Senator Hillary Clinton told a crowd this weekend that if she were elected President, that she would very defintely have her husband Bill work in her administration, most likely in a diplomatic role.
This announcement might not be so helpful to her potential Presidential campaign.
To quote the Senator herself:
"I can't think of a better cheerleader for America than Bill Clinton. Can you? He has said he would do anything I asked him to do. I would put him to work."
This does not sound like a bad idea, in and of itself, to me. No one could accuse former President Clinton of not having good diplomatic skills. However, my immediate feeling that this announcement may not quite be the feather in her cap that she was hoping for.
Not only could appointing her husband into her Administration invite potentially damaging smears during her possible Presidential campaign, based on charges of nepotism, corruption, or just the plain "Bill Clinton-hatred" view that seems to run rampant in the Republican crowd, but I could also see it turing into a talking point to be disseminated to the Talking Newsheads. Something along the lines of: "Some say that if Hillary becomes president that we'll get Bill as president-by-proximity..." or some other nonsense. It dosen't have to be realistic, or even make much sense, but if it gets repeated on primetime news enough times, 36% to 40% will most likely accept it as fact at some point.
Another phenomena I noticed is that the Republican voter crowd (and many prominent Republican politicians) may be abandoning President Bush like rats from a sinking ship, but if there's one thing they can almost always agree upon, it's that they all dislike Bill Clinton, regardless of how they may feel about Hillary. That said, the fact that some would readily equate a vote for Hillary Clinton as a vote for Bill Clinton as well could very be a big black eye for Senator Clinton's prospective Presidential campaign.
In my opinon, it could be a fatal weakness.
Out of all the Democratic candidates, Senator Clinton is the only one I could actually see losing. Losing to someone like Rudy Guiliani, or Fred "Shudder with Revulsion" Thompson.
Then again, it may amount to not much at all in the end, but my feeling is during the run-up to 2008, the Republican end of the spectrum is going to be using every bit of ammunition they can drag up against their opponents, and if there's one thing they have a proven track record for, it's for making absurd, even outright false negative attacks stick to their opponents, at least in the mind of their base, or those not too far outside that particular ideology. Remember the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth(tm)"? I'm sure you can dredge up more examples in your mind if you try. I could forsee things like this tipping the balance in 2008. That fact alone scares me. 12 years now going of some self-serving idiot Republican with a grandiose crusade of some kind with a small, but rabid base of supporters holding a death-grip on Executive branch.
I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.