Doing so would spare the governor the agonizing dilemma of choosing from the 20 or so Democrats already named as contenders for the junior senator’s seat.
. . .
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.
I think that not only every Democratic party member, but every member of the human race could question this decision. Never mind nepotism — this leads to some serious separation of powers issues. If the ex-president Senator, who is still involved with shady dealings in Kazakhstan (where’s Borat when you need him), has a direct communication line, you can essentially guarantee a severe conflict of interests. Also, he is still an ex-president, and will have inordinate influence on all of the former Clintonistas that Obama has appointed to his administration. Just because unelected Hillary gained undue influence through Bill, doesn’t mean that she should return the favor by encouraging his unelected influence in the Senate.
Also, the rest of reasoning is the column is beyond parody:
-This already happened with J.Q. Adams!
-He started the Smithsonian Institution!
-We should have a House of Lords!
What?! When will these people ever go away? Can Chelsea be exiled before the coup d’etat of 2028?
(Hat Tip: Reason)