by John Callahan

As a letter writer, it's taken me years to get comfortable with e-mails, more time still to grasp the nature of a blog. Finally, seeing that Richard Stern, whom I've known second hand through his fiction and our mutual friendship with Ralph Ellison, survived forays into the unliterary territories of Obama's inexperience and Imus's ad feminam mimicry of hip-hop, I'm ready to get my feet wet. I have a modest proposal for Hillary and Bill Clinton or is it Bill and Hillary Clinton: That's part of the problem, one cannot tell. One never knows whether it's two for one or one for two, and sometimes it's not clear who is who, which is which. Apparently, Bill would like another active residency in the White House, and is reluctant to lead a movement to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution so the same person may have more than two terms as president. Who can blame him? But it wouldn't work, and trying, he would hurt his wife's feelings, perhaps even more than he did while he was president the first time. For her part, Mrs. Clinton, has shown a palpable ambivalence about whether hers is the Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign or the Clintons' campaign. At first, she was, at least in public, emphatic about wanting a strictly hers run. Lately though, Bill has been more and more out front--whether, reversing a refusal to go to Selma to receive an award on the 40th anniversary of the Selma march, appearing as the star attraction at numerous high roller fund-raisers for Senator Clinton, or, even, as her surrogate criticizing Senator Obama's position on the Iraq war. And, since the 2008 campaign gives promise of being a contest rather than the coronation anticipated, one suspects that many more opportunities for confusion lie ahead, on the Clintons' part and on the part of the electorate. Therefore, in fairness to Bill and Hillary Clinton's ambition and to keep the American people from confusion, I propose we look to the Constitution for a solution. Although the Constitution bars Bill Clinton from further service as president, it does not prohibit him from being vice-president. It simply prevents electors from voting for a person from the same state for both the office of president and vice-president. Should former President Clinton move his legal residence to New Jersey, say, perhaps a small town within easy reach of Newark International Airport, he would be eligible to serve as his wife's vice-president. Senator Clinton could then announce her candidacy for president again, this time promising to submit the name of her husband to the 2008 Democratic Convention, should she become the party's presidential nominee. In the twinkling of an eye, Hillary's candidacy would become openly, in full public view, what it privately aspires to be: a family ticket. Were she to name her husband, the former president, as her prospective running mate, Senator Clinton would clarify the lines of authority, give Bill the prominent role he so clearly desires, and do so in a manner, which, though innovative, both takes advantage of and respects the Constitution. The country could then get down to the serious challenge of picking the Democratic nominee for the 2008 election.