VP Bubba?

[takoma]

The article http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66096.html claims that Bill Clinton could legally run for VP. The claim is that Amendment 22 only makes him ineligible to be elected president, but allows him to be elevated to the presidency, Amendment 12 says "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." The authors claim that Clinton still satisfies the eligibility requirement, and therefore could run as VP, and should the occasion arise, become president again.

Do you think SCOTUS would read the amendments that way, or say that 22 makes him ineligible to be pres, and therefore 12 makes him ineligible to be VP? My guess is that they would read that as the clear intent of 22, and therefore bar him from becoming VP. But before that happened, I would think that the very possibility that it might happen would discourage Obama from making such a move.

[Anonymous]

why do you think that impeached disgrace would be an asset? how absurd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:why do you think that impeached disgrace would be an asset? how absurd.

You're right. 8 years of prosperity and no wars would just be awful right about now.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
You're right. 8 years of prosperity and no wars would just be awful right about now.

I don't know about the "no wars" part. Black Hawk Down took place during Clinton's first year and the war with Serbia and invasion of Kosovo occurred during later years.

On the broader question, Clinton has so many conflicts of interest due to donations to his foundation that he couldn't seriously be considered a candidate for dog catcher at this point.

[Anonymous]

This is just silly. I can't imagine anyone Obama would want less as his vice president, even assuming he was unhappy with Biden.

[takoma]

To 10:07 and 11:48: I don't think the choice is likely or wise, but the authors apparently think Obama and Clinton might find it attractive. However, it's the question of constitutionality that I find interesting, since it depends on such a nit-picky parsing of words -- is Clinton eligible to be president, and therefore eligible to be elected VP, even though he is not eligible to be elected president?

[Anonymous]

takoma wrote:To 10:07 and 11:48: I don't think the choice is likely or wise, but the authors apparently think Obama and Clinton might find it attractive. However, it's the question of constitutionality that I find interesting, since it depends on such a nit-picky parsing of words -- is Clinton eligible to be president, and therefore eligible to be elected VP, even though he is not eligible to be elected president?

I'd think it unconstitutional.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You're right. 8 years of prosperity and no wars would just be awful right about now.

I don't know about the "no wars" part. Black Hawk Down took place during Clinton's first year and the war with Serbia and invasion of Kosovo occurred during later years.

On the broader question, Clinton has so many conflicts of interest due to donations to his foundation that he couldn't seriously be considered a candidate for dog catcher at this point.

Clinton knew to get out of Bush's war in Somalia.

Kosovo resulted in (1) overthrown dictator, (2) removal of the threat of genocide (*) against Kosovar Albanians, and (3) the integration of Serbia into Europe, all for the cost of a few days in Iraq and no lives lost.

Obama's intervention in Libya is going better at overthrow + 6 weeks than Bush's intervention in Iraq was at this stage.

Obama wound us down in Iraq and is winding us down in Afghanistan. He's also killing terrorists at a faster clip than Dubya dreamed of doing.

I think Republicans know better than to compare foreign policy results between Bush and Obama. Sputtering about how we're supposedly abandoning Israel won't get that much traction.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You're right. 8 years of prosperity and no wars would just be awful right about now.

I don't know about the "no wars" part. Black Hawk Down took place during Clinton's first year and the war with Serbia and invasion of Kosovo occurred during later years.

On the broader question, Clinton has so many conflicts of interest due to donations to his foundation that he couldn't seriously be considered a candidate for dog catcher at this point.

Clinton knew to get out of Bush's war in Somalia.

Kosovo resulted in (1) overthrown dictator, (2) removal of the threat of genocide (*) against Kosovar Albanians, and (3) the integration of Serbia into Europe, all for the cost of a few days in Iraq and no lives lost.

Obama's intervention in Libya is going better at overthrow + 6 weeks than Bush's intervention in Iraq was at this stage.

Obama wound us down in Iraq and is winding us down in Afghanistan. He's also killing terrorists at a faster clip than Dubya dreamed of doing.

I think Republicans know better than to compare foreign policy results between Bush and Obama. Sputtering about how we're supposedly abandoning Israel won't get that much traction.

I'm not sure what conversation you believe you are having, but I was addressing the statement that there were no wars during the Clinton Administration. Whether those wars were fought effectively or not is really not material to the fact that there were wars. The books are not closed on Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya. I suggest holding off on the "Mission Accomplished" ceremonies.