This is no Way to Organize Chaos.

Fears of a co-presidency have spread to the NY Times editorial page:

SENATOR Hillary Clinton has based her campaign on experience -- 35 years of it by her count. That must include her eight years in the White House.

Some may debate whether those years count as executive experience. But there can be no doubt that her husband had the presidential experience, fully. He has shown during his wife's campaign that he is a person of initiative and energy. Does anyone expect him not to use his experience in an energetic way if he re-enters the White House as the first spouse?

Mrs. Clinton claims that her time in that role was an active one. He can hardly be expected to show less involvement when he returns to the scene of his time in power as the resident expert. He is not the kind to be a potted plant in the White House.

Which raises an important matter. Do we really want a plural presidency?

The argument seems to be that it is in Bill Clinton's nature to be an active political player, so thus he should never be allowed near the Oval Office ever again. And although the editorial doesn't mention the 22nd Amendment, it does recount a brief history of the struggles over unitary executive authority during the founding of the Constitution. Certainly, the piece suggests, B. Clinton's presence would violate nothing less than the spirit of the arrangement ordained by the Founding Fathers.

But most strange of all is the fact that another precedent is cited, only seven years too late:

One problem with the George W. Bush administration is that it has brought a kind of plural presidency in through the back door. Vice President Dick Cheney has run his own executive department, with its own intelligence and military operations, not open to scrutiny, as he hides behind the putative president.

No other vice president in our history has taken on so many presidential prerogatives, with so few checks. He is an example of the very thing James Wilson was trying to prevent by having one locus of authority in the executive. The attempt to escape single responsibility was perfectly exemplified when his counsel argued that Mr. Cheney was not subject to executive rules because he was also part of the legislature.

Let's see if I have this straight: Ambitious people who are associated with presidents in some way should not be allowed to be associated with presidents. Do I have that right? Where was Wills during the 2004 campaign, when it was clear how much influence Mr. Cheney had? Should the Times have recommended that Mr. Bush pick a more low-key running mate?

It should be clear that without an explicit law banning these sorts of arrangements, the presidency and the people associated with the presidency are simply going to be in a position of great power. And the degree to which these people check their own ambition or defer to the president's wishes is going to be a matter of personality. So this editorial is arguing nothing, except perhaps that Bill Cinton = Dick Cheney in terms of influence, which is pretty absurd because it is divorced from any policy results. And it highlights yet again that when it comes to the Clintons, the rules of journalism simply get thrown out the window.