A Package Deal

Lately, there's been a lot of discussion about Bill Clinton's presence in his wife's campaign for the presidency.

We're in uncharted waters here, since this is the first time an ex-president's spouse has sought the presidency. But, as long as Hillary Clinton is part of the political landscape, you can expect Bill Clinton to be wherever the spotlight is.

And there are those who believe that Bill Clinton is a loose cannon, taking aim at constituencies that have been enthusiastic Clinton supporters in the past.

Take, for example, his charge about Barack Obama and his claims of consistent opposition to the Iraq War. In the words of CBS News' Vaughn Ververs, "[M]any blacks heard more than policy criticism. They heard a dismissive attack on the first black with a real chance of winning the White House. They heard echoes of racial battles of the past. And they heard it from someone who was supposed to be on their side."

The South Carolina primary offered proof of how the black community responded. More than half of Saturday's Democratic voters in South Carolina were black, and nearly four-fifths of them voted for Obama.

The final totals showed Obama with 55% of the vote in South Carolina. Clinton was second with 27%, and John Edwards was third with 18%. The latest delegate count has Obama with 63 delegates, Clinton with 48 and Edwards with 26.

And if you've found yourself being turned off by the talk of political dynasties -- following the presidencies of George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush in the last two decades -- isn't Clinton's candidacy just more of the same?

In a way, that's the point that Obama tried to make when he observed, in the most recent debate, that he didn't know who he was running against, Bill or Hillary.

Frankly, the situation is exactly what they told us it was 16 years ago -- two for the price of one.

That part hasn't changed. What's different is the experience level. And, for both of them, that includes eight years in the White House.

It's a record that needs to be fully investigated. To this point, America's voters have been asked to accept it on faith, much as they were expected, 40 years ago, to accept on faith Richard Nixon's promise of a "secret plan" to end the Vietnam War.

Hillary Clinton claims to have gained invaluable experience as first lady, but we've been given no details of that experience. Was it confined to sitting in on high-level meetings? Was she given a vote on policy? If so, on whose authority?

To my knowledge, she was neither elected nor appointed to any position that permitted her to participate in making policy.

As a lawyer, she should know -- as I'm sure she does -- that there are laws prohibiting the assumption or execution of any power or privilege unless the source of that authority is legitimate.

Legal authority. That's how things work in a democracy.

The presidency is not a fraternity or sorority. When the word "legacy" is mentioned, it does not mean the automatic right of a president's spouse or offspring to assume presidential power after the president leaves office.

And, to this point, we have no evidence of the legitimacy of Hillary Clinton's White House experience.

Maybe Hillary Clinton didn't have a vote. Maybe she was allowed to speak at meetings, but wasn't given any other privilege. What did she say? How did she influence decisions on policy?

I'm sorry, but it's just not enough for me to be told that "she was there." Potted plants were there, too. But no one has suggested that the potted plants played a role in policy making.

Earlier this week, Maureen Dowd wrote, in the New York Times, that "It’s odd that the first woman with a shot at becoming president is so openly dependent on her husband to drag her over the finish line."

The Economist puts it more bluntly: "Is Mr. Clinton damaging his wife's presidential chances as well as his own reputation?"

And Bill's influence certainly won't end there. It's becoming clear, from sea to shining sea, that his involvement is more about him than it is about her.

Vanity Fair has already concluded that Bill is running for a third term. Vanity Fair says Bill Clinton's behavior has been "sordid and undignified. And his de facto backdoor attempt to retake the presidency is nothing short of unseemly."

Jonathan Chait wonders, in the Los Angeles Times, if "the conservatives might have had a point about the Clintons' character. ... They do seem to have a feeling of entitlement to power."

If Hillary is nominated, this won't end on Election Day.

"Any Democrat who seriously thinks that Bill will fade away if Hillary wins the nomination -- let alone that the Clintons will escape being fully vetted -- is a Democrat who ... believes in fairy tales," writes Frank Rich in today's New York Times.

"For better or worse," writes Michael Tackett in the Chicago Tribune, "Bill Clinton [is] in the race."

Say what you will about George Wallace. But I preferred it when his first wife, Lurleen, ran for governor of Alabama more than 40 years ago because George was barred by the existing state law from succeeding himself. Everyone in Alabama knew who would be the real governor if Lurleen Wallace won.

At least the voters knew the nature of the deal they were making.

Who will be the real president if Hillary Clinton wins? Do we know the nature of that deal?