Clinton supporters would like to see former President Bill Clinton appointed to fill wife Hilary’s vacant Senate seat should she win the 2008 Presidential election.  While this scenario is unlikely due to Hilary’s likely use of her husband in foreign policy matters and Eliot Spitzer’s desire to take the spotlight of New York politics, it does pose an interesting scenario.  Could Bill Clinton finally get his chance to get something done in American politcs besides be a politician?  He sure didn’t get anything done as President.

 Two large policy advances came about during the Clinton Presidency…welfare reform and a balanced budget.  Clinton supporters blindly applaud the President for spearheading these policy initiatives.  However, both of these reforms were the sole result of a Republican Congress and the influence of then Speaker Newt Gingrich. 

 In his bid for the White House, Bill Clinton proposed welfare reform.  He saw a system in shambles and used his reform rhetoric to win over moderate voters.  While Clinton likely believed strongly in reforming the system, he caved in to political pressures once in office and never pushed for welfare reform.  Republican Congressmen took the initiative in drafting and passing legislation.  Clinton responded with two vetoes.  However, three months before his re-election, Clinton conveniently signed the third version of welfare reform and touted its benefits to potential voters.   

In similar fashion, Clinton likes to take credit for balancing the budget.  He’s quick to forget that in 1995 it took the President five budgets to come up with one that fit the Republican’s balanced budget requirements.  Republicans had a balanced budget four years after taking control of Congress.  If the President controlled the budget we’d never have had one and we’d have only seen more tax hikes (like Clinton’s in 1993). 

 I would enjoy seeing Bill Clinton in the Senate to see how he votes on tough issues.  Would he play the same political games he played in the White House?  Will he be more successful at passing Hilary’s initiatives than she was at getting Health Care Reform passed?  I think a brain-dead marmaset could do better than she did with that one…although I’m glad she failed miserably.

Maybe it’s time the man who was responsible for the budget and policy reform of the Clinton era run for President.  Newt Gingrich is one of the smartest men I’ve ever seen.  While interning in Washington I watched him make a panel of Congresspeople look like second graders.  His vision for a responsible government with minimal bureaucracy and more emphasis on private business practices would make him more of a “progressive” than any candidate on either side of the aisle.  But, an Obama, Clinton, or Edwards presidency scare me enough to hold off on supporting any candidate.  I agree Newt would be polarizing and Giulliani might just get my vote anyway in an effort to keep others out.

It’s too early to tell what will happen in 2008, but whatever does Bill Clinton will be influential in getting there.  It would be interesting to give him a chance to actually make some policy changes.  

I’m more or less obsessed with Newsweek’s Howard Fineman. While he’s not exactly a fine man, his political commentary does read like an engaging narrative, and in this day and age of widespread undiagnosed ADHD, I think that’s an important skill to possess. His column for next week’s issue tackles a delightful subject for political junkies: couples in the 2008 presidential race.

As Fineman points out, all three frontrunners for the Democratic nomination–Clinton, Obama, and Edwards–are just one half of a politically formidable tag team. Although Elizabeth Edwards and Michelle Obama cannot boast a record of having served as elected officials-distinguishing them from former President and potential First Gentleman Bill Clinton-Fineman makes it clear that they are forces to be reckoned with in a presidential campaign:

“Sen. Barack Obama’s wife, Michelle, is a hospital administrator with deep political ties to Chicago’s South Side—and a Harvard Law degree to match her husband’s. John Edwards met his wife, Elizabeth, at the University of North Carolina’s law school, and she is an attorney and author with her own devoted following on the campaign trail.”

And while Bill and Hill are living proof that political spouses can be a liability at times, Bill Clinton is a rock star who will serve as an enormous asset for his wife in her race for the nomination, and Michelle and Elizabeth aren’t too far behind:

“Michelle Obama’s charm and connections helped bring together the families of Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and Jesse Jackson in support of her husband’s candidacy. In Iowa… focus groups show that Elizabeth Edwards is perhaps the most popular public figure in the state. A dogged campaigner, she connects with her patient, sympathetic manner—and with tales of loss and pain in her life (the death of a son, her battle with breast cancer) recounted in a recent book.”

So, here’s the big question: Which partnership should be crowned the official Democratic power couple in 2008? Do we stick with the Clintons and bank on Bill’s classic charm (and voters’ nostalgia for the prosperous 90s)? Or is it time to pass the torch? As is so often the case, I’m torn. From a strategic perspective, I’m most comfortable with Bill on the stump, but Elizabeth has it in her to be nearly as popular as Laura Bush with a hell of a lot more political substance and policy perspective. And just about any photograph of the Obama family leaves me shuddering with excitement with the message of progression and opportunity we’d be projecting as a country.

I’m going with the Clintons, but it’s a very tough decision. What say you, blog community?