An American Regency?

On June 25, 1682, following the death of Feodor III of Russia, the czar’s 15-year-old brother, Ivan V, and his 10-year-old half-brother, Peter I, were crowned “double czars” to rule jointly over the Russian people. But because Ivan suffered from severe mental and physical abnormalities, and because Peter was just ten years old, their politically astute 24-year-old sister, Sophia (Ivan’s sister, Peter’s half-sister), was named regent.

Those who are fortunate enough to have visited the Kremlin Armory in Moscow, where most of the czarist treasures and antiquities of the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries are on display, have marveled at the extent of the collection. Entire floors are devoted to displaying the personal effects of the czars and their families, including their clothing, their jewels, their gem-encrusted bible covers, their dinnerware, and even their saddles and coaches.

But among the most fascinating items in the Kremlin Armory is the special two-seated throne that was constructed especially for Ivan and Peter. What makes the throne so unique is a small opening – approximately 8 inches square and covered with a thin black cloth – located in a back panel of the throne. It allowed Sophia to sit, unseen, directly behind the throne where she could hear every detail of the issues being discussed, make a decision on what should to be done, and whisper her decision into Peter’s ear. Sophia was, literally, the “power behind the throne.”

Now, as we approach the 2008 presidential election in the United States, with Hillary Rodham Clinton as the clear frontrunner for the Democrat nomination, the prospect of an American regency, with Hillary playing the role of Peter I and her disgraced, disbarred, and impeached husband playing the role of the regent, Sophia, looms large.

So what role could we expect the former president to play in the presidential administration of his dishonored and publicly humiliated wife? What is most often speculated, with some support from the candidate, herself, is that he would be asked to serve as a roving ambassador to all the nations of the world…sowing seeds of goodwill among friend and foe alike.

However, it is unlikely that Clinton would be welcomed in places such as the Balkans where, in 1999, he led an intensive 78-day bombing campaign of the Serbian capital.

A trip to the Balkans would also remind the American people of his peacekeeping adventure in Bosnia where he reneged so shamelessly on his vow to have our troops “home by Christmas.” He argued, "If we pull out before the job is done, Bosnia will almost certainly fall back into violence, chaos, and ultimately a war every bit as bloody as one that was stopped."

It is unlikely that Clinton would be welcome in places like Somalia where, when the going got tough, he turned and ran; in Rwanda, where he refused to intervene in the slaughter of nearly a million ethnic Tutsis; or in the Sudan where he staged a punitive missile attack on an aspirin factory in retaliation for al-Qaeda’s bombing attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

And, of course, it would be impossible for Clinton to venture into China without resurrecting questions about the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of dollars that the People’s Liberation Army funneled into the Democratic Party and the Clinton-Gore reelection campaign in 1996. But more importantly, his presence in China would raise interesting new questions about the $850,000 that his wife is now obliged to return to donors associated with the fugitive Chinese businessman, Norman Hsu.

By now, most Americans are familiar with the concept of “bundling” in political fundraising. What they have not conceptualized, as yet, is the notion of “reverse bundling” in which a very wealthy person or organization funnels a large amount of money to a single individual, who, in turn, doles out the money in $2,300 increments to a large number of people…with the understanding that they will contribute the money to a favored candidate or political party.

So what is the source of the dirty money in the Clinton coffers? Is it money funneled to Hsu by the People’s Liberation Army, with instructions to use it in support of the Democratic Party and its leading candidates…or is it money that Hsu received from Madison Avenue investor, Joel Rosenman, one of the original promoters of the 1969 Woodstock rock festival, for whom Hillary Clinton has earmarked federal funding for a Woodstock Museum?

If the FBI is not following the money trail back to Beijing or to Madison Avenue then they are more incompetent than anyone has imagined. And if the Clintons envision an American regency, similar to that of Czars Peter and Ivan and their sister, Sophia, we are left to worry whether Bill would be more dangerous traveling the globe on our behalf, or whispering in Hillary’s ear from behind her “throne” in the Oval Office. To even consider another Clinton presidency truly requires a “suspension of disbelief.”