Charles Krauthammer devotes his weekly column to a comparison of the Kirchners with the Clintons. Krauthammer’s analysis lacks the aesthetic component of John Hinderaker’s immediately below, but it otherwise comes out about where John did:
We have never had an ex-president move back into the White House. When in 1992 Bill Clinton promised “two for the price of one,” it was taken as a slightly hyperbolic promotion of the role of first lady. This time we would literally be getting two presidents….
Americans did not like the idea of a co-presidency when, at the 1980 Republican convention, Ronald Reagan briefly considered sharing the office with former President Gerald Ford. (Ford would have been vice president with independent powers.) And they won’t like this co-presidency, particularly because the Clinton partnership involves two characters caught in the dynamic of a strained, strange marriage.
The cloud hovering over a Hillary presidency is not Bill padding around the White House in robe and slippers flipping thongs. It’s President Clinton, in suit and tie, simply present in the White House when any decision is made. The degree of his involvement in that decision will inevitably become an issue. Do Americans really want a historically unique two-headed presidency constantly buffeted by the dynamics of a highly dysfunctional marriage?
Krauthammer proposes a solution in the last paragraph of his column — the only one that he says comes to mind. It may in fact be the only solution in the event that Ms. Hillary is elected president. A second solution would be defeating her. However difficult that may be, defeating her is more realistic than the ingenious solution Krauthammer proposes.
FOOTNOTE: Pajamas Media has posted Ian Mount’s informative observations on the transition of Ms. Kirchner from first lady to president of Argentina.