Big Dog to hunt for deficit hawks in the lame duck?

Big Dog to hunt for deficit hawks in the lame duck?

by digby

Jonathan Schwartz caught a tasty little little nugget in this New York Magazine piece:

Joel Johnson [a top Clinton aide during his administration and now a D.C. lobbyist] believes Clinton could help Obama (assuming he wins) with a renewed pursuit of a grand bargain on entitlements and taxes as Washington grapples right after the election with the so-called fiscal cliff. “It’s no secret that Obama was ready to go pretty far out on entitlement reform with Boehner,” says Johnson. “Who better to be a thought leader about that process than Clinton? In terms of making some of the hard decisions that Democrats are gonna have to make, and being able to talk about the beauty of a budget deal and what it can do for the economy. So I actually think he will have a postelection role in that intense period. The same credibility that he demonstrated in the convention speech can be applied to the legislative crisis that we’re going to be in in the next six to eight months.”

The idea of Clinton doing just that, or assisting his wife on her way to the White House, is appealing on a multitude of levels...

Jonathan reminds us that it isn't implausible:



Would he do it? I don't know. But I do know that he cannot stop trying to get his sworn enemies to love him. The Bush family treats him as the son they never had, so I guess he figures it's possible.

It's also possible that he's uncomfortable with the fact that his main legacy (beyond the obvious) is a budget surplus brought about largely because of a once in a lifetime technology boom rather than his magical prowess in taming the budget despite being politically roasted on a spit on a daily basis. He's not stupid. I'm fairly sure that bites.

I think everyone, including the man himself, might be overrating his influence on the congress. If a deal is going to be cut, it will be because they want to cut a deal. I'd be looking at the lame duck losers and retirees and their potential payoffs for guidance on this one, not old Bill.

.