Kip IngramMar 03, 2004 at 2:27PM

I suspect that Hillary would actually prefer to see Bush win the upcoming election, so she wouldn't have to be in the position of contesting an incumbent Democrat in 2008. Not that I think she would admit such a thing. ;-)

Real PeopleMar 03, 2004 at 2:28PM

Who are these people who keeps thinking Hillary can win? If Hillary ran this year I doubt if she'd even win NY, let alone AR or IL. Kerry is the Democratic Bob Dole.

djMar 03, 2004 at 2:57PM

I would move mountains to get this ticket elected.

jkottkeMar 03, 2004 at 3:14PM

The appealing aspect of a Kerry/Clinton ticket is that the US would essentially have two Presidents (VPs have traditionally had little power/responsibility relative to their high office). If their activities could be coordinated effectively, they could get a whole lot done in four/eight years. But I guess that would only be appealing to those with a Democratic bent....a G.W. Bush + G.H.W. Bush ticket is a tad scary to me. Alternate idea: make Clinton Sec. of State instead.

Kip IngramMar 03, 2004 at 3:51PM

I'd be suprised if Clinton functioned above normal VP level in a Kerry/Clinton administration. The vice presidency just seems to drag down whoever's in it.

I also don't think Clinton would touch the deal with a ten foot pole.

JimmyMar 03, 2004 at 4:16PM

There may be good reason to doubt Gillers's legal argument.

Kip IngramMar 03, 2004 at 5:33PM

I don't think that objection holds water. The argument that Clinton couldn't be elected President but could succeed to the Presidency seems perfectly clear and logical to me. Maybe that's not what the framers intended, but then they should have chosen their words more carefully, shouldn't they?

In point of fact, the framers did choose their words carefully; they often debated endlessly over minor wording options. They easily could have prohibited anyone from "serving" more than two terms as President, but instead they used the word "elected". "Elected" is a more specific state than "serving", so I think we should assume they meant what they said.

I hate putting words into the pens of the framers.

None of this should be construed as meaning that I support or desire a ticket with Bill Clinton on it.

lanceMar 03, 2004 at 5:46PM

framers? more like repairmen by 1951...

Kip IngramMar 03, 2004 at 7:32PM

:-) Touche. I guess that's what I get for writing comments so fast. But in fact that makes my point even more valid; language usage hasn't changed in the last half century to the degree it has in the last 220 years. We still have the use of specific "to elect" vs. the more general "to serve." Also, the word "framers" doesn't really apply in this situation, but we still have wording that was produced by a formal, sanctioned amendment process vs. informal arguments based on stretching the meaning of words. In this case the "repairmen" had the same legal status as the "framers."

Attempts to subject the Constitution to "revision by interpretation" have always bothered me; I'm afraid I let the discussion push my button a bit. One of the downside risks of rapid-fire online conversations. Your slips hang out their forever, for all the world to see. :-)

donald tettoMar 03, 2004 at 8:55PM

Forgive my naïveté, but what's the deal with Hillary==2008. I get the general innuendo that she has her sights set on the presidency, but why is 2008 always cited as the golden year?

barnesMar 03, 2004 at 9:44PM

I'd prefer to see Bill as Secretary of State. That would be something.

Kip IngramMar 03, 2004 at 9:52PM

I do think that Bill Clinton would make a great Secretary of State.

RyanMar 04, 2004 at 12:36AM

Re: Clinton (Bill) as Secretary of State -- To paraphrase Frum and Perle, the lifers within State tend to look down their noses at political appointees at the higher levels. While I do believe Clinton's geopolitical outlook is certainly more in line with the overall bent at Foggy Bottom, I have a fear he'd become as marginalized and frequently sabotaged as Sec. Powell.

If, however, Clinton were to commit to shaking up the way business was done at State (a step even Powell has resisted), I wouldn't argue against it. If the face of America went from GWB/Rumsfeld overnight to Kerry/Clinton, I have a feeling the passions of Anti-Americans abroad might subside.

None of this should be construed as an endorsement of a Democratic win in November. I'm just speculating.

souloniceMar 04, 2004 at 7:37AM

I think the Hillary in 2008 idea emerged from the notion that W was unbeatable in 2004, especially if Howard Dean had won the nomination. She didn't have enough momentum or interest or appeal to run in 2004, but by 2008 she'll have four more years to generate all those things.

stupidsexyflandersMar 04, 2004 at 9:29AM

Forget it, people. There's no way Kerry would consider either Clinton. Apart from the issue of overshadowing himself, could there be a more effective way to energize and unify the Republican base than to put a Clinton on the ticket? Talk about dangling red meat in front of the wolves. The current GOP discontent is the best weapon the Dems have to unseat Dubya.

MaxMar 09, 2004 at 4:38PM

I agree fully with Flanders and for this reason I think it will be Wes Clark that runs with Kerry.

votedmondaleinkindergartenMar 09, 2004 at 8:20PM

I'm not so sure why it would follow logically that Wesley Clark would run with Sen. Kerry; Sec. of Defense more likely. But that's beside the point.

John Kerry would never ally himself so closely with the scandle-laiden Clinton [great man that he is] to make him VP. What we will see, however, is intense Clinton support. He will be at 80% of the Kerry rallies, and will campaign for the senator to great lengths. One of Al Gore's greatest mistakes was not to let the former president campaign with him.

For VP we are most likely, I believe, to see Richardson, Graham or Gephardt. [Edwards is reserved for Atty General; and although I know it won't happen I'd love to see Al Sharpton as Sec of Labor.]

iLIKEiTMar 19, 2004 at 11:00PM

bUT WHAT aBOUT a kERRY/gORE TICKET.

dICKhEAD

votedmondaleinkindergartenMar 22, 2004 at 5:48PM

Because Al Gore couldnt even win his own homestate [although, Bush couldnt even win his own homecountry]

JOYCE A BUTERAApr 03, 2004 at 5:30PM

FORMER PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON AND HIS ADMINISTRATION GAVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HOPE AND VISION FOR A BETTER TOMORROW....I WOULD LOVE TO SEE HIM BACK IN OFFICE. KNOWING THAT WON'T HAPPEN, I WILL STAND WITH JOHN KERRY TO PULL THIS COUNTRY BACK TOGETHER....IT'S BEEN SAID HE HAS BEEN WISHY WASHY IN HIS DECISIONS....I SAY HE TRUSTED THE ADMINISTRATION .... TAKING WHAT IT SAID AT IT'S WORD...LATER FINDING OUT THIS ADMINISTRATION WOULD SAY ONE THING AND MEAN ANOTHER. HOW CONVENIENT TO TAKE THAT STAND AFTER VOTES ARE IN......WHILE I DON'T THINK KERRY WILL ASK BILL CLINTON TO BE HIS RUNNING MATE, I'M SURE WHOEVER HE CHOOSES WILL BE THE RIGHT PERSON FOR THE JOB...BILL CLINTON AS SECRETARY OF STATE HAS A GOOD SOUND TO IT.....QUESS WE'LL HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE....VERY INTERESTING....