“New York, like the rest of the states, deserves two serious, dedicated Senators doing the state’s work in the upper chamber without derailing the entire process. Clinton would be an immediate distraction and sideshow, sucking all of the air out of the room and turning efforts at serious work into a media sideshow.”
Yes, with endless speculation as to which intern he will give the knee pads to, or whether he will let them rotate. Oh my, the possi-bill-ities are endless.
This is just TOO good…

Christine on January 2, 2009 at 2:14 PM

WTF, New York? First you elect a carpet bagger to the Senate! Now this! I thought we were screwed up here in Minnesota but we are minor league…

Paterson should find one of those candidates and leave the celebrities and caretakers alone.

*sighs* FINE, I`ll do it!

This is too cool. Will we call him President Clinton or Senator Clinton?
kanda on January 2, 2009 at 1:43 PM

He would be referred to as…
“The Senator formerly known as President”

This is too cool. Will we call him President Clinton or Senator Clinton?

kanda on January 2, 2009 at 1:43 PM

Senatorpresident Clinton, sort of German-sounding.

I wonder if there’s any chance the public will eventually get sick of this surreal farce and bring about a backlash?

Rovin on January 2, 2009 at 12:44 PM

Hey, it’s the Democrats’ MO– from the top down.

How can any analysis of a plan to send Bill Clinton to Congress fail to mention his impeachment and trial in 1998? Whether one believes the impeachment and trial to be appropriate — and the impeachment was an impressively bipartisan affair — the fact is that Congress heavily penalized this president for transgressions that cost him his bar membership.

Additionally, it was later reported that he was a hair-breadths from losing backroom Democratic support and being convicted. Only some serious scrambling by the Dems saved his bacon. There was a public face put on this that suggested unity in supporting Bill, but they first waited to see which way the public was leaning.

Celebrity/name recognition and fund raising ability will determine Paterson’s call.

onlineanalyst on January 2, 2009 at 12:32 PM

Sounds like our new President-elect to me.

Celebrity/name recognition and fund raising ability will determine Paterson’s call.

This is a one night stand for Bill. No way does he want to be married to a Senate seat and no way do the Senators want him there. He just wants the (ego) stroking without the commitment.

His attention will go elsewhere as soon as something moves.

Why not “go for the gold” and APPOINT THE REVEREND AL SHARPTON to fill in Hillary’s seat?

rocketman on January 2, 2009 at 11:33 AM

Heh…. Why not indeed? What’s the difference?

Only problem with that is, he looks too much like Charlie Rangel and they might be mistaken for brothers or something. We wouldn’t want the Democraps to be accused of cronyism now, would we?

How can any analysis of a plan to send Bill Clinton to Congress fail to mention his impeachment and trial in 1998? Whether one believes the impeachment and trial to be appropriate — and the impeachment was an impressively bipartisan affair — the fact is that Congress heavily penalized this president for transgressions that cost him his bar membership.

Ed, I simply don’t understand why you repeat the nonsense that the impeachment was bipartisan. Many people are old enough to remember the overwhelming sentiment of the Democrats that the impeachment was a partisan stunt. And two of the five Democrats that voted for the impeachment became Republicans. It’s much easier to make the case that there was bi-partisan opposition to conviction in Senate.

Now, after a couple of weeks of the Sweet Caroline Gushing Chorus and the inevitable embarrassment of Kennedy’s incompetent public campaign for the appointment, Bill looks like a much better option, at least by comparison.

Yup, Bill’s better than Caroline and being informed you have Parkinson’s is better than being diagnosed with brain cancer.

No real upside.

jon1979 on January 2, 2009 at 11:47 AM

I agree with that. It’s how Reagan won. And it could happen again. But unless liberalism is totally discredited by ruin and chaos, it will only be a matter of time before NY’s and their socialist brothers elsewhere return to the party of handouts. Liberals cannot see the long-term consequences of liberalism (unless they’re those types who are only in it to re-arrange the have’s and the have-nots) so they will not be able to change unless they feel the negative consequences. So we face the need for chaos, or more of the same. Lousy choices.

Paterson appears to be seeking a way out of a brewing party squabble, so put the seat up on e-bay!

Done That on January 2, 2009 at 11:10 AM

Well he is blind so seeking takes a little longer for him than the rest of us!

Seriously, Bill Clinton wouldn’t be happy in the role he would have in the tradition-bound Senate.