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.