[Iota]

I've explained elsewhere why I think Clinton could run for VP, so I won't repeat that. But I will say that President Pro Tempore of the Senate seems a more likely scenario than Speaker of the House, given the current incumbents. (IIRC, President Pro Tem traditionally goes to the senior senator of the majority party, but I don't think that's cast in stone -- especially since the Dems are the majority Senate party now.) OTOH, barring a serious sea change, he'll never get elected Speaker.

On a side note, I don't understand what all the fuss is about with regard to this VP thing. If we're willing to assume that (1) Hillary can get elected president and (2) she's willing to do so for the sole purpose of letting BJ be president again -- both of which we have to assume for this ascension-from-vice-president scenario to take place -- then he can act as President without ever having to assume either office. (She can just let him make all the decisions without the title.) I don't think either of those assumptions is justified, but if some people do, I can't understand why they're getting upset over whether he could get the TITLE back.

[angkor]

I can't understand why they're getting upset over whether he could get the TITLE back.

Because the title is the office as defined by the Consitution.

Bill Clinton is a carpetbagger extraordinaire, and I don't want him carpetbagging the Constitution again during my lifetime.