The November 5, 2007 article by Charles Krauthammer, "With Clinton, we get two presidents,"
says that if Hillary is elected, she should exile the former President Bill Clinton to Argentina as ambassador, because if he is in the White House his influence will overpower her. Argentina is home to the new husband-wife presidential duo, Kirchner-Fernandez.
He compares the other father-son presidential dynasties. The Adamses were separated from the White House by a generation of years, with the first President Adams dying soon after his successor son became the occupier. He accuses Maureen Dowd of Oedipus fantasies in her assessments of President Bush the younger. However, it is well known that the elder President Bush, while continuing as a family acquaintance, has never been in the inner political circle with President Bush the younger, nor was his prior recorded rationale against a full invasion of Iraq heeded by his son. In fact, the first President Bush and his immediate successor, President Bill Clinton, became a symbol of bipartisan public trust and accomplishment in their retirement years.
Charles Krauthammer evidently has a problem with political intimacy. He asserts that will be a deterrent to objectivity on the part of Senator Clinton, if she becomes president. However possible this might be, there is the positive aspect that his experience would lend.
Having two presidents can be either good or bad, depending on one's emotional-political persuasion. An objective analysis of Bill's possible influence with Hillary would be appreciated, not this subjective pandering on this columnist's part. More negative bickering proclaimed by fearful pseudo-conservatives will follow in this paper, but can not be left unchallenged by readers who care about this nation and want more critical thinking.
© Copyright 200 St. Petersburg Times
(another one smites the dust)
