remain a step in the background as he has through through most of this decade. But that doesn't seem to be the case. If the constitution allowed it, I'd happily have Clinton back. I'd happily have Hillary in his place. But I don't want them both.

The presidency is a singular job. It should stay that way. And it's precisely because I'm looking forward to supporting her if she is the nominee that I hate seeing her being overshadowed by her spouse and having her husband bigfoot the process which diminishes her and makes me think her presidency could be a 4 year soap opera where Bill won't shut up and let her have a shot at doing the job. link 3

The questions for debate:

1. What do you think Bill Clinton's role will be if Hillary Clinton wins in November and what should it be?

2. Is Bruce Feirstein right and The Clintons are trying an end-run around the 22nd Amendment?

3. Is even asking the question indicative of the news media's anti-Clinton bias?

The questions for debate:

1. What do you think Bill Clinton's role will be if Hillary Clinton wins in November and what should it be?
I think Bill's role should be, and will be, a sort of ambassador. Stay out of domestic stuff, and make yourself useful on the international stage. You can't expect an ex-President to be a ribbon-cutter.

2. Is Bruce Feirstein right and The Clintons are trying an end-run around the 22nd Amendment?
Because Bill said "we won"? What's he supposed to say? He's married, it's a team sport. If John Edwards' wife said "we aren't giving up yet," nobody would accuse her of anything at all.

I haven't been too shocked by anything Bill Clinton has done to support his wife. Frankly, I expected to see much more of him.

3. Is even asking the question indicative of the news media's anti-Clinton bias?
I think so. It sounds like Feirstein was reaching for a story when he focused on that stuff. We've never had a situation quite like this, with an ex-President back in the campaign spotlight - he can't just sit back and stay above the fray, staying clean and dry. He kind of owes Hillary a big one, remember?

If this were a normal race, and Obama was the normal hack you had to get past to get the nomination, there would be a whole lot more mud flying, and nobody would think anything of it - hard-fought race, as it should be. But Hillary is a star in the party, and a viable female candidate. Obama is a rising star in the party, and a viable black candidate. I don't think either side really wanted to start hacking away, but they are so close in the polls that the pressure is there to win. If Obama ran a respectable but distant second, like everyone expected a while back, this might have been the most cordial primary season you could imagine. I'm not so sure that would be the case if Hillary was running a distant second, though...

There's a fair amount of overlap in your poll choices, but I had to go with "butt out." (Although it might be phrased more politely as something like "Thank you for your input, but I'm the President now.") No doubt the ex-President would find it very difficult to resist the temptation to offer more than advice. However, it doesn't seem likely that Madame President would let things get out of hand.

1. What do you think Bill Clinton's role will be if Hillary Clinton wins in November and what should it be?

Will be an advisor who will need to be restrained. Should be an advisor who doesn't need to be restrained. It would be foolish not to take advantage of his experience, but equally foolish not to stand up on her own two feet.

2. Is Bruce Feirstein right and The Clintons are trying an end-run around the 22nd Amendment?

Not really, although it is fair to ask the ex-President to be quiet and just offer his wife some friendly support.

3. Is even asking the question indicative of the news media's anti-Clinton bias?

No. I think it's a legitimate concern. Fortunately, the ex-President isn't being sneaky about it, but is out in the open. That's only hurting Senator Clinton's campaign, I think. If the ex-President would just make a few, vauge, optimistic, short speeches in favor of his wife, and spend some more time off golfing or whatever, I think this wouldn't even be an issue.

1. What do you think Bill Clinton's role will be if Hillary Clinton wins in November and what should it be? Honestly, I think many people are hoping he'll be a shadow president and based upon polling results I've seen, it seems Hillary might be faring as well as she is for that very reason. I think, as any first lady has been in the past, he should be an asset wherever he can be as 'first man' (what *would* he be called, officially...first lad, first gentleman, first dude ...). But he is showing us all that he needs to be 'restrained', as VS put it. He's been acting like a crazed lunatic as of late and frankly, I think he's already doing a disservice to his wife in the eyes of those who aren't supporting Hillary to see a 3rd Bill Clinton term.

Back to the should...given that it would be an historical scenario, I guess the notion of what exactly he should do is largely a matter of personal opinion (which will probably represent individual feelings about Bill, to at least some extent). There's no precedent, so I guess it'll be a matter of deciding the 'shoulds' in the process.

2. Is Bruce Feirstein right and The Clintons are trying an end-run around the 22nd Amendment? I don't know if that's what they're trying to do, (I have my suspicions, but I'm one of those 'anti-Clinton' folks) but it's certainly what a lot of people are hoping for. I wouldn't put it past them, but there's no way of really knowing.

3. Is even asking the question indicative of the news media's anti-Clinton bias? Not at all. It's indicative of the fact that polls have suggested that a majority of Hillary supporters would in fact vote for Bill were he able to run (a smaller number of Obama supporters would vote for Bill as well...I can't find the exact data, but I believe it was around 27%). It's a valid question...one I don't really know the answer to.

Not so fast there my friend... Even though Obama is running against the Billary machine right now I don't think it's a forgone conclusion that Hillary will be the Democratic nominee.

After Obama's doubling of Hillary's vote count in SC, it seems the Bill portion of the Clinton campaign just chalks it up to the notion, "Jesse Jackson won SC in '84 and '88 so it's no big deal".

Now I have already said I am for Obama and that hasn't changed. But if a republican candidate had said what Bill Clinton said this would be ALLLLL over the news and would be labeled as racist. Just sayin..

Just curious Sleeper, what did Bill Clinton say that was so outrageous? My guess is you don't have a clue.

Also, how politically blind you must be. From what I've seen, Bill Clinton has steered away from race-based politics. So has Hillary, so has Obama, so has Edwards. This is a manufactured rift in the Democratic party. But let's just assume you're correct and Bill Clinton divided the South Carolina election on race, then I saw Obama's victory in South Carolina as the death knell of his campaign. When white voters see that 81% of African-Americans supported Obama, what do you think their response is going to be? Obama's campaign is finished. The white vote, compared to Iowa and New Hampshire dropped for Obama by 10%. Hillary won by 2% in New Hampshire and 6% in Nevada. Look for those numbers to increase. Obama is in trouble when this election leaves the South. Strange irony that a black man has a better chance of winning in the old Confederacy than Yankee states.

Did you see Jon Stewarts take on this "rift"- it is a totally manufactured "rift" by the MSM to make the election exciting I guess? Just to bump up ratings?

good campaigns on ideas and with no declared front runners doesn't make for good TV.

This election shows the need for MSM reform during elections.

This may very well be a Republican manufactured rift. Consider that both Democrats and Republicans have sheep like followers that won't change no matter what. So that means the Independents decide this election. Independent voters have been coming out in droves for Obama, which would guarantee a loss for Republicans, if the Iraq War and Bumbling Bush hasn't done them in already.

I honestly don't think so- Jon Stewart showed the same thing in the Republican campaign, and the ignoring of Ron Paul despite him consistantly beating Rudy Guiliani.

Why don't you watch the words come right from his mouth: Video

This race had nothing to do with race until Obama won in Iowa. And in regards to Obama's victory in SC yesterday.. If you think it was his death knell you are clueless.

You know we will never get past race problems in this country if we have people like you holding fast to your outdated closet racism.

That video was from yesterday. The discussion about race has been going on since early January. Link
The video shows Clinton downplaying Obama's win by saying Jesse Jackson won in '84 and '88, priaising Jackson's campaign, praising Obama's campaign, both in South Carolina and all over the country and then the video fades out. Clinton is trying to downplay Obama's victory whenever he wins. If Hillary or Bill were to say, well it looks like he's really doing well, or, we're getting our butt kicked. What happens? They lose momentum and lose the election. They expected to lose in Iowa and they dropped expectations. They expected to lose in SC, and dropped the expectations. It's a game of perception at this point. Two candidates with roughly the same position on all the major issues trying to win the Presidency by manipulating the opinions of the populace.

You think I'm a racist. Hmmm...that's interesting. Why? What statements of mine do you find racist?

BTW, I predicted Romney will win the Republican nomination and Clinton the Democratic. I predicted Obama would stomp in SC because of the black vote and I was right. I'll be right about the change in this election. You see Sleeper, I don't believe in being nice, I believe in being truthful. Whites will respond to the black vote in SC and Clinton will win the nomination. She'll pick Obama as her running mate and secure the black vote again for the general election. This is how politics works. It's sad that you can't see it. Really, I thought people were smarter on this board.

To CruisingRam,

You know why they're ignoring Paul, because he would be wildly popular. That's why he must be ignored by the media. He got 4 questions in the Florida debate compared to Giuliani who had all day to talk about CAT Coverage. I loved Paul's question to McCain. Paul asked a question exposing McCain's lack of knowledge on the economy and McCain talked about all the people he would rely on. Classic. There are two strategies, republican nomination and general election. Paul will not be controlled and the Republican party knows that. That's why he can't be the candidate, because it would not mean a win for Republicans.

1. It's difficult for me to conceive of Bill Clinton playing the role of supportive spouse and looking on lovingly with big puppy dog eyes as President Hillary delivers her first State of the Nation speech. Even Bill wouldn't be dumb enough to try and turn The White House into a strip-club champagne room again, but I just can't see him being able to resist "advising/meddling" in his wife's presidency. I think Bill will be an ambassador-without-portfolio or a "fixer" who creeps about in the background putting out domestic and foreign fires for President Clinton. What he should be is The First Gentleman who keeps both his lips and zipper zipped.

2. I don't entirely think The Clintons are trying to give Bill his third term, but it is difficult to tell who's running for the office at times. Bill should stop overshadowing Hillary and retreat to a more passive role. He overwhelms her and all the negative criticism he's invited by being such a loyal attack dog for Hillary makes her appear as if she is dependent upon him for support.

3. There's nothing biased about speculating how far Bill Clinton will go to get Hillary elected. If he's this tough against Obama, what will he do to McCain or any other Republican that stands in Hillary's way?




He won and now Obama's campaign is finished? Would it have been better if he had lost? I don't think Sleeper is politically blind, Barnaby2341, however, you might want to consider an eye examination if that's how you read the aftermath of the South Carolina primary.

South Carolina is "the death knell of his campaign?" Should we file that under either "wishful thinking" or "sour grapes?"

A source inside the Obama campaign says the candidate's web site has seen one of its best hours tonight, raising $525,000 in one hour. A senior aide inside the Obama campaign said the candidate's site saw its "highest peak" tonight in both online donations and traffic, "bigger than after Iowa, bigger than after New Hampshire."

The Obama campaign measures online donations every 15 minutes, and the source said that online money was pouring in at the rate of more than $500,000 per hour. link

Over half-a-million dollars in one hour? Not bad for a campaign on its last legs, huh?

You have said repeatedly race has no relevance in this presidential campaign, yet you imply because Obama attracted Black voters in large numbers, the response of White voters will be to rush to Hillary Clinton's side. You're assuming Obama's victory will spark a White backlash that will doom his campaign. How does race not play into that assumption?

The fact that electorate was more than half African-American should not obscure this number: In Greenville County, which has higher average income and a more educated populace than the statewide average and which is 78 percent white, Obama won by a resounding 22 percentage points., annihilating Clinton.

As in New Hampshire and Iowa, exit polls indicated that Obama performed very well among those with post-graduate education and those with incomes over $200,000.

But unlike New Hampshire, Obama also outperformed Clinton among those earning less than $50,000 a year.

According to exit poll interviews Clinton’s only strong demographic groups were white women, among whom she won 44 percent to Obama’s 22 percent, and voters aged 65 and older, among whom she got 40 percent to his 32 percent. link

There is nothing but spin coming out of The Clinton campaign in the wake of the beatdown Billary took in S.C. Obama not only crushed "the first Black president's" spouse with Black voters, he beat her like a rug in every demographic except older voters, White women and divvied up White males between the two of them and John Edwards.

If you seriously believe Hillary and Bill have "steered away from race-based politics" then you haven't been paying attention to the last few weeks. Since her loss in Iowa, Bill Clinton has done nothing but interject race into the campaign including his parting/cheap shot last night that South Carolina had also gone for Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988.

But hey, don't believe me...



They are. Really.

I have to say- I think Obama is a real bonafide "crossover hit" at this point. I am going to say I think Obama will win this thing. Why do I say that? I know anecdotal evidence is no evidence. - Okay, that being said, I am going out on a limb here, but I have never seen a dem candidate get so much positives from so many former republicans- or, even still declared republicans, in my state here. These normally republican ladies and men, that absolutely hate Clinton, make really big statements for them like "I like Obama, I could vote for that guy- no problem"

I think he is getting some big Mo going into super Tuesday.

1. What do you think Bill Clinton's role will be if Hillary Clinton wins in November and what should it be?

It strikes me that if Hillary Clinton wins the election then she can appoint any one she wishes to any position she wishes, or am I mistaken? I can't see how 'should' comes into it at all. There is no non traditional predetermined role for a 'first lady' (is there?). I seem to recall Hillary Clinton having quite a lot of influence on President Bill Clinton so I'm assuming they are working as a team now as they did then. I'm not entirely sure that Bill Clinton is attempting to become president again though. I get the feeling that he is obliged to help his wife given his unique position as a former popular president (and a man caught with his hands in the wrong pants).

What strikes me as odd in this whole black voters vs white voters debate is the lack of attention being paid in the media to the hispanic voters. Surely these are the greatest block of undecided voters? No? How do these millions of voters regard Hillary and Bill Clinton?

I nulled by vote by the way since its really non of my business.

Technically, I don't think Hillary could appoint Bill to any formal cabinet position since that would place him in the line of succession for President. Otherwise, yes she could pretty much have him do whatever she wanted were she to become President.

As far as the hispanic voter question is concerned, pretty astute on your part, Moif. That's an enormous block of voters especially within the Democrat Party and one in which Hillary is counting on heavily. There hasn't been a lot of attention paid to them by the media yet because there haven't been any primaries in states with a significant hispanic population. That will all change on "Super Tuesday" (5Feb) when something like 22 states have their primary, including New York, Illinois and California. I think the respective candidates for each party will be determined pretty much on that day, probably by California and the hispanic vote here is crucial. I haven't seen any polls lately on how anyone is doing in California from either party, but my gut feeling is that Hillary is going to be pretty tough for Obama to beat in this state. The Clintons are pretty popular out here and they do pretty well with the hispanic voters. On the Republican side I think McCain has the edge although I don't know if he has the money to exploit that edge over Romney. California is an enormously expensive state in which to campaign - typically candidates spend tens of millions of dollars for a statewide office race and I don't know that either party or any candidate is ready to cough up that kind of money in a primary.


Aquilla

1.) I believe he will be at least nominated for a seat in the Supreme Court and/or go up for a position in the United Nations. He should travel as a goodwill American diplomat to the nations of the Middle-East, Europe and Asia. He's done a lot for Africa, and I believe George W. Bush will become active in Africa after his term expires, so we could use Clinton abroad.

2.) No. I don't think it's anything that sinister. Hasn't the conversation always been that Hillary was calling the shots during Bill's administration. She hasn't technically served, so the election is in no way in disregard of the Twenty-Second Amendment from the strictest sense.

I have heard it stated that Bill will not even take an office in the White House to minimize such speculation. However, this may or may not just be political posturing.

But historically, in the cases of John and John Quincy Adams, George H. Bush and George W. Bush, neither father made overtures to their sons just because they were in the big chair then. One can be related to the president without being a de facto president.

3.) I don't really seem to be feeling any anti-Clinton bias. I feel an anti-Biden, Gravel, Edwards, Dodd, Hunter, Thompson and Kucinch bias. But anti-Clinton? Certainly not.

It would have been better if the African-American vote split less decisively. That would have made a statement that this election, and by this election I mean Democratic Primary, is not about race. The general election is about George Bush and Democrats win that regardless. You must understand human nature. The white vote dropped for Obama by 10% That's bad news for Obama, because the country is whiter than it is black. Going forward he is going to have a tough time winning. Edwards put all his eggs in Iowa and is from South Carolina. He will be from here on out, a 10%-15% candidate. That will help Hillary out more than Obama. I believe that because in states that Edwards does poorly, she wins. For the record, I prefer Obama over Hillary, but in my analysis of this election I see the election playing out poorly for Obama from here on out.

If I'm sour about anything it's the lack of media coverage given Ron Paul.

His campaign is not on its last leg, but it has reached its peak. I remember telling you that your vote was already decided because your a black man. I don't remember which thread, but I'm sure you remember as well. You disputed it, suggesting that wasn't the case, yet in South Carolina the black vote was 80%-20% for the black candidate. Proving me right. Now, with that said, you cannot deny human nature. There will be a reaction by the white voters in the rest of the country. It's sad, but true.

What I want, and what happens are two different things. I would love this election to be decided by the issues, but that's not the case.


When I said Obama would stomp his way to victory in South Carolina because of the black vote, you scoffed. When he did, you acted like it was a come from behind victory. Hillary Clinton is going to be the big winner on Super Tuesday because Obama's support among white voters is going to drop. So you know, this will be the "I told you so" post.

As far as the Jesse Jackson comment goes I've already seen the tape. He is supposed to downplay all of Obama's victories. That's the political game, to do otherwise would suggest that they believe Obama is a better candidate, and while he is, they aren't going to say that in public. By the way, Jesse Jackson was Martin Luther King's right hand man, and used to be very respected by both the black and white community. He has only recently, because of FOX News, some of the positions he's taken, and being in company with Reverend Al fallen out of the mainstream. What has happened to Jesse Jackson is similar to what has happened to Ted Kennedy. Kennedy has served this nation for over 30 years and had both his older brothers assassinated. What is he now? A Right-wing punching bag. Being compared to Jesse Jackson is not an insult.

barnaby2341 is, I think, in regards to the SC race making a point similar to that which I made in an earlier thread.

Perhaps it would be better received if one points to the key element in the argument: the social dynamic of race in America.

Racism is more complicated than most Americans realize and I still think it has its role to play in this election.

I disagree that this result is the death knell for the Obama campaigning, I actually think he has a great shot at the nomination, mostly because of Hillary Clinton's legendary negatives connotations.

However it is true that many whites in America instinctively recoil from African-American political action. There is a continuing mistrust of blacks in America and necessarily of any black candidate.

Gender may be a more widespread issue but as I've said before race is still far more political.

The first co-presidency? What about Eleanor Roosevelt? I have a quote from her on my refrigerator, and not one from any actual presidents. Or how about Cheney in the bushes? Or the Nixon tapes..have you heard some of the things discussed on the phone while Nixon was "sleeping"? Or what about when Hillary was first lady, isn't this the same scare tactic used then? That she was power hungry and didn't know her place. Now apparently she still doesn't know her place, as the question for debate here suggests that she won't be able to fulfill her role as a president and will require her husband to do the job for her, secretly of course.



1. What do you think Bill Clinton's role will be if Hillary Clinton wins in November and what should it be?

I think it is huge. But then if you are to read and believe the political pundits today, it could also be huge in a negative manner.

2. Is Bruce Feirstein right and The Clintons are trying an end-run around the 22nd Amendment?
Errr no.
I also find his argument he made in the article very much flawed (on several levels) as we have seen companies pass their CEO title down through familial lines, IBM, Motorola, Ford, Murdoch, etc. yes true most often from father to son, but this is very acceptable. In fact often we gain a sense of pride and comfort with a company that employs a father and son or a family owned type image. Not saying this is how the US presidency should be handled, but it has been in the past, several times.
But then his argument seems to concentrate on the fact she is a wife, not a son and that the title of "Mrs. Bill Clinton" alone somehow degrades her position and ability further.

3. Is even asking the question indicative of the news media's anti-Clinton bias? If you mean in regards to her gender, yes I feel it is.

Just as a sidenote I find it completely marginalizing for anyone to demand fairness from or somehow devalue the meaning of black or female voters in regards to gender and racial aspects of this vote. White men have had the luxury of "identity politics" to the absolute point of exclusivity that perhaps maybe they don't really get the importance some of us feel about this politically, not just personally. Perhaps maybe it IS a political issue.

That's a great point considering all of the work that Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt accomplished together. Eleanor was a great face to America to the international community and domestically. So much so that he would often begin his speeches with "Eleanor and I." It's no crime to have a strong spouse. Nancy Regan wasn't very political, Mary Todd Lincoln certainly wasn't political, but their actions are synonymous with the expectations of the office of the President's spouse.

Just because Eleanor and more contemporarily, Hillary, had strong roles did not mean that the authority vested in them eclipsed the legal and rightful leader of this country. I just don't imagine a situation ever where that would happen. And I do truly believe that Hillary is in full possession of her faculties and would no dream of letting Bill have another go at the Oval Office.