Yes, we can.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

Ok, seriously, you think that Hillary Clinton is comparable to Eleanor Roosevelt? Really, seriously?

Get a grip, please, and some reading comprehension Ms. Librarian. I was merely pointing out that a first lady needn't be elected to do good and ultimately admired works. I was not comparing the merits of those works. Simply rebutting Morrigoon's argument that first ladies had best just bake pastries for drive-thru windows.

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

Seriously, if people want the President to be "The Married President Team", they better amend the f'n constitution.

And now that you mention it, perhaps it should be pointed out that the administration is one, big collective team ... with a single ultimate decision-maker. No one else on the team is elected. So what's the big difference if the first lady (or first laddy) plays on the team???



And if - as looks a longshot now - Hillary wins, we'll not only have the first first laddy ... but the most experienced first spouse EVER to assist the business of the White House.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

And now that you mention it, perhaps it should be pointed out that the administration is one, big collective team ... with a single ultimate decision-maker. No one else on the team is elected. So what's the big difference if the first lady (or first laddy) plays on the team???

I don't have any expectation that a president's spouse will avoid political participation and don't hold it against her or any other if they did. However, one very key difference is that pretty much all of the major members of that big collective team are submitted to congressional oversight and approval and are subject to lots of laws and regulations that the presidential spouse isn't (or would be in a very grey area if congress tried to enforce them). Congress can't impeach the first spouse.

[innerSpaceman]

I wasn't aware they could impeach the Chief of Staff either. But that person can be (and often is) fired. No so the first spouse.


Though Bill might well break that record, too!

[Ghoulish Delight]

Yes, appointed cabinet members can be impeached.

ETA: More specifically, precedent has defined impeachable "civil officers" as "anyone appointed by the President", which would be the Cabinet and federal judges

[blueerica]

And First Wives could be divorced...

I wonder if a sitting President could be impeached over the actions of his/her wife/husband... Perhaps if the President were to lie and cover up actions or something.

[Alex]

And if you think the battle over the degree to which executive privilege covers conversations between the president and his staff has been divisive, wait until congress thinks it has valid reasons to know about conversations between a president and his/her spouse.

[innerSpaceman]

Oh c'mon people ... don't you wanna get Bill Clinton back in the White House just to make the Republicans and Conservatives and Fundamentalists' collective blood boil? Even just a teeny bit??

[Prudence]

Would Hillary even have been a viable candidate if she hadn't been first lady? I don't think we're at a point in this country where a woman can "rise through the ranks" in the same way the typical male candidate does. True, there are relatively few women in the senator/governor pool in which we like to fish, but they've never been serious contenders. Actually, I didn't expect Hillary to last as long as she has because we still, as a nation, put so much stock in notions of how women should behave. (Can you imagine the fall-out if a female candidate faced infidelity allegations?)

And frankly, her first lady operations never bothered me. Hell, Bill was elected to a second term, so apparently she couldn't have been that much of a bother. If I cared passionately about a cause and suddenly was in a position - elected or not - to possibly have what I saw as a positive impact, I'd take that ball and run. Could she have handled things a bit more artfully at first? Perhaps. Maybe that approach worked in Arkansas and she was as shocked as anyone that the rest of the country wasn't on board.

Also, I've said it before - I get really sick of political pundits jumping to knock down someone who suggests a reform because that reform isn't perfect, and then not even having the balls to suggest something else. It's really easy to criticize but there are real problems that merit real discussion. If there was a "perfect" answer I'm sure it would have appeared already. We're imperfect people and we're going to have to settle for imperfect solutions. And if the first lady or first gentleman or first daughter's ex-boyfriend's next door neighbor's cousin wants to spark a national discourse, I'm in favor.

However, I'm with blueerica - I'm just feeling blah about this election. My preferred candidate isn't yet old enough to run, and my second favorite candidate already bowed out. I'm pretty sure that no matter how it shakes out I'll somehow end up in the group that needs to be taxed more and provided fewer benefits (too poor for R tax cuts, too rich for D tax cuts). Maybe I just sigh and wait for 2012.

[Alex]

No. Like I've said before, even though I don't have anything against Clinton as a candidate other than policy differences (I don't think she's a bitch or mean or self advancing in any ways that are unusual for the willing politician), but I do consider her disqualified simply because I think it is a horrible idea to return a former president to the White House in any capacity, but particularly an active unofficial one.

So Laura Bush, Barbara Bush, Hillary Clinton, and Rosalynn Carter are disqualified. The last couple of years have returned Nancy Reagan and Betty Ford to contention should they wish to pursue it.

[Morrigoon]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

And now that you mention it, perhaps it should be pointed out that the administration is one, big collective team ... with a single ultimate decision-maker. No one else on the team is elected. So what's the big difference if the first lady (or first laddy) plays on the team???

I'm going to ignore your oversimplification of my point, because I have to give you mad props for making an excellent point of your own. It is true that the spouse could be considered a part of the team.

So I'm wondering... should congress insist on the ability to confirm the first spouse?