That may have been his wish, but it didn't happen that way.
The key will be if the debate on the 22nd Amendment--the one that says no one shall be elected President--actually encompassed a formerly elected President being appointed President, and the backers stating that such was their intent.
If it does, then Clinton's task will be much harder.
However, merely pounding the table and saying that such IS the case is not going to convince the Supremes. They will want to see real evidence.
That I do not presently have access to the 1947 Congressional Record - or the transcripts of the 1st Congressional Convention - does not represent "pounding on the table."
Of course anyone arguing before the USSC will have the CR, and the little I've discovered from the contemporary record doesn't just indicate, but makes certain, that the intent of the 22nd was to end 150 years of ambiguity and to create a two-year limit on the office of the Presidency.
All you've presented so far is linguistic parsing, and it is most unconvincing. It's naive to the working of the USSC at best, and Clintonian at worst.
Certainly. He acknowledges that as "a feature I greatly dislike."
And as a feature that both he and George Washington protested through the action of refusing third terms.
If it does, then Clinton's task will be much harder.
No, it will be impossible. Bill Clinton will have done us the noble service of proving that the office of the Vice-president cannot be used to advance an unconstitutional desire to surmount the 22nd Amendment.
As I've said, I hope he gives it a shot, because the certain outcome (that a former present cannot run again as VP) will further damage his "legacy" and at the same time strengthen the rule of law.