Astonishingly little has been said about a co-presidency
should Hillary Clinton win the White House in 2016.
Mrs. Clinton’s book, “Hard Choices,” just published, is seen
as an opening shot in her campaign for the presidency, despite demurs. She is
the favorite in polls of Democrats.
Yet, how often is former President Bill Clinton, her spouse,
mentioned as sharing the same roof should she succeed in winning what has been
the most powerful office on earth?
Here is one quote on the subject:
“From day one of Hillary’s inauguration, Bill will have more
experience than her on everything she touches,” wrote Charles Krauthammer on
Nov. 2, 2007. Bill’s influence would be “immeasurably greater than that of any
father on a son.” The columnist referred to John and John Quincy Adams and to
George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush.
If she gains the nomination, surely her campaign would try brushing
aside any question – or insinuation – that she would be subservient to her man.
After all, she wasn’t going to stay in the White House and bake cookies, she
said during the 1992 campaign.
Bill even huckstered: “. . . and you get two for the price
of one” with his election. She was reputed among the smartest women in the world
during that campaign. She later showed her worth by blowing an overhaul of the
country’s health delivery system.
“Two for one vote.” “Experience Squared.” “Two peas in a
pod.” “Billary and Hill.”
Well, Hillary won’t use such slogans. But Republicans will,
ironically.
A few Americans might be inspired to vote for two presidents
joined by a marriage license. Bill and Hill would hardly campaign for
traditional marriage. Theirs has not been such. And their party is clearly
opposed to maintaining one man/one woman as the legal standard for nuptials.
They could divorce, then cohabitate as President Rodham and
William Jefferson Clinton.
Even then, every policy or pronouncement to come out of the
Oval Office would be subjected to this query: Whose decision, actually?
If elected her hardest choice would be in telling Bill to
keep his opinions to himself.
Indeed, she would be the first woman ever elected president
of the United States of America. Would that be a clean victory for her gender,
or for her surname?
Would the First Husband – America’s consummate politician – really be content to supervise the
social secretary and the pastry chef? “First Husband” hardly seems a truly
descriptive sobriquet.
Who would be president?
