[Keith in Iowa]

What's the point? I don't think the sinkmeister is constitutionally able to be president again.

[Qwinn]

No way.

The Clintons don't want to see any Democrat win under any circumstances. That's why Hillary just endorsed him - she's perfectly aware that he is -completely- unelectable, even less than Dean was, hell, even less than she is.

The Clintons are waiting for 2008. At that time, they will be in an infinitely better position if a Republican is coming out of office and the Democrat field is wide open, then if it's Kerry coming out of office (because, just like Bush for the Republicans, Kerry will be the automatic nominee)

As for the law against Clinton being Veep (not that I think it'll happen, but just as a point of law), the Constitution states that no one may be "elected President" for more than two terms. Now, it depends on how literalist you want to get. If he's elected as a VP, and then the Prez dies, was he "elected President"? If you want to get highly technical, no, he was elected Vice President, not President. If you're looking at the obvious spirit of the law, he was elected into a position that is a heartbeat away from President, which should count as the same thing.

If Democrats were to try this, you can expect them to suddenly become strict Constitutional literalists. For this issue. Then it's back to inventing and destroying the Constitution without a single shred of backing.

Qwinn

[leadpenny]

Amendment XXII

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.

___________________________

Interesting thought but I believe the Office of the President includes the Vice President. Not sure.

[Lion in Winter]

Pure BS.

[Grut]

There's an op-ed in the NY Times today which proposes exactly this. Did you know about it or are you prescient?

[longtermmemmory]

Since the deomocrat party has officially become the "Gay!" Party, does this mean Hitlary will finally come out of the closet?

[William McKinley]

I would love to see the Democrats try that stunt, trying to pull a "depends on the meaning of the word 'is'" over the meanings of the various amendments which limit a President to two terms.

We would absolutely crush that ticket. It would remind independents of everything bad about the Clinton presidency and would rally our base like nothing you have ever seen.

[dawn53]

Well, that sounds like good news to me.

It doesn't seem to me that Clinton on the ticket would do anything but energize the Republican and Independent voters that were disgusted with him to turn out and vote for Bush.

It's only been 4 years and all the events around his "leaving office", i.e. pardons, taking things from the White House, would be hashed up.

I think Clinton on the ticket (either Clinton for that matter) would secure a Dem loss.

If the Clintons thought Bush could be defeated, Hillary would be running!

That's MHO.

[Amelia]

What makes you think there's even the slightest possibility of this happening? (Other than in your nightmares, perhaps...)

[G.Mason]

Kerry / Clinton ?

Both sides would be after him.

Picture a Kerry "plane crash", ala Wellstone, and the Dims saying they will wave the Constitution for Clintoon, resulting in an internal crisis, leading to chaos.

No, not even the Dims will go for that one.

[InvisibleChurch]

let them do what they want; they are going to lose bad this year

[Future Useless Eater]

Kerry/Clinton 04 Get ready for it

I don't believe it will happen...
Susan Estrich (democratic strategist) summed it up very well on Greta's show...

Greta: Alright Susan, John Kerry - big winner tonight... Does this mean its the END of the Clinton domination of the democratic party? (Susan shaking her head YES and grinnning)

Greta: OR, are we going to see Hillary Rodham Clinton, perhaps as the candidate on the democratic party for the vice president? (Susan, now shaking her head wildly NO)

Susan: NO! Is the short answer.

Susan: I have been WAITING for this question since Newt Gingrich, SAVIOR to democrats everywhere! ...said that, ...giving us our GREAT advice for the evening... my buddy Newt, and we get along very well, Newt and I... But he said, "ALL we needed to do, we Democrats, was to get Hillary on the ticket and THAT would answer ALL our problems."

Susan: ...and when I hear that from Newt, I know that I'm getting SPUN in eighteen directions. You know, its like ME telling you, WHO George Bush should put on his ticket, and PRETENDING (when I'm NOT telling you the truth), that I am.

Susan: Look, Hillary would be the WORST choice John Kerry could POSSIBLY make! (now counting on her fingers...) For Hillary, for the TICKET, and for John Kerry. Thats laughable... I mean, it would NOT ONLY violate HER promise to the people of New York, it would put the MOST DEVISIVE, most polarizing Democrat in the WORLD on the ticket, which is the violation of RULE #1 when you're picking a vice presidential candidate..

Susan: So NO, she is NOT going to be on the ticket.

---

...now my own feelings, is that Hillary's handlers will rig a 'Toricelli' or 'Wellstone' style event for mister Kerry about mid-September. (And Kerry will have the perfect excuse if he 'voluntarily' drops out. He can just say his Cancer has returned.)

Let's not forget too, what Wes Clark let slip out when his handlers weren't watching him... "the Kerry campaign will 'implode' as a result of an 'intern' issue." (he said that DAYS AFTER the journalist woman, so he wasn't talking about HER)

[randita]

I love this! The morning after Kerry has bagged the Democrat nomination is one of the biggest primary season trounces in history and all people are talking about is...THE CLINTONS.

[The Great RJ]

I can't believe his monumental ego or his wife's ambition would allow this. Could you see Hillary having to stand behind Mrs. Ketchup??

[smiley]

This was taken from an article on the Drudge Report this morning...nothing new here....Kerry knows that Bubba would overshadow him.....no way. This was a fight for control of the Rat party between the Clintons and Kennedy (Kerry's campaign manager). It will never happen.

[Radioactive]

Think of this...

Would Kerry nowingly add Clinton to the ticket knowing that Clinton is just a heartbeat away from the White house?

If I were Kerry, I would drop out right now,

The people who get into any of the Clintons way end up dead.

Ask JFK jr..

[Semper Paratus]

I like it because it would remove Cheney as a 'heart-beat away' issue.

Elect Kerry and put Dennis Hastert 'heart-beat away'.

[verity]

Sounds like an implausable Oliver Stone scenario!

[familyofman]

Pure drivel - moving on.

[Bubba_Leroy]

March 2, 2004, 10:34PM

Bill Clinton could be just the ticket for Kerry
By STEPHEN GILLERS

With John Kerry's success in Tuesday's primaries, the race for the Democratic nomination for president is all but over -- and speculation about his choice for vice president can now begin in earnest.

John Edwards, Kerry's closest rival [and who is expected to officially withdraw from the race today], is a proven campaigner and could attract Southern voters. Govs. Evan Bayh of Indiana and Bill Richardson of New Mexico have both regional appeal and executive experience. Dark-horse candidates include former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and former Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia.

Amid this conjecture, however, one name is conspicuously absent: Bill Clinton.

Clinton's strengths would compensate for Kerry's weaknesses almost perfectly. Not only is Clinton the most talented campaigner of his generation, but he is also a Southerner -- and since 1948, when Harry S. Truman chose Sen. Alben Barkley of Kentucky as his running mate, every successful Democratic ticket has included a citizen of a Southern state.

Besides, people might even pay to watch Bill Clinton debate Dick Cheney. So why not?

The first objection, the constitutional one, can be disposed of easily. The Constitution does not prevent Clinton from running for vice president. The 22nd Amendment, which became effective in 1951, begins: "No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice."

No problem. Bill Clinton would be running for vice president, not president. Scholars and judges can debate how loosely constitutional language should be interpreted, but one need not be a strict constructionist to find this language clear beyond dispute. Bill Clinton cannot be elected president, but nothing stops him from being elected vice president.

True, if Clinton were vice president he would be in line for the presidency. But Clinton would succeed Kerry not by election, which the amendment forbids, but through Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which provides that if a president dies, resigns or is removed from office, his powers "shall devolve on the vice president." The 22nd Amendment would not prevent this succession.

So much for the constitutional obstacles. The political ones may be more formidable. They can be summarized in two questions: Would Clinton want the job -- and would Kerry want him to take it?

We won't know until we ask, of course. But before asking, we might cite some compelling reasons for both men to consider a Kerry-Clinton ticket seriously.

For Clinton, the appeal of the vice presidency is both political and personal. First, he could help his party win. Yes, Clinton remains a divisive figure in American politics -- but not so much among Democrats. And surely many voters long for the strong economy and economic stewardship that was one of the hallmarks of his administration.

Second, he could burnish his legacy. In exchange for joining the ticket, Clinton could negotiate for plum assignments as vice president. Mideast peace? National health care? Racial equality? He could focus on any or all of them.

And from a purely personal standpoint, it might be especially gratifying for Clinton to be part of the team that defeats the man who four years ago promised to restore "character" to Clinton's own White House.

The only remaining question, then, is what Kerry thinks of all this. Judging from recent debates, there's little chemistry between Kerry and Edwards.

But Kerry and Clinton would seem to have much in common; they are nearly the same age, worked with each other in Washington for almost a decade and have a shared interest in foreign affairs.

For Kerry, the question may well come down to whether adding Clinton to the ticket would appreciably increase his chances of victory. A couple of polls should give him the answer fast enough. If the results are good, the course is clear: Bring him on.


http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/2430461