View Full Version : Bill Clinton FOR VICE PRESIDENT!!
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/03/opinion/03GIL.html
You must register to view link.
Here is the article.
March 3, 2004
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
The Next Best Thing to Being President
By STEPHEN GILLERS
http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/dropcap/w.gifith John Edwards's decision to quit the race, expected to be announced officially today, John Kerry's nomination as the Democratic candidate for president is secure. Speculation about his choice for vice president can now begin in earnest.
Mr. Edwards himself is an obvious choice: a skilled campaigner, he would also attract Southern voters. Other possibilities include Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana and Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who have both regional appeal and executive experience, and dark-horse candidates like former Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia.
Amid this conjecture, however, one name is conspicuously absent: Bill Clinton.
Mr. Clinton's strengths would compensate for Mr. Kerry's weaknesses almost perfectly. Not only is Mr. Clinton the most talented campaigner of his generation, but he is also a Southerner — and since 1948, when Harry S. Truman chose Senator Alben Barkley of Kentucky as his running mate, every successful Democratic ticket has included a Southern politician.
Besides, people might even pay to watch Bill Clinton debate Dick Cheney. So why not?
The first objection, the constitutional one, can be disposed of easily. The Constitution does not prevent Mr. Clinton from running for vice president. The 22nd Amendment, which became effective in 1951, begins: "No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice."
No problem. Bill Clinton would be running for vice president, not president. Scholars and judges can debate how loosely constitutional language should be interpreted, but one need not be a strict constructionist to find this language clear beyond dispute. Bill Clinton cannot be elected president, but nothing stops him from being elected vice president.
True, if Mr. Clinton were vice president he would be in line for the presidency. But Mr. Clinton would succeed Mr. Kerry not by election, which the amendment forbids, but through Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which provides that if a president dies, resigns or is removed from office, his powers "shall devolve on the vice president." The 22nd Amendment would not prevent this succession.
So much for the constitutional obstacles. The political ones may be more formidable. They can be summarized in two questions: would Mr. Clinton want the job; and would Mr. Kerry want him to take it? We won't know until we ask, of course. But before asking, we might cite some reasons for both men to consider a Kerry-Clinton ticket seriously.
For Mr. Clinton, the appeal of the vice presidency is both political and personal. First, he could help his party win. Yes, Mr. Clinton remains a divisive figure in American politics — but not so much among Democrats. And surely many voters long for the strong economy and economic stewardship that was one of the hallmarks of his administration.
Second, he could burnish his legacy. In exchange for joining the ticket, Mr. Clinton could negotiate for plum assignments as vice president. Mideast peace? National health care? Racial equality? He could focus on any or all of them. And from a purely personal standpoint, it might be especially gratifying for Mr. Clinton to be part of the team that defeats the man who four years ago promised to restore "character" to Mr. Clinton's own White House.
The only remaining question, then, is what John Kerry thinks of all this. Judging from recent debates, there's little chemistry between Senators Kerry and Edwards, although Mr. Edwards's graceful withdrawal may help ease tensions between them. But Mr. Kerry and Mr. Clinton would seem to have much in common; they are nearly the same age, worked with each other in Washington for almost a decade and have a shared interest in foreign affairs.
For Senator Kerry, the question may well come down to whether adding Mr. Clinton to the ticket would appreciably increase his chances of victory. A couple of polls should give him the answer fast enough. If the results are good, the course is clear: bring him on.
Stephen Gillers is a professor of law at New York University.
President can serve 10 years or two terms. Bill Clinton has already serve 8 years. He legally can serve as president for two years, but the question is shaky. Can Bill Clinton be Vice President for John Kerry?
Wrong Clinton. If anything, Hillary will be considered, not Bill.
If Hillary thinks that Kerry has a strong chance of winning, she'll tag along so that she can run for president in 2012. If she believes he'll lose, she'll wait till 2008 and go for the nomination, which will be easy for her since she's the darling of the democratic party.
Look for Clinton to run for U.N. president or Secretary General, that's the next step for a man bent on a legacy.
Wick3d
03-06-2004, 10:37 AM
Bill Clinton for VICE PRESIDENT
HAHAHA that'll NEVER happen.
ChaosZon
03-06-2004, 10:52 AM
He was already President for two terms. He cannot be in any office that could potentially land him in the Oval Office ever again. The two terms thing takes Constitutional preference over 10 years.
Wrong Clinton. If anything, Hillary will be considered, not Bill.
If Hillary thinks that Kerry has a strong chance of winning, she'll tag along so that she can run for president in 2012. If she believes he'll lose, she'll wait till 2008 and go for the nomination, which will be easy for her since she's the darling of the democratic party.
Look for Clinton to run for U.N. president or Secretary General, that's the next step for a man bent on a legacy.
I doubt that. Why do they need two North Easterners running? Kerry is from that part, they need someone to carry the southern states.
He was already President for two terms. He cannot be in any office that could potentially land him in the Oval Office ever again. The two terms thing takes Constitutional preference over 10 years.
Since the constitutional language is "shall be elected to the office of president," he is simply forbidden from running in the election as a presidential candidate. He can still get the office through the line of succession, theoretically.
That's why it is possible to have Bill Clinton if there is no one else that can match it. If the democrats really want Bill Clinton, they will push it and the Republicans will most likely go to the supreme courts.
I doubt that. Why do they need two North Easterners running? Kerry is from that part, they need someone to carry the southern states.
Ahem, I might remind you that Hillary is from Arkansas. New York is her adopted state only. Besides, when has Hillary done anything that didn't serve her own needs. I can guarantee she's at least pondering the idea.
It is rumored that Hillary wants Bush to win so she can run for President 2008. It's been a long time since Hillary lived in Arkansas. Remember how Al Gore lost Tennessee?
It is rumored that Hillary wants Bush to win so she can run for President 2008. It's been a long time since Hillary lived in Arkansas. Remember how Al Gore lost Tennessee?
I mentioned Arkasas since you suggested that she was a New Englander, which is only a partial truth. She's got mass appeal with the Democratic party, which is a scary thing in my opinion.
Imagine if Kerry wins. The VP will be a shoe in for the democratic nomineee in 2012 if Kerry get his full two terms. Then Hillary may never get her chance. If she rides with Kerry on the 2004 ticket, she has nothing to lose. She'll get a chance to be VP in 2004, then possibly the nominee in 2012. If Kerry loses, she proceeds to run in 2008 we both suggested. It's a win-win.
A update on this topic:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/10/clintonkerry.bush/index.html
Clinton, Kerry discuss running mates
Former president takes Bush to task over budget deficit
NEW YORK (CNN) -- Former President Bill Clinton said Wednesday he has spoken to John Kerry about choosing a running mate.
Asked after a public appearance in the Bronx if he had any advice for Kerry on the subject, Clinton said, "No, we've talked about it. He'll do a good job with that."
Clinton spokesman Jim Kennedy said later the former president called Kerry on March 3, the day after a string of primary wins effectively secured the senator from Massachusetts the Democratic nomination. Kennedy said he was not privy to the details of the conversation.
A Kerry spokesman would not discuss details of what Kerry and Clinton talked about but said Kerry is interested in what party leaders with experience in searches have to say.
Earlier, before an audience at Hosotos Community College, Clinton said Kerry should make Bush's election record topic No. 1.
"You know, I'm a Democrat, so I'm going to support our nominee for president. But somebody said to me we ought to run against ... President Bush -- where he didn't keep his commitments," Clinton said.
"I said, 'No we shouldn't, we should run where he did keep his commitments, and people weren't paying any attention.'
"Most people in public life do what they said they're going to do when they get elected. It's just that most people don't pay attention to what they're saying when they're running," said Clinton, a two-term president and five-term governor of Arkansas.
During his afternoon appearance, Clinton criticized the Bush administration for running a $500 billion deficit on the federal budget, which had a surplus when he left office three years ago.
"The tax cut that I got has been protected against all cost," said Clinton, referring to the $1 trillion income tax cuts that primarily benefited Americans with high incomes such as the former president, who has earned millions for his forthcoming memoirs and for making speeches.
"It's the most important thing in the world to the administration and the majority party in Congress to protect my tax cut," Clinton said.
"So to protect my tax cut in this budget, they are kicking 300,000 poor children out of after-school programs, 23,000 cops off the street.
"They've already removed 83,000 students from the student loan program, depriving 140,000 unemployed workers from job training and removing child care supports to 100,000 working families," Clinton continued.
"Now that's a choice they made. They actually believe the most important thing in the world is to have less government and low taxes.
"They believe that lower taxes are good even if you have to have adverse human consequences. It's a difference of opinion."
Clinton's remarks concluded a symposium, sponsored by his foundation, to encourage youth activism.
He also taped a public service announcement targeting minority youth to register to vote.
The promotion will be broadcast on Black Entertainment Television, which has committed $1 million in free advertising time on its network between April and November.
Celebrities also appearing separately in the ads include rapper LL Cool J and singer-songwriter Alicia Keys.
Afterward, Clinton was asked about Bush's use of September 11 imagery in his re-election ads.
"I think it's up to President Bush to decide what he's going to run on, and how he's going to present it," Clinton said.
"When you raise an issue, it opens the issue in a way that we've -- all of us in our party have always tried to keep September 11 and the aftermath out of politics. And it's been put back in politics, and we'll just see what happens.
"But he has to decide that. It's not up to me to make judgments about that. I think that in the end all elections are about the future, and this one will be too," Clinton said.
Asked if Kerry spends too much talking about his Vietnam experience and not enough time talking about Republicans who accuse him of flip-flopping, Clinton said, "No, I don't think he spends too much time talking about his Vietnam experience. It's a very important part of who he is."
Clinton also commented on Kerry's nuanced opinion on same-sex marriage.
"I think Kerry's in the right place on it, and we'll just see what happens. I think the country is going through this dramatic reassessment, and we've come a very long way on this issue," said Clinton, who signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.
"Keep in mind -- when I tried to get gays in the military in '93 it was one of the major reasons I lost the Congress in '94. We have come a long way," Clinton said.
"And the culture is different in different communities, different states. We'll work through it, and we'll continue broadening the circle of rights in America."
Clinton is already advising Kerry. Something Gore didn't do on his run for election. Clinton in my perpective is very well skilled at politics.
Clinton is already advising Kerry. Something Gore didn't do on his run for election. Clinton in my perpective is very well skilled at politics.
Indeed he is, would you consider this a positive or a negative?
Doombringer64
03-12-2004, 3:06 PM
Clinton knows how to manipulate people for sure.
Clinton knows how to manipulate people for sure.
I agree with both sentiments, he's one of the best politicians I have ever witnessed. That said, I don't find that particularly appealing.
Clinton may have lied to protect himself and may have alienated supporters, but I rather look pass that and look at what he did for the nation. People try to justify Bush is stronger by blaming problems of today on Bill Clinton. In tho it is true of every president, it was very different for this adminstration since the WTC attack. Some would ask, how could we not know? How could Bush not know? We must support Bush! But the blame is still itching on our backs, WHO? So they blame Clinton. I still believe it's a blind and counterable excuse, other then that, I think Clinton would still bring positive influence to the public seeing him by Kerry's side.
Who is they? And as far as I'm concerned, Clinton has no positives, he did what he thought was popular while in office. Name the policy decisions that were made during his term that were considered unpopular with the public majority. You'll have a difficult time listing any because he essentially conceded on every issue to the majority opinion. And in turn, he looked good for it.
At least I can say this much, Bush has made decisions based on what he believes is the best thing for America , love him or hate him, you can't take that away from him.
Exactly, you are the people's leader, not self leader. You make decisions on what the people want, not what you want.
I think you drew the wrong conclusion from my post. I don't believe a President should pay any attention to opinion polls, nor should he consider any news sources or anything remotely close to the media. The concept of representation is to paint your ideas for the public, then if elected, you either fullfill those promises, or you don't. If something as serious as the WTC bombings happens to occur on your watch, we don't defer to an opinion poll to decide the next course of action. We're a republic, not a democracy.
What was Clintons response to the 1st WTC bombing? What was his response to the U.S.S. Cole bombing? How about the embassy bombings?
Oh wait, he launched a couple of missles at an aspirin manufactuer. ;)
EDIT: Sorry, if you replied before my edit.
Yeah, i know you weren't trying to prove any of my points. Heh. Just wanted to take it to prove mines. =D
I know We are a Republic. A republic with democratic principles. I rather have a leader who listens to the people. If you were the leader of the nation and there is 40% who want this certain issue to be resolved in a certain way, and your views don't believe this issue will not harm rest: 60% but those 60% just don't want that change, you pass it anyway because it will not harm anyone or disbeneifit the people. It is what the leader should do with that judgement of his. Not blindly dictate what he wants.
I haven't seen Clinton passing anything that interfered with my life. His military policies were simple. Don't try to send that much people in to wars, we send missles. Of course missles weren't as accurate as it is now, Thanks to Clinton's use of it, the usage have provided significant research data.
Granted, that it's a weak military strat, but it save us money. He already cut military spendings, since we shouldn't need a army that can fight 2 wars at the sametime anyway, why should we?
Bush himself has already cut military pay and started many executive operations overseas. What I remember about military people, they won't get a lot of money to support themselves and their family.
I know We are a Republic. A republic with democratic principles. I rather have a leader who listens to the people. If you were the leader of the nation and there is 40% who want this certain issue to be resolved in a certain way, and your views don't believe this issue will not harm rest: 60% but those 60% just don't want that change, you pass it anyway because it will not harm anyone or disbeneifit the people. It is what the leader should do with that judgement of his. Not blindly dictate what he wants.
How do you determine what the people desire? How do you trust that the people are properly informed? How do you present the people with top secret information and expect our enemies not to see it? This is exactly why the president exists as our "representative" and the people don't vote on every policy action. It's not only impractical, but highly uninformed. Vote your president in to office based on his policy, vote him out based on his performance. It's up to you to decide every four years.
I haven't seen Clinton passing anything that interfered with my life. His military policies were simple.
They were safe, not simple. Well, except for that Bosnia thing, at least we ran with our tails between our legs, good for us. :rolleyes:
Don't try to send that much people in to wars, we send missles. Of course missles weren't as accurate as it is now, Thanks to Clinton's use of it, the usage have provided significant research data.
Uh huh, that's odd logic. So if Clinton had decided to take down Hussein, he would have sent magical missles that could restructure the country? Yeah, ok.
Granted, that it's a weak military strat, but it save us money. He already cut military spendings, since we shouldn't need a army that can fight 2 wars at the sametime anyway, why should we?
Should we ever find ourselves in a situation like Iraq again, what happens when trouble breaks out in another part of the world, do we simply sit it out? If Pakistan and India start lobbing missles at each other, we can just lend our moral support? Our Military strategies are sound, they have been since WWII and we shouldn't soon forget.
Bush himself has already cut military pay and started many executive operations overseas. What I remember about military people, they won't get a lot of money to support themselves and their family.
That's just downright unequivocally untrue.
PRESIDENT SIGNS EXTENSION OF IMMINENT DANGER PAY
The president has signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, H.R. 1588 (P.L. 108-136). The measure extends the increase for imminent danger pay for service members from $150 per month to $225 per month through December 31, 2004. The $225 rate was scheduled to expire on September 30, 2003.
12/10/2003
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/108-1/s1050sap-s.pdf
from $150 per month to $225 per month through December 31, 2004. The $225 rate was scheduled to expire on September 30, 2003.
I don't get this... EDIT. NM
The Bosnia conflict was a U.N engagement. Wonder why Clinton's military involvements were so weakly view was because he supported the U.N and didn't go pre-emptive on anyone...
How would a president find out what the people wants? Well, I have a few in mind, like protest and a list of arguements from both sides. Decision concerning foriegn policies...
Yeah, there would be sensitive infomation that wouldn't be allow to the public that must be protected for national security, but Pre emptive strikes with no hardcore proof is against international law. Bush sent our "Magical Missles" first before sending troops. If it was Clinton, his policies would of gain more support from our allies, NATO. And more allies would be sending troops over to Iraq if there was such conflict if he was president of today. Therefore, U.S will not need to send as much resources over to iraq to fight a war, that is suppose to be "Internationally beneifitable".
Relying on the U.N. for approval has been proven to be futile at best. Besides, who do you think is the number one contributor to said organization, hrmmm? I digress, this isn't a thread about the U.N., this is a thread about Clinton, whom won't be running on the ticket no matter how hard you wish it. And for that, I thank my lucky stars. ;)
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.