Comments on: Hill and Bill for 2008?

By: grayfox67212

grayfox67212 — Sun, 22 Oct 2006 04:28:36 +0000

Hillary Clinton President and Bill her Vice President, wouldn’t that just frost Rush Limbaugh’s’ butt.

By: Vaughn Tolle

Vaughn Tolle — Sun, 22 Oct 2006 03:08:13 +0000

An interesting hypothetical; it surely would bedevil the courts. My personal belief is that the 22nd Amendment was intended to prevent anyone being elected as President more than twice; nothing more, nothing less. If this was the “original intent”, then Bill (or W) could be VP, as they were not elected President; could serve as President, in the event of the death or incapacity of the elected President; but could not run for reelection.

A fun academic process.

By: Mary Caruso

Mary Caruso — Sun, 22 Oct 2006 02:05:35 +0000

What a great idea! If presidents had 6 yr terms with no chance of re-election, then Bush would almost be outta there! As it is I’m counting the days.

By: Jim G.

Jim G. — Sun, 22 Oct 2006 02:03:20 +0000

This country needs Bill Clinton more than it needs any other politician. He is smarter than Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice all put together. He is articulate. He is not afraid to pick up the fucking phone to solve a problem. I expect Al Gore to run and Hillary to be VP.I would vote for Gore in a heartbeat….most of the country will too.The Bush episode has destroyed so much of our countries dignity. Much much more than a blowjob ever did.Stew in your own shit all you GOP asswipes who voted Bush into office. He is killing our soldiers with his ignorance.

By: Dennis

Dennis — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 23:41:56 +0000

6-year presidency. hummm.

Let’s ask Mexico how well that works.

By: raptor

raptor — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 21:13:08 +0000

1 6 year presidential term makes a lot of sense. To oversimplify the current setting:New president spends the first 2 years learning the job, and the next two years running for re-election. If re-elected, he then has 4 years to do the job.

With a 6 year presidency, there woudld be the 2 year learning curve, then 4 years of doing the job.

Makes perfect sense to me…

By: Mr KIA

Mr KIA — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 20:50:24 +0000

Jimmy Carter advocated that as well Mr. C.It’s not a bad idea. The first four years of a Presidency seem about keeping one’s job in most cases.

By: Wiseman

Wiseman — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 20:16:04 +0000

I agree with mrcontroversy, it seems like whenever we have presidents that are serving two terms in the office, in the latter haft they seem to get sour and tiresome to the public.The presidents also seem to get out of step and out of touch with the consensus of their constituencies.

By: dave s

dave s — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 19:05:36 +0000

Actually whether or not Bill can serve as VP is subject to interpetation. The Constitution states that someone can not be elected more than twice, not that they can’t serve more than twice.

By: mrcontroversy

mrcontroversy — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 18:56:26 +0000

Personally, I think Richard Nixon was right.In his later years, he advocated for nonconsecutive 6 year terms for president.It would sure help a lot in the quagmire that is fundraising.

By: ictsux

ictsux — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 18:19:56 +0000

pmom jsut wants him, like monica

By: political_mom

political_mom — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 17:11:29 +0000

I’d love for Bill to be president again, but it’s not going to happen. Nor vice president.

By: Mr KIA

Mr KIA — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 16:15:26 +0000

I think Hillary will distance herself from Bill alot more than he did from her in a run and if she did become President. She was an asset in his case, he is a liability to hers.

By: RD

RD — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 15:28:13 +0000

Bill Clinton cannot run as a VP for anybody. Not Hillary, not anybody. The Supreme Court would have to rule against this. They would have no choice. Why? Because if anything happens to the president, it’s the VP who steps in to fill the vacated spot. In the case of Bill, that happening would be unconstitutional.

As for a husband/wife team in the White House, that would be the height of stupidity. The reasons are many, but we can start by taking a look at the above scenario. Can you imagine what would happen if the prez in that situation died or even became incapacitated for a short period of time? Whether man or woman, that VP would be too emotionally focused on the loss or whatever to be able to run the country.

Get real.

By: RD

RD — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 15:16:37 +0000

lostinspace,

Thanks for the laugh!

By: J R

J R — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 14:27:23 +0000

The good Al Gore playing second fiddle to a Clinton again? No way would he do that nor would I wish him to. Hillary can be VP if Gore so chooses.

By: Ben Huie

Ben Huie — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 14:04:15 +0000

Joe – I don’t know anyone who wants to “appoint the Clintons as King and Queen” but it sure seems to me that your sude wants to appoint Bush as lifetime “beloved leader”

By: heartlander

heartlander — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 12:08:41 +0000

The proposition that Bill Clinton could run as VP is a non-starter. The Supreme Court, in any time in the past half-century, whether left-leaning or right-leaning would rule that the purpose of the 22nd Amendment was to prohibit a single individual from serving more than 2 terms as President, and thus Clinton is ineligible to ever BE president again, not just ineligible to be ELECTED president again.

This is just idle parlor talk.

Gore running as VP candidate with Hillary as P candidate? Not gonna happen.

Barak Obama running as VP candidate with Hillary as P candidate? Highly doubtful.

By: Joe Williams

Joe Williams — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 11:26:58 +0000

There are people who would love that to happen. Hell, there are people who would like to scrap the election process altogether and appoint the Clintons as King and Queen. ;)

But that being said. When Hillary runs in 08, if she selects Al Gore as her running mate, at least the supporters can recycle their “Clinton/Gore” bumber stickers and yard signs. Since they still have them in their garage and on their cars, why not?