Guest Comment: A two-headed presidency

Some have characterized Senator Clinton as the presumptive nominee of the Democrat party.

A treasure trove of money, an organization dating back to the Bill Clinton days, and the inevitability factor promoted by her and supported by the mainstream media would assure her the nomination.

With Bill and Hillary Clinton campaigning to put themselves back in the White House, the two for one strategy has trouble written all over it.

The New York senator embraces the role of virtual incumbent promising to restore conditions in the economy and in the government to the way they were during her husband’s administration…. a throwback to the 90s.

At a rally in Waterloo, Iowa, the Clintons were introduced as the “once and future presidents.”

They appear to be making a calculated decision to run as co-presidents seeking restoration of the Clinton dynasty.

No comment from me on whether Mrs. Clinton is qualified to hold the highest office in the land, however, she has repeatedly suggested the only way George W. Bush became president was because the Bush family is a dynasty.

Perhaps this is true, and perhaps he is the “runt” of the dynastic litter as some have suggested, but wouldn’t this same logic apply to her?

Americans are instinctively suspicious of dynastic politics. A vote for Senator Clinton is a vote for the last entry of a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton quarter century.

This strategy of co-presidency could be a political disaster for the Democrats in 2008. Restore the Clinton regime, things were better then seems to be the message.

Not only does this undercut her candidacy by making voters question which Clinton they are electing, it positions the campaign as looking backward not forward.

It seems to be sending the message that Senator Clinton cannot do it on her own, that her husband will be helping her make the decisions, and that the change she wants is to restore both of them in the presidency.

Bill Clinton’s enthusiastic support of this idea suggests he views the return would strengthen his legacy and allow him to get things accomplished he was not able to when sexual indiscretions and lying under oath got in his way. Could his return to the White House suggest an environment of a sex scandal waiting to happen?

This kind of message could be the kiss of death for the Democrats in 2008.

We have never had an ex-president move back into the White House.

Although spousal succession is not new in some countries, for example, Argentina, it is new to the United States.

This ex-president is not a man who will be lounging around the White House in his robe and slippers with tassels. This is a man who knows more than; has more experience than; has more connections than; has a bigger ego (although this is debatable) than the one who will be president.

This person in the White House would be the former president of the United States, commander in chief of the Armed Forces, and whose involvement in the decision making will inevitably become an issue.

Can you imagine a role for a vice president in this environment?

After careful consideration, will Americans really want a historically unique two-headed presidency constantly surrounded by a highly dysfunctional marriage?

Although very early in the election process, it appears voters are rejecting the prospect of a two-headed presidency.

John Fanning and his wife Trudy moved to Green Valley eight years ago from the Twin Cities.