You know that is what will occur if the Washington Post has its way!
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton becomes secretary of state, New York Gov. David Paterson could send her husband to the U.S. Senate.
Hence the appeal of Bill Clinton. Who in his party could question so historic and dazzling a choice? In a stroke, the appointment would provide Sen. Clinton’s indefatigable husband with a fitting day job, serve the interests of a state beset by a meltdown in its most vital economic sector and offer a refreshing reverse twist on a tradition whereby deceased male senators, representatives or governors are succeeded by their widows.
In the editorial penned for the WaPo, Karl E. Meyer and Shareen Blair Brysac make an argument in favor of William Jefferson Clinton replacing Hillary Clinton as the junior Senator from New York. Of course, their argument is extrememly feeble and sounded more like a love letter to Britney Spears, but they left out the most important arguments in favor of sending Bill to the Senate.
When Senator Clinton accepts the position of Secretary of State, President Clinton will find himself in a serious conflict of interest with many of his international clients (apparently his primary source of revenue). Knowing Willy, he will make every attempt to subvert law and increase his income. As we all remember, Bill’s legal lubricity is his most skillful quality. Imagine his influence over Nursultan Nazarbayev to extract consultant royalties, not just as a former President of the United States, but also as the husband of the most powerful Foreign Secretary in the world.
Believing that Rudy will not run for the US Senate in 2012, thus giving the NY State GOP little chance of winning the election, combined with my steadfast determinination to protect American intertests abroad, I, Kristofer Damion Lorelli, endorse the appointment of President Bill Clinton for junior Senator from New York.
Of course, my main motive is the fact that a Senator Bill Clinton will provide us conservative bloggers with fantastic material (conflict, sex, etc…) during those dry days before the next primary season begins.
Bill Clinton For Senate!
November 27th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
My group that you linked to is the greatest group in the history of the universe.
November 27th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Must be a slow news day or holiday over where you live.
There is more chance of Sarah Palin being elected President than Willy being appointed Senator.
I will never post here again if he does.
November 27th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
#2, promise? LOL!
November 28th, 2008 at 3:06 am
Kris, been there done that. No one cares about Clinton anymore.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:10 am
Kris, here’s a little Thanksgiving present from me to you ~
If I had to choose between Palin and Huckabee for POTUS, I would be forced to choose Palin — under duress, of course. That’s about the only circumstance I can think of where I would support her. But at least it’s something!
November 28th, 2008 at 5:07 am
I would be forced to choose Huck.
At least he has some semblence of intelligence.
November 28th, 2008 at 9:04 am
#5 & #6 LOL
November 28th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Martha, thank you, I feel the same way (Mitt and Huck). Although I agree the Clinton’s are old news, they just will not go away!
Heath, do you believe women should run for office?
November 28th, 2008 at 10:53 am
I sincerely doubt Bill Clinton has any desire to slum in the Senate.
November 28th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Kristofer – I’ll not speak for Heath, but I will for me. I definitely believe women should run for office, and I also believe they should be qualified. It makes absolutely no difference how you slice it, as of right now, today, Sarah is not even close to being ready for the Presidency. What will be the case in 3 years is up to her, but noone, and I mean noone, can really say with honesty that she is ready right now.
November 28th, 2008 at 11:33 am
The reason I would choose Palin over Huckabee is because she is basically a decent person, while Huckabee is not. She has some obvious little red flags on ethics, but nothing compared to Huck. Even though I don’t consider Palin qualified, I do believe she would try to do what is right if president. I don’t necessarily believe that about Huck. His record and campaign are more than enough evidence for me to absolutely reject him. Fortunately, he has no shot — not now, not ever.
I still think a Palin nomination is suicide, and Palin as POTUS would probably be disastrous.
November 28th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Heath, do you believe women should run for office?
Anyone who opposes Palin is a misogynist!
November 28th, 2008 at 11:49 am
based on some of the comments made by Heath, yes he is a misogynist!
2 months ago a FPP on this site wrote a great article about it. http://race42008.com/2008/08/30/let-the-sexism-begin/
November 28th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Kristofer, where? (I didn’t see anything relevant in the link about Heath.) It’s kind of like when you called me a bigot against evangelicals, but you couldn’t produce any proof!
Still waiting . . .
November 28th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Martha M “evangelical bigots” “harder for evangelical leaders to maintain credibility in the GOP.” “The result is that most people see them as fools working against the best interest of the party.”
http://race42008.com/2008/08/14/non-imposing-christian-evangelical-land-healing/
November 28th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Bill Clinton with a day “job” unmoored from any resposibility (esp as a democrat) would be a disaster. First, calling the Senate a place where one has a “job” is a joke. They are never held resposible for anything. They speechify in a club that deems dishonorable men as honorable friends.
November 28th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
It’s got nothing to do with sexism. I’d pick Huckabee over Palin in a heartbeat.
I think Huckabee’s a decent guy, but quite frankly, even if I thought he were evil, I’d still pick him over Palin. I think you have to factor in that ignorance sometimes does more harm than bad moral character/evil intent, whatever you want to call it.
Alex, your group is hilarious. Did you actually print out posters and hang them up around American? We did a lot of campaign posters, but never ones like that
I have to admit, though, that I don’t understand the liking of Ms. Spears’ music.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Hmmm, where can i meet some of those blondes? hehehehe!
i think bill clinton would absolutely love to get picked as hill’s replacement but don’t know if that’s what the gov of ny/obama want to happen…maybe they could strike a deal where he gets picked to fill her term till 2010, than he leaves and dems can have an open race…the upside to that is it won’t po any dem not chosen to have a shot at getting the seat…the downside is the dems lose the incumbent advantage but really this is ny, that does’t matter, dems are gonna win anyway…of course, i think bill clinton wants the job full time, so that might be a problem…heck, just give it him, he would be a good dem senator for them. I also wonder what role hillary will have before she runs in 2016…first term sec of state…second term? i would think obama would want another sec of state in term II…no ? hillary will lobby for a change of veep picks, dump biden for herself, could see it happen but if it doesn’t, i would guess she gets another cabinet job, sec of ed, hhs, or maybe AG which she will hold till summer of 2015, than quit to run for the white house.
November 28th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Wow, stunning detective work there, Kris. Here’s my comments from your link in full for clarity.
1. “Unfortunately, Land wishes to be on both sides of the fence concerning a Mormon running for public office. He declares that Romney is an excellent choice for VP, but in the same breath he notes that as many as 15-20% of evangelicals will refuse to vote for a McCain/Romney ticket, without a hint of condemnation for such a position.
Of course, Land made a deal with reality. He wants to keep his title and not ruffle any evangelical feathers, not even the bigoted ones. (Yes, Kris — in case you didn’t notice, there are some bigoted evangelicals against Romney over his Mormonism.)
Where some leadership on this issue? Where is someone from the evangelical movement willing to have the courage to tell these people they are way out of line? Are evangelical leaders willing to let Huckabee lead them right over a cliff into the land of irelevance? Because surely, that is where evangelicals are headed if someone doesn’t head this “movement” against Romney off at the pass.”
2. “Gamecock – Land once sent me a 7 page letter telling me I was not a Christian because I am a Mormon, so I actually know more than I care to know.
Huckabee and his merry band of bigots are making it harder for evangelical leaders to maintain credibility in the GOP. When you tell an entire group of people who are solid team members in the conservative movement that one of their own cannot become president simply because he is Mormon you shoule expect some ramifications. The result is that most people see them as fools working against the best interest of the party. We are already begining to see this.” (Kris, did I say evangelical Christians were fools, or the evangelical leaders who oppose Romney based on his religion? I think you know the answer.)
3. “I don’t want anyone to give the impression that I think all evangelicals are against Romney or Mormons. It’s only a minority of religious leaders who are making the fuss over Romney. Romney has great support among evangelicals.”
So Kris, again — Where did I show any bigotry toward evangelical Christians?
Huck DOES have a merry band of bigots. (Did you ever visited Huck’s blogs?) I stand by every word, and I’ve never said one word to indicate I am bigoted against evangelical Christians. I’m not, and you’re going to have to provide proof — which you can’t.
An apology would be appreciated.
November 28th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Martha, haven’t you learned yet that Kristofer never apologizes?
November 28th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
8 – the intelligence ones of course why not.
Do I say you don’t like Obama because he’s black? No – so get your facts right.
November 28th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
“Intelligent ones”.
Thanks Alex & Martha. Kris has lost the plot in the last month or so. I can’t believe some of the things he said in that other thread!
November 28th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
#22, you must explain your deep hatred for female candidates?
November 28th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
1) I don’t need to explain anything to you.
2) Which other ones do I “hate” (btw I don’t hate Sarah I like her personally a lot than someone like Newt or Huck but you don’t put someone in the White House just because you like them)?
November 29th, 2008 at 12:14 am
Kristofer, you are looking pretty childish the past couple weeks. No rational arguments, just a lot of name-calling and lying about comments.
We don’t really want to hear your hair color preferences, weight preferences, etc. for gals, either. Waaay too much info.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:23 am
#19 I have had numerous vists from Mormons trying to convert this Baptist. I wasn’t offended, backed Romney before Thompson and Dr Land has said numerous times that he is a fan of Romney and has no problem with a Mormon as a political leader that shares our conservative values, most recently on a live bog that I arranged at The Minority Report. If you want the transcript email me at
mikedevinelaw@yahoo.com