It's not often in politics that an impeachment acts as a simple solution. But thanks to the master class in bribery blunders given to us by Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, we have the rarest of occurrences: an impeachment not only makes sense, it's the easy way out.

Earlier today, Illinois's senior (and lone remaining) senator, Dick Durbin, called on the state legislature to change state law so as to create a special election to determine who will take Barack Obama's seat on Capitol Hill. Right now, Blago still has the power to appoint whomever he wants. And he won't resign. So the thinking is, Illinois will just change the law, the people will decide who replaces Obama, and we'll all move on, right?

One little problem: the COST. Illinois is a state with a $2 billion deficit, and it's estimated that a special election would cost roughly $50 million. The state itself wouldn't pay for the special election (that honor falls to the counties themselves), but still: $50 million is an enormous amount of money. How happy will Illinois taxpayers be after their governor not only tried to sell one of their U.S. Senate seats, but cost them $50 million in the process?

Instead of reconvening on Monday to change state law, the Illinois legislature should reconvene to bring up articles of impeachment against Blagojevich. It's not like it would take very long to come up with a list of impeachable offenses - and they're not even in session right now anyway. Yes, there would be a trial. Yes, impeaching a sitting governor is slightly more complicated than "well, what you did was illegal, in fact it was REALLY illegal, so out you go." But the evidence incriminating Blago is overwhelming, and, considering the governor's approval rating is somewhere between the single- or low double-digits, it seems politically suicidal for any Illinois legislator to not vote for impeachment.

An impeachment trial would theoretically take time - but so would organizing a special election. And an impeachment trial wouldn't cost $50 million. But the other benefit of moving to impeach Blagojevich - besides saving the money - would be that maybe, just maybe, it would compel him to resign. He may not want to now, but if he's going to be impeached anyway, he might be forced to pull a Nixon and save the little face he has left by leaving. Then the lieutenant governor would assume the top role in Springfield and appoint Illinois's next U.S. senator. Problem solved, piggy bank in tact (minus that $2 billion hole).

It's an unprecedented game of political musical chairs - no matter what they decide to do. Let's just hope Illinois gives this guy what he deserves and save its beleaguered taxpayers $50 million in the process.

Cross-posted at The Danifesto

*Cross-posted at my website, The Danifesto*

OMG:

In an op-ed column last week in The Washington Post, journalists Karl Meyer and Shareen Blair Brysac urged Paterson to "send Bill Clinton to the Senate."

If that happened, Clinton would become the third former president to go from the White House to Capitol Hill.

President John Quincy Adams lost his re-election bid in 1828. Two years later he returned to Washington after winning election as a congressman from his home state of Massachusetts. He served in the House of Representatives until his death in 1848.

President Andrew Johnson also served as a Senator from Tennessee in 1875, 7 years after the Senate acquitted him of impeachment charges. He died a few months after taking office.

Adams actually became a very effective congressman after leaving the presidency, and he supposedly loved that job much more than his one term as chief executive.  Johnson - well, like it says, Johnson died like two seconds after returning to the Senate.

How would Bill Clinton do?

There's a part of me that actually really wants to see this happen, and it actually makes sense for the Obama administration on a few levels: the biggest impediment to Hillary Clinton's nomination, and theoretical confirmation, as secretary of state, has been the (shady) international work of her husband since leaving the White House.  Bill has been involved in a number of... entanglements... overseas, and had to undergo a ridiculously thorough, and probably invasive, vetting process in order for Hillary to be cleared for takeoff.

What better place to keep him out of trouble than to stick him - way down in seniority - in the United States Senate?

Think about it: the way it stands right now, Bill has a bunch of restrictions on him regarding his work with the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative, so much so that he won't really be able to continue his work abroad as long as Hillary is heading the State Department.  I don't know about you, but the thought of Bill Clinton just sitting around looking for something to do kinda freaks me out.  He's liable to do something - dare I say - Clinton-like under those circumstances.

But if you put him in the Senate, give him a new challenge he's bound to excel at, put him on a committee or two working in concert with the Obama administration on a big issue of the day - say, health care or economic stimulus or something like that - and he could not only excel, but he'd be able to avoid the kind of entanglements that would get him into trouble with the White House.  He's much less jeopardizing to his wife's new job if he is one out of 58 (or 59, or 60...aahhhh!) Democratic senators who will, by and large, be working with President Obama & Co. on pulling the country out of its mess.

I don't expect it to happen, and I don't really know if it should, but it sounds so crazy that it just might work.

*Cross-posted at my website, The Danifesto*

Move over, Condi.

There are reports that Obama is considering Hillary Clinton, among other big shots like John Kerry and Bill Richardson, to be Secretary of State.

Here's my take on this:

Personal Reaction: Hillary Clinton doesn't do it for me, and never has. I have no problems saying that, while I agree with her on virtually every policy issue (notwithstanding her Iraq War vote), I don't find her particularly appealing as a politician. I am still angry about some of the shit she pulled in the primary ("Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June," the gas tax holiday, the 3 AM ad, "He's not a Muslim... as far as I know," etc.). Much of my distaste for her has subsided since then, and I even donated money to her in August ($10, but hey, I'm poor), but I confess I remain somewhat leery of her. I just don't completely trust her.

So the conspiracy theorist/paranoid/still-smarting Obama supporter in me isn't necessarily thrilled at the prospect of her being so high up on the Obama food chain. I think Hillary, while - I'll say it again - right on most policy issues, would have been a disaster as president. For all her intellectual capabilities and political gifts, I think she would have been a terrible fit as chief executive of our country. And even though Secretary of State is waaay far down the line of presidential succession (after vice president, speaker of the House and president pro tempore of the Senate), there's a fairly large part of me that doesn't want to see her in line at all. I'm just not really comfortable with her being in that kind of position.

All that being said...

Political Reaction: If this happens, Obama gets an A+++ for playing politics and for making a decision that will be almost universally praised as a sound governing choice. No one in the Democratic Party will be unhappy with the choice, and most will be thrilled. Republicans... they don't like her anyway, but they'll be thrilled that she'll be spending so much time abroad.

Furthermore, this is straight out of Team of Rivals. It's the whole "keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer" thing. Obama still probably feels like he can't completely trust Hillary, and she probably still wants to be president, and she definitely thinks she'd be a better president than he would, but that's actually an excellent reason to put her on the team. Hillary can do much less damage to Obama - and could even do him a great deal of good - if she's in "the tent," so to speak. If Hillary's in the Cabinet, the chances of her conspiring behind Obama's back are greatly reduced. Plus, in all fairness, she'd probably do a good job at the State Department. Personally, I'm still a little skeptical of her management skills after the atrocious campaign she ran, but I have no doubt she'd be a good diplomat. And since she'd of course want to excel at her job, she'd probably give it her all; if she didn't, she wouldn't make Obama look bad, she'd make herself look bad - and she'd also kill any chance she might still have at becoming president.

Bottom Line: It's a bold move. Like the Rahm pick, it has its pluses and minuses, but it's probably worth the risk. I say go for it.