Broder's "difficult question" that "lingers ... unasked" about purported "dual presidency" was asked -- by his own paper
SUMMARY: In his Washington Post column, discussing "the prospect of a dual presidency" -- if former President Clinton and Sen. Hillary Clinton return to the White House -- David Broder wrote that "the country must decide whether it is comfortable with such a sharing of the power and authority of the highest office in the land," adding that this is a "difficult question" that "lingers, even if unasked." But neither Clinton has said that a new Clinton White House would operate as "a dual presidency." Moreover, a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 60 percent of respondents said they "personally feel comfortable ... with the idea of Bill Clinton back in the White House, this time as first husband," in contrast with the 30 percent who said they feel "uncomfortable."
In his November 15 Washington Post column, David Broder discussed what he called "the prospect of a dual presidency" if former President Bill Clinton and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) return to the White House under a Hillary Clinton presidency, asserting that such a "prospect" is one "that will test the tolerance of the American people far more severely than the possibility of the first female president -- or, for that matter, the first black president." Broder wrote that "the country must decide whether it is comfortable with such a sharing of the power and authority of the highest office in the land," adding that this is a "difficult question" that "lingers, even if unasked." In fact, neither Clinton has suggested that a new Clinton White House would operate as "a dual presidency." Moreover, as Talking Points Memo Media reporter-blogger Greg Sargent noted, "voters ... have told pollsters again and again and again that they are comfortable with" the prospect of Bill Clinton being back in the White House, and see it "as either a non-issue or a positive." In a September 27-30 poll, Broder's own newspaper and ABC News found that 60 percent of respondents said they "personally feel comfortable ... with the idea of Bill Clinton back in the White House, this time as first husband"; 30 percent said they feel "uncomfortable"; 8 percent were "neutral"; and 1 percent had "[n]o opinion."
Washingtonpost.com featured Broder's column in the opinions box on its homepage with the headline "Billary Burnout?" The caption, accompanying a picture of Bill and Hillary Clinton, read: "The prospect of a two-headed Clinton monster as president could test the tolerance of the American people":
In addition, as Sargent noted, Broder has previously highlighted this "difficult question." In a September 6 column, Broder asserted:
But one thing is absolutely clear. Her marriage is the central fact in her life, and this partnership of Bill and Hillary Clinton is indissoluble. She cannot function without him, and he would not have been president without her. If she becomes president, he will play as central a role in her presidency as she did in his. And that is something the country will have to ponder.
Contrary to Broder's suggestion, neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton has said that they would have a "dual presidency." In an April 22 article, the Associated Press reported that Hillary Clinton said "that if she is elected president, she would make her husband a roaming ambassador to the world, using his skills to repair the nation's tattered image abroad." The article then quoted her as saying: "I can't think of a better cheerleader for America than Bill Clinton, can you? ... I believe in using former presidents, particularly what my husband has done, to really get people around the world feeling better about our country."
In an interview aired on the July 31 edition of ABC's Nightline, Bill Clinton asserted that Hillary Clinton "wants me to help her but not get underfoot too much." He also said that while he is "strongly committed" to continuing his work with the William J. Clinton Foundation, he would do "whatever she asks," specifically noting that he would be willing to do "some of the more social work":
KATE SNOW (ABC News co-anchor): She [Hillary Clinton] has said that you would be a global ambassador of sorts. I'm trying to imagine if you would have an office in the East Wing. Would you even be in the White House? Would you just be traveling all the time? You -- have you thought -- you must have thought about this?
CLINTON: Yeah, well, I'd like to be home a little bit with her, you know? I think that, in general, I will do whatever she asks, but I am strongly committed to continuing my foundation work.
SNOW: Can you do both?
CLINTON: I think so.
SNOW: Can you have an office in the East Wing and do the foundation work?
CLINTON: In Harlem and keep my work up?
SNOW: Yes.
CLINTON: Sure. I think that, you know, I work hard now. I'd [inaudible] have to work hard. And I like that. It keeps me alive, and it's interesting. I think that I could do a lot of double time. Like, if she wanted me to go some place to work on some problem, I could also be doing my foundation's work. But it's important for me to continue this. And I also think she wants me to help her but not get underfoot too much, you know? I don't wanna get in the way. I wanna do what I'm asked to do and what I'm needed to do, so I --
SNOW: Yeah.
CLINTON: I'm confident I'll be able to continue this.
[...]
SNOW: It is clearly a role reversal -- and this may surprise you: If she wins, Bill Clinton says he won't necessarily avoid traditional first-lady duties, the high teas and ribbon-cutting ceremonies that are staples of the position.
CLINTON: I wouldn't mind actually doing some of that work, some of the, you know -- some of the more social work if --
SNOW: Opening libraries?
CLINTON: If I were asked to do that, I'd be happy to do it as long as I could do it consistent with --
SNOW: With everything else.
CLINTON: -- whatever else I was asked to do for her and with my foundation. I -- you know, I think that, like I said, I think when someone you know and care about gets elected president, it should be all hands on deck.
From Broder's November 15 Washington Post column:
The former president's intervention -- volunteered during a campaign appearance on her behalf in South Carolina -- raised the second, and largely unspoken, issue identified by my friend from the Clinton administration: the two-headed campaign and the prospect of a dual presidency.
In his view, which I share, this is a prospect that will test the tolerance of the American people far more severely than the possibility of the first female president -- or, for that matter, the first black president.
As my friend says, "there is nothing in American constitutional or political theory to account for the role of a former president, still energetic and active and full of ideas, occupying the White House with the current president."
No precedent exists for such an arrangement, and no ground rules have been -- or probably can be -- written. When Bill Clinton was president, the large policy enterprise that was entrusted to the first lady -- health-care reform -- crashed in ruins.
The causes were complex, and some of the burden falls on other people -- Republicans and Democrats in Congress, the interest groups and, yes, the press. But as one who reported and wrote in great detail and length about that whole enterprise, I can also tell you that the awkwardness of having an unelected but uniquely influential partner of the president in charge affected every step of the process, from the gestation of the plan to its final demise. She was never again asked to take on such a project.
And this was simply the confusion sown by having the first lady in charge. Put the former president into the picture -- however "sanitized" or insulated his role is supposed to be -- and the dimensions of the problem become even larger.
No one who has read or studied the large literature of memoirs and biographies of the Clintons and their circle can doubt the intimacy and the mutual dependence of their political and personal partnership.
No one can reasonably expect that partnership to end should Hillary Clinton be elected president. But the country must decide whether it is comfortable with such a sharing of the power and authority of the highest office in the land.
It is a difficult question for any of the Democratic rivals to raise. But it lingers, even if unasked.
Broder's dramatic statement falls victim to that age-old nemises: Research.
I do not mind the "dual"presidency. I do mind the firestorm of partisan hate that will engulf our nation however if Hillary is elected. It will create 4 or 8 more years of committees, hate commercials and nothing will be done. Just like today with our do nothing President and do nothing Congress.
Do you naïvely feel there won't be a firestorm of partisan hate if Obama, Edwards, Richardson or Biden were to win instead?
I think if Biden or Richardson got the nomination the partisan hate would be less.
the only reason they're not targets now is because they are not considered leading contenders. hillary, obama and edwards are considered the leading candidates, and not coincidently, are the leading targets of the right.
With a Democratic president and Democratic congress the need for a 60 vote veto-proof majority in the senate disappears and so does the bottleneck.
I think the American people are smart enough to know that.
The far right wing can crawl back under their rocks and spend the next 4 years wailing and gnashing their teeth. That's what they're good at.
What's the "bottleneck"?
I think the American people know that giving one party unchecked reign over both branches of government is a recipe for corruption, cronyism, unbridled power trips, and disaster.
No thanks,
What's the "bottleneck"?
A president who refuses to work with congress.
I'd rather have the President and the Congress battle over ideas where the best for the country is fought over and ultimately decided with the cream rising to the top.
I don't care to see the two branches of government acting out their own political paybacks and pet projects to entrench their power and keep the other side shut out because one party is in the deep minority.
It happened with the Democrats, and it happened with the Republicans. One party gets fat, the other party whines, and the people lose.
That's nice.
What do you think of Broder's comments that are the topic of this thread?
I'm trying to be helpful here and keep you from driving off the road and into the quicksand like you usually do.
Worry about your own driving skills, you just used your initial post as an off the topic slam, again, against the far right and the rocks they live under, for no reason.
So any directives from you are meaningless to me.
Wow you are full of hate today.
Today?
Sue, Johnniy One Note is always angry.
The bottleneck is the 60 + votes needed to break the Republican filibuster ... something that they wanted to take out of the equation prior to their crash-landing into the MINORITY ...
With a Democratic president and Democratic congress the need for a 60 vote veto-proof majority in the senate disappears and so does the bottleneck.
Without the 60 votes required to invoke cloture in the Senate, Regressives still can make life difficult for the Democrats. The bottleneck won't disappear.
Oh, and btw, a veto override requires a 2/3rds vote not 60. When all 100 Senators vote, they need 67 votes to override a Presidential veto.
Yeah cloture 60, veto-proof 67.
My bad.
This is so stupid. Do they really expect people to believe that HILLARY of all people is going to SHARE POWER with her husband? Haven't they spen the last few years thrying to convince us that she's this power-hungry tyrant? My God. Make up your mind's folks - you can't have it both ways.
If we're lucky she'll occasionally ask the former president for ADVICE. Seeing as how hiw 8 years in office were the most prosperous for this ocuntry in my lifetime, I'd say that can only be a good thing.
The 'Pub's will do anything not to lose won't they? They can't STAND not being in power. They'll say ANYTHING, even if it cotradicts what they said last and makes them look (or exposes they're being) STUPID!
Nothing that the Clinton duality, nor either Clinton singly, could be as bad as the eight diasterous years of Bungle and the Bungloids, so I guess my tolerance is unlikely to be sorely tested.
However, for Broder, and those who really, really, wish to precipitate a hurried end to human occupation of this planet, perhaps the next eight - or even just four - years will seem interminable?
Just a quiz: what part of speech is missing from that first sentence, that would allow it to make some sort of sense?
CONLEY:
Trick question. It's a TYPO, the first word "nothing" should have dropped the "h", and been "NOTING that ..."
Also, the word "diasterous" is in need of help.
Justice and Truth in the USA - Fact Check:
This kind of "shared" rule is sometimes referred to as NEPOTISM, like the kind of third world dictatorships of Chaushesku and Marcos.
It the people of the USA accept it we will have finally lost our democracy.
NO!
Nepotism would be engagement of a relative in some paid position of influence or power. Nothing here even resembles nepotism.
Nepotism would be engagement of a relative in some paid position of influence or power.
-------------------------------------------------
Believe me, we are all going to "pay" for it. This kind of corruption is NEVER free.
True that.
The last 7 years of it has tripled our national debt to $9 trillion.
I'm always a little curious, though, how those of you who are so adept at recognizing impending corruption in potential candidates not only were so incompetent at recognizing it back in 2000 and 2004, but remain so silent about it even now when it's happening right in front of your face.
Too much focus? Kind of an "idiot savant" thing going on inside there? <knock knock knock> Hello?
george w. bush was a partying lush until he was 40, got saved, and decided the lord wanted him to be president. and you people bought it.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
I'm sure you made the same comment was George II was elected to the presidency and Jeb I was elected gov. of FL?
Of course not. That was simply the kind of "dynasty" you expect when a family is devoted to public service.
I get it. So when a Republican does it, it's a dynasty that should be revered and honored. When a Democrat does it, they are nepotistic dictators.
I think I got it straight now.
Kyle, I still don't think you get where this 28%-er is coming from. Try this:
"devoted to public service" = "beholden to cronies, and business associates".
That should help you understand it.
Ahh, the Bush family dynasty: the kind you would expect with their dedication to looting the public treasury.
As usual, Justice Troll, you are wrong.
According to Wikipedia, nepotism is the showing of favoritism toward relatives, based upon that relationship, rather than on an objective evaluation of ability or suitability. There is no doubt of Bill Clinton's abilities, just as there was no doubt of Bobby Kennedy's abilities when his brother nominated him for Attorney General.
Now - if George W. Bush were to nominate his crooked brother Neil as the head of the Federal Reserve, THAT would be nepotism.
Kind of like when JFK hired Robert to be Attorney General?
Are you even able to read JT? I wonder who does your typing for you?
"just as there was no doubt of Bobby Kennedy's abilities "
Can't read very well...can you?
JusticeTravesty: "It[sic] the people of the USA accept it we will have finally lost our democracy."
Um, NO.
If the people of the USA accept it, it will be because they maintained our democracy BY VOTING FOR IT.
Justice you have a mild point, there is a family dynasty in our nation its either the Bushes of the Clintons running our nation. One has been either Pres or VP for 28 years. Our nation does not lile Royalty so we pick from two families.
Justice you have a mild point
- Be careful. Radical statements like that can get you nothing but trouble at this site!
Even a broken watch is right, twice a day.
Justice many on here attack me for my opinions, they do not like free thinkers they want to play the partisan hate game. I have thick skin and can fight back with facts. They hate that.
Sue,
For claiming to use facts, you seem to have forgotten one: This site and the people who visit it revel in statements of fact. It is the sole reason I visit this site. I am tired of conservative spin and would like to read about facts.
This is a fact. Use it.
Here's the REAL difficult question: why does a hack like David Broder still have a job?
"The prospect of a two-headed Clinton monster as president
This is responsible opinion journalism? It is not fit for use as bedding in a bird cage. The use of the monster word knocks it in the gutter. I wait for the Post to ask, "is this country ready for a cross-dressing president?" That would be more than fair by these standards.
Broder said...
... such a "prospect" is one "that will test the tolerance of the American people far more severely than the possibility of the first female president.
Does he seriously believe that Bill Clinton as First Husband will be a greater test of toleranace than Broder having to refer to the elected leader of the free world as Mrs. President? I don't believe it. It's not Bill taking a role or giving advice that angers the right. It's him simply sleeping in that same building from which they were unable to evict him by impeachment. It's not the American people but the angry minority right who will feel the salt rubbing in their festering wounds if the Clintons moves back into that building.
It's interesting how back during the Republictratic Bill Clinton years the rightwing freaks were going on and on about how Hillary was the one running things in the Whitehouse. Remeber? Her influence was brought up quite often to emasculate Bill Clinton- reminding us that he was one of those pussified lefty Democrats. Ofcourse I could argue against this all day but why bother. But now the script has changed. Now it's Hillary that will be handing over the reins to her husband. It will be Bill's third term blah blah blah. What is it with rightwingers and their total lack of memory. Is the elephant logo an attempt at irony?
rightwing freaks were going on and on about how Hillary was the one running things in the Whitehouse. Remeber?
Actually, Hillary was only in charge of all the scandals.
But that was a full-time job in the Clinton regime.
Billiybob, 8 years of manufacturing scandals has taken its toll on the rightwing smear machine, but you valiantly struggle on with your empty bag of tricksy statements.
I don't look forward to 4 more years of clueless babbling by David Broder either.
Justice,
I look forward to your posts regarding the current administration's endless scandals, since they seem so important to you.
Broder's comments reek of sexism, racism, and conservative Republican arrogance. One of his assumptions is that a woman could not handle the job by herself, so of course it will be a "dual presidency" with Bill. Who, other than Republicans, has said anything about Bill having Presidential "power" and "authority"? Broder seems to assume that a man could not possibly respect his wife's authority as President. I don't recall Broder fretting about the Bush Dynasty. He ought to be concerned about Cheney, if he is worried about who gets to wield unprecedented power in the White House. He says we would be "tolerating" something by having a black or female President. What's to tolerate? This implies that such a thing is barely acceptable, which may be true for him and his associates, but don't project it onto the whole country. Broder's "awkwardness" about all this is ridiculous, and "two headed monster" is grossly insulting (as if we don't already have one in Bush/Cheney)). I'm not even a Hillary fan, but I am disgusted by the way the media treat her, which debases our whole electoral process. It isn't just Broder, there is a whole pack of them.
Shorter Broder: we would get extra talent in the White House in the form of Bill if Hillary is elected, and that's a problem we have to do something about. Black and female candidates!! An ex-President married to a President!! How confusing!! How awkward!! It's an unspoken PROBLEM!! Bill might have an OFFICE in the White House!! A two-headed monster!! I think I'm going to faint!!
The unasked question: Shouldn't we have feared that GHWB, a disgraced failure of a president, would have established a dual presidency with his son GWB? How much time did Broder spend on that issue?
Or is the fact that Bill Clinton was a successful, enormously popular president make this a worse situation? How?
And in the end, Dean Broder, don't we all wish - even a blind, smug idiot like you - that we had elected the produent father instead of the stupid, corrupt son?
IF BILL CLINTON COULD HAVE RUN FOR ANOTHER TERM HE WOULD BE IN THE WHITEHOUSE NOW. SO ITS A NO BRAINER TO HAVE HIM BOOST UP OUR IMAGE THE WORLD OVER WHILE SHE IS TAKING CARE OF DOMESTIC ISSUES.THINGS WILL CALM DOWN. WE NEED CALMING DOWN AND GETTING UNDER CONTROL
I would be thrilled that President Hillary Clinton would have such beneficial and immediate access to former President Bill Clinton right in her White house!
Bill Clinton is one of the most popular presidents we have ever had and his presidency was superior to most despite being constantly harangued by the religious wrong. His return to the White house even as a live-in advisor could not be anything but great for America!
Dual Presidency
Doesn't David Broder realize we have a dual presidency now--Bush-Cheney--with Cheney running things more than President Bush? Why was the Vice President always copied on all Dept. of Justice memos, something found out during the Alberto Gonzales' testimony?
That won't be the case with Hillary and Bill. Hillary can stand on her own two feet, and Bill will have his own duties, plus his foundation, which is very important to him. I'm sure he would advise her if asked, but she is very capable of making her own decisions and will surround herself with competent advisors.
DW