Would you vote for Bill Clinton if he ran for 2008?

[hsher]

I would, and wish he would. How 'bout you?

www.yourmorningleibowitz.blogspot.com

[femmocrat]

1. In a heartbeat!

[polmaven]

24. Ditto!

If the 22nd was repealed i would vote for him as often as he wanted to run.

[NMDemDist2]

26. GMTA! me too n/t

[SalmonChantedEvening]

38. What him said.

Missing the Big Dawg defines the last 6 sad years.

[photogirl12]

2. Absolutely

[Demeter]

3. Yes, But

with reluctance this time.

[BlueStater]

4. If he could run again?

No.

The country isn't evolving by electing the same people over and over again.

[IntravenousDemilo]

52. Your country isn't evolving by electing the same families again either,

which is the main reason I wouldn't like to see Hillary run your country. I mean, for Christ's sake, you had a revolution to get rid of the monarchy, and yet ever since John Quincy Adams became president, you've been in love with ruling dynasties: Harrison, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Bush -- and now Clinton? Too much. You need a law that says if someone in your family has already been president, you can't be. Spread it around!

[Alexander]

5. No. It's unconstitutional.

Even if he won, he wouldn't actually get the presidency. They'd have to either nullify his votes or give it to someone else.

But I'll take his Vice-President any day of the week.

[hsher]

11. Is it really?

I thought the 22nd Amendment implied a null on *subsequent* terms...

>>Amendment XXII
(Ratified February 27, 1951)

Section 1
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.


Section 2
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

Unsure... clarification? Anyone? :shrug:

If Alex is right, this needs to be repealed... as soon as * is out of office :)

[ashling]

18. so where does it say "subsequent"?

can only be elected to two terms.

He could run for something else ... like Senator from NY.
(I'll forego the obvious joke here)

[hsher]

25. :)

Joke gotten :P

[polmaven]

21. It is spelled out in the body of the text

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

It doesn't contain the word "consecutively"...it says "twice"...and then it goes on to limit to 1 full term a person who serves more than 2 years of the term of another person who had been elected president. ...eight years...that is it.

[Alexander]

46. It's often called the "anti-Roosevelt" amendment.

Roosevelt got elected to 4 terms, dying at the beginning of the fourth.

The Republicans in Congress didn't want to see another Democratic president govern like this, hence Amendment 22.

What Bill Clinton could do is run as VP, for example, with Gore as the presidential nominee.

Say the Gore/Clinton ticket wins in '08. That's perfectly legal.

Clinton CAN be president again, but Gore would need to die, resign or get impeached with less than 2 years in his term left. Clinton cannot be elected President, and serve based on that election, again. He could only be president for a maximum of 2 more years.

Another good example: LBJ. Since he took over in 1963, with less than 2 years left in JFK's term, he could've ran in 1968, and served from 1963-1973, for 10 years.

[hsher]

48. Alexander, I hereby ask to marry you

That's a strategy. Can we somehow get that to the Dems in time?
GORE/CLINTON 2008!

[Alexander]

50. Well Phoenix and Albuquerque aren't that far apart.....

I suppose we could have the ceremony on the state line. ;-)

As for the strategy, it might not be a bad idea. As much as I like Hillary I think Bill would be far less polarizing.

I'll still root for Gore/Feingold unless Bill says he's interested. :-)

[Glorfindel]

6. Oh, yes, and I WISH he could, constitutionally

:bounce:

[seabeyond]

7. in a primary, no. if he was dem candidate, yes n/t

[valerief]

8. Only if he were eligible to serve. I mean, we could vote for him anyway,

but he couldn't serve.

[Mass]

9. No.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

10. Hell,no!

We need a change of direction, not a triangulator.

[blm]

12. No. He closed the books for Poppy Bush and would keep them closed for

Bush2.

This nation can't really become America until lawmakers start respecting the public with the truth so they can act as CITIZENS not pawns.


Clinton talks pretty and I like the good he can do - but he gave away alot to protect Poppy Bush and the fascists. That worked out well for the 9-11 families and the rest of the world, didn't it?

[TheCowsCameHome]

13. No, because of the Monica thing. If not for that, yes.

[melody]

14. If possible Constitutionally - yes, for general, no for primary

Bill is too conservative for my tastes, but with only two choices and the other being a modern Republican, there's no question that my vote would go to Bill.

[G Hawes]

15. No.

He's too tight with the Bush family for my liking.

[sofa king]

16. No way.

Open the loophole for the Big Dawg to come back, and you can bet your ass these vampires here now will stay here forever.

[ThomWV]

17. I'll Take Al Gore Instead

In a heartbeat ....

[A Simple Game]

47. I agree. n/t

[SpreadItAround]

19. In a heartbeat

[madokie]

20. in an okie heartbeat

:hi:

[Warpy]

22. Not particularly

I was in the 80% who didn't really benefit from the Clinton boom, but who saw things like access to abortions service decline and wealth concentration increase.

I think somebody new might learn from his mistakes and not be quite as much of an Eisenhower Repug.

However, I'll vote for whatever the party decides to run. There really is no alternative to that.

[tularetom]

23. Depends on who he ran against and who his campaign staff was

I believe the usual suspects of loser beltway dems could lose the election for Clinton unless he ran against the chimp.

[Disturbed]

29. How close are Hillary's policies to Bill's?

I've been asking this for awhile. Meaning: Voting for Hillary for Pres. would be similar to voting for Bill. If she did get elected Pres. wouldn't that be a duo Pres. situation. My guess: He would be Chief of Staff. Isn't that what the Rethugs are really afraid of?

[davidwparker]

27. Vote for NAFTA-signing Clinton? No.

But, he can speak out when he's got something to say. There's still freedom of speech until Tuesday.

[childslibrarian]

28. yes

yes yes yes yes yes yes yes......................................

[Kenergy]

30. Self delete n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

31. You mean if they got rid of term limits?

Yeah, I'd vote for him again if he were the Democratic candidate. I would hope that he would be a bit more careful about his zipper this time though. Also hope that he would undo some of the damage that he allowed with permitting too much media consolidation.

[MrSlayer]

32. I'd like to see what he could do with a Democratic Congress.

Certainly I'd vote for him again.

[Greybnk48]

33. absolutely!! I love the guy!!

I long for the Clinton era. Hope for the future, a great economy, and a President who was respected worldwide (not counting a handful of self-righteous scolds here at home).

[featherman]

34. yes...absolutely

[Ignacio Upton]

35. If they got rid of term limits?

Hell yes! I would love to see him kick George W. Bush's ass!

[SmokingJacket]

36. Shit, I'd vote for my mom.

I was mad at Clinton at the time, for constantly caving in to conservative interests... however those years were so much fantastically better than now. Of course I would! Though I'd rather give Gore, Obama, Feingold, Kerry, Clark, etc a chance.

[Broadslidin]

41. Like Mine, Your Mom Could Also Be Jiving You Too.....!!

:yoiks:

[morningglory]

37. Hay-ull, yeah! (as we say in the South once in a while) ... n/t

[Broadslidin]

39. After The Bloody Coup, Of Course......!

:hide:

[hsher]

42. This Broadslidin dude, I LIKE. :)

;-) :thumbsup:

[yurbud]

40. he should have run for governor of CA against Arnold.

[Clark2008]

43. Not in the primaries, but I would in a general...

[VeggieTart]

44. I'm afraid I wouldn't

I never did forgive him for firing Joycelyn Elders.

[zulchzulu]

45. On two conditions...

If Bill would repeal both NAFTA and the Telecommunications Act on his first day back, I would consider him. Otherwise...eh...

[Maccagirl]

49. No

Not even Clinton, with his political gifts, can clean up Chimpy's mess. Would the right-wing infrastructure be destroyed or disabled for him to be successful? No way.

[LWolf]

51. No.

I've never been a fan of either Clinton, and I wouldn't tie up a new administration in all of the legal challenges that would ensue.

[KoKo]

53. NO! ....American Founding Fathers who had experience of Long History

reading Greeks and Romans and Civilization were AGAINST THAT! NO...

Won't vote for DYNASTIES AND KINGS/DICTATORS/EMPERORS...no matter HOW WELL DISGUISED THEY ARE!

:puke:...NO DYNASTIES!!! EVER!!!!!!1

[Cameron27]

54. If BC could run again, sure I'd vote for him.

[bridgit]

55. ya'think...

[ChiciB1]

56. I Think He Had His Time... We Don't Need Only Two Families

passing on the Presidency to one another each election cycle! I realize it may just be for show, but Billy is a bit too close to Bushie 41 for me!

No more Bushies! And Hillary MUST wait or never run!!!

[Rowdyboy]

57. If he could legally serve, hell yes!

[Marr]

58. No thanks, I prefer to vote for Democrats.

How's that description go...? "Best Republican president we've had in 50 years". Yeah, that's about right.

Clinton is nearly as bad as Bush and today's mainstream GOP, but that's not saying much. He's very much into the neoliberal economic policy, and those policies are eating away at this country (and alot of others).

So no thanks.

[Rowdyboy]

59. If he could legally serve, hell yes!

[Pastiche423]

60. No

[Crabby Appleton]

61. No

[Mr_Spock]

62. In a nanosecond

I would vote for him again for sure - wish he could run again :(