Great idea Keith. Then after the election, Hillary can join Vince Foster in the park as a suicide.

Keith, your scenario scares the beegeebees out of me! I had not thought of that possibility and I'm sure many others haven't as well. I don't think it's such a stretch and would fit right in with the co-presidency that is mused about frequently.

I think the whole idea is ridiculous and no one, especially the Clintons, would even consider it.

Hate to be a voice of sanity with this gibberish but there are already two reasons why it is not at all possible.

1. The major criteria for being Vice President is eligibility to be President. By virtue of having been elected President twice, Bill Clinton is no longer eligible to be elected, unless and until the (I believe) 22 Amendment is repealed.

2. The Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates cannot be from the same state. That's why Cheney had to move back to Wyoming from Houston, TX in order to runa as VP with Little Boots.

Actually, Bill has already spoken on this idea during a TV interview. (I believe it was on David Letterman's show.) He acknowledged that some people interpret the 22nd and 12th amendments individually so there would be no explicit prohibition against him serving as VP. But then he very clearly stated that he sees the Constitution as a whole, and interprets the intent as prohibiting his running for VP.

That show was seen by millions of people and could be pulled out of the archive any time, so I think it is pretty safe to say that he will not reverse that statement and try to claim that it should be allowed.

On the other hand, has everybody noticed that Edwards is being pretty careful not to offend either of the front runners? He may well arrive at the convention with enough delegates to make either of them the winner, in exchange for a position in their administration. But I'm thinking he would have more fun as Attorney General than as VP.

keith,
You obviously think this is feasible and viable. However, I am unaware of any credible constitutional scholars who are making this same claim. Do you have someone that you specifically can cite for this or is this just something that keeps you up at night fearful that it MIGHT happen?

No, once again, I'm NOT advocating any of this!

All I am saying is that, absent any SPECIFIC Constitutional prohibitions (and the Clinton's known track record for bending the rules to get and retain power) the possibility exists that "Slick Willie" and company just MIGHT try to pull something like this off.

Clearly, and by any measure, the Democratic Party of the United States is breaking new ground in this election.

They are fielding the first widely popular African American candidate running for President as well as the first, widely popular female candidate running for President...a lady who also just happens to be the wife of a former two-term President.

What's more, the Democrats are doing all of this in the SAME election cycle!

Why not...?! Bill held office as President and there's nothing in the constitution that would preclude him from being V.P. since the V.P. is chosen by the presidential nominee, which I think is a major flaw in our system of goverment.

Based on behind the scenes meddling on the part of H.W. Bush under Reagan, Gore under Clinton, and Cheney under G.W. Bush, the V.P. selection is something that people have to pay attention to rather closely in these highly dangerous times.

H.W. Bush was "ex-CIA" (no such animal), code name "poppy" was constantly involving himself in the CIA/MIC's constant involvement in foreign affairs. H.W. Bush was deeply involved in Iran/Contra if not "the" planner for the operation. Gore under Clinton thought of himself as an amateur intelligence operative/buff and meddled in the operations of our intel agencies day to day operations. Dick Cheney under G.W. Bush has been notorious for meddling in the ops of our intel organizations including the Wolfowitz-Feith-Cheney rogue intelligence pipeline that involved us in this bogus Iraqi debacle resulting in the loss of almost 4,000 of our servicepeople, along with at least 20,000 casualties with various degrees of disability. Also "innocent" Iraqi citizens have been killed to the tune of at least 100,000 or more with several million having to flee their country to neighboring nations.

So my point is that a ever-meddling, V.P. can be like a loose cannon on deck relative to the safety of the American people. Even if Bill Clinton is simply sitting in the Whitehouse as "first husband"; he will be up to his armpits meddling in our national affairs with the approval of his wife. They work as team and always have so to this nation's detriment.

It's mentioned in other recent site articles that many people equate Bill Clinton with the success of their 401K portfolios etc. during his tenure. The "tech boom" became the "tech wreck" not during Bushco's term per se, but the seeds were sown from the beginning of the Clinton presidency. SEC oversight was minimal. CEO's were cooking the books bigtime on so-called "New Economy" stocks only for people to discover by the time G.W. Bush ascended to the presidencey that they had been left holding the bag. Enron, MCI-Worldcom, Tyco, Qwest, Sunbeam, and the list goes on of companies that went down hard because of their criminal CEO's all under the less than watchful eye of the Clinton presidency regulators. Those campaign contributions shor were mighty fine...no?! :|

Then with the assistance of the Fed lowering rates to 40 year lows post tech wreck; it was now G.W. Bush's turn to watch the banking industry load their boats to the gunnels with ill-gotten cash due to weak and less-than discriminating oversight concerning lending practices etc. on the part of regulators that were imbedded during the Clinton era then continuing on into the G.W. Bush presidency.

We are now suffering the maximum damage as a function of the crash in the housing market courtesy of Bushco's lack of oversight in order to protect the people from predators. These people are laissez' faire "pirate capitalists", an ugly mutant form of that which could be good; ie., capitalism with reasonable regulation and genuine oversight.

So between Bill Clinton and G.W. Bush, the American people have suffered a mighty one-two punch, and if Hillary is elected she'll finish this nation off with a roundhouse punch to the jaw. I will not prognosticate as to what that might be, but I'm sure many of us can let our imaginations run amok concerning her NWO controllers' plans for "we the people"...!

Wake up America to the fact you've been duped by 20 years of Bush/Clinton shenanigans and boondoggles, starting with H.W. Bush to what they hope to be a Hillary Clinton/? presidency too...!

Carl Nemo **==

First of all, HRC must get the nomination - and that is no longer quite the pro forma thing that she and her votaries had previously envisioned, is it?

Second, she'd have to propose her husband as the VP nominee - and assume that the nominating convention would rubber stamp her choice. Sure, the presidential nominee's choice is normally vetted in the traditional smoke-filled room, but do you think that such a thing could make it to the floor, much less be passed? After all, JFK nominating his brother as AG was a loophole amended soon after the departure of the Camelot crowd.

Third, assuming that the Democratic Party would acquiesce to such a transparent power-grab, the immediate legal challenges would make the Bush v. Gore dust-up of 2000 look like a kindergarten party.

Fourth, all of the previous flaming hoops having been cleared successfully, the American electorate - which has a well-established reputation for being willing to buy any old pig in a poke - will be asked to acquiesce to buying two already-shopworn pigs in a poke, with one or both of the Clintons saying something soothing like, "it's not for us...it's for the children!"

Most sincerely,

T. J. Flapsaddle

Who in hell would accept it?

For the record... the 12th amendment is silent on these matters. Article 2, section 1, of the constitution sets forth the age criterion, etc., for Pres. Also, since the president is not ELIGIBLE to be elected, I believe he is not eligible to become V.P. either.

Yep... Carl, no doubt about it. That's why I claim it as mere belief. Here's hoping we never have to wade into such a dogfight.

There was actually an article about this topic in the Washington Post that was run shortly before Hillary announced her candidacy:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...