<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>August 7, 2008, 2:37 pm What Does Hillary Want? By Katharine Q. Seelye Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama in Unity, N.H., in June. (Photo: Tyler Hicks/The New York Times) Senator Hillary Clinton asked the question herself on the night of the last primaries in early June: “What does Hillary want?” That’s still a bit of a mystery, particularly as she and Senator Barack Obama negotiate over her role, and possibly that of her husband, at the Democratic convention in Denver and beyond. Mr. Obama has given Mrs. Clinton a speaking role on the Tuesday night of the convention. But she made it clear in a recent chat with supporters — which is now on YouTube — that she is steeped in negotiations over how to salve the wounds of her disappointed supporters so that they don’t stray in November. She suggested she may allow her name to be placed in nomination, and also that her supporters don’t need her permission to do that on their own. It is not clear whether Mrs. Clinton is also bargaining for her husband and what role he may play at the convention or in the fall campaign; Mr. Clinton has talked with Mr. Obama since the end of the primaries. There is no new news so far today, as Mrs. Clinton wrote in a live Web chat on her personal blog. “While no decisions have been made yet, I will make sure that we keep you up to date and involved with all of the Convention activity,” she wrote. Mr. Obama also told reporters today that some matters were unresolved. “As is true in all conventions, we’re still working out the mechanics, the coordination,” he said while flying to his home in Chicago. In the video, taken July 31 at a unity event in Palo Alto, Mrs. Clinton described her bargaining position at the table: “We will come out stronger if people feel that their voices were heard and their views were respected,” she said. “I think that is a very big part of how we actually come out unified.” Whatever she is asking for, she described the process aptly: “It’s as old as Greek drama,” she said. She was referring to the “catharsis” that her supporters are seeking after enduring her roller-coaster ride through the primaries. But she could have been referring to the Clintons themselves, the leading lady and erstwhile leading man of Democratic politics, and their knack for remaining at the center of the drama even if they do not hold center stage. That is evident in the outpouring of comments on The Caucus and elsewhere in the blogosphere. The Clintons are entering an extremely sensitive stage of the election cycle _ and of their ongoing process to shape their legacies. It is not just about their roles at the convention or the campaign but about how history will treat them both and will in turn influence her future. While the video of Mrs. Clinton plays across cable TV and the Internet, a new video of her husband, in an interview with ABC News, is also playing in its own endless loop. He was not quite able to say that Senator Barack Obama, the party’s all-but-certain nominee, is qualified to be president. Mr. Clinton appears and reappears, swatting at the same furies he has tried to bat back all year _ that he used race in subtle and not-so-subtle ways during the primaries. “I am not a racist,” he says. He makes clear that any friendship with Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina, a leading black politician who despaired of the Clintons during the primary, is over. Mrs. Clinton came very close to winning the nomination, of course. She won eight of the last 13 primaries, back when she was warning in a full-throated voice that she would be a better general-election candidate than Mr. Obama. Interestingly, as she surely knows, she remains just as popular among Democrats these days as Mr. Obama, despite his having been campaigning for two months as the party nominee. The most recent New York Times poll puts her favorability rating among Democrats at 70 percent and Mr. Obama’s at 66 percent. Now Mr. Obama is struggling in the polls to maintain parity with Senator John McCain. In the video, she calls for the party to unify behind Mr. Obama, even as she nurses the disappointment of her supporters _ and carefully shields any feelings of vindication. At one point, a woman asks Mrs. Clinton what happens if her name is placed in nomination at the convention and she actually wins. “That’s not going to happen,” Mrs. Clinton replies. “What we want to have happen is for Senator Obama to be nominated by a unified convention of Democrats. And as I have said, the best way I think _ and I could be wrong, but the best way I think _ to do that is to have a strategy so that my delegates feel like they’ve had a role and that their legitimacy has been validated. It’s as old as Greek drama. There is a catharsis. I mean, everybody comes and they want to yell and scream and have their opportunity, and I think that’s all to the good. Because then, everybody can then go (whew), great, now, let’s go out and win. That’s what we want people to feel.” Her goal, she says, is this: “We do not want any Democrat in the hall or in the stadium or at home walking away saying, ‘I’m just not satisfied, I’m not happy.’ That’s what I’m trying to avoid.” Her supporters in the video seem a bit puzzled by this process. Is it normal, one asks, for all of this to be negotiated back and forth? Mrs. Clinton responds: “If you look at recent history, I have moved more quickly and done more on behalf of my opponent than comparable candidates have. Most of them didn’t endorse until the convention, Teddy Kennedy, or Gary Hart, Jerry Brown, just a lot of people held out until the convention, kept their delegates, often waged platform or rules or credentials fights.” But then she seems to give a green light to her supporters to go ahead and make whatever mischief they might: “I’ve made it very clear that I’m supporting Senator Obama and we’re working cooperatively on a lot of different matters,” she says. “But delegates can decide to do this on their own, they don’t need permission.” Still, she concludes, “it would be better if we had a plan and we put it in place and executed it.”</div> Link
I heard that she could get nominated for the Supreme Court [I doubt it's a real possibility] and nearly threw up.
I don't think she wants to be a Supreme Court Justice, Governor of New York, or even Senate Majority Leader. I think it's obvious she wants to run for President, obviously in 2012 and win. To that end, I'm not sure what would be better, McCain winning and serving one term and having Hillary challenge whoever is the candidate in 2012 (probably Jindal, Pawlenty, or Romney), or have Obama win and challenge an incumbent President in the primary. Probably the former but I don't think Bill and Hillary believe Obama is going to do well as President. If she asked to have her name on the ballot, I think that would be a clear sign to Howard Dean, Barack Obama, the media, and the rest of the Democrats who turned on her. That sign would probably read "Fuck you." Conventions are supposed to bring a candidates numbers up, this one could bring Obama's down
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Aug 7 2008, 09:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't think she wants to be a Supreme Court Justice, Governor of New York, or even Senate Majority Leader. I think it's obvious she wants to run for President, obviously in 2012 and win. To that end, I'm not sure what would be better, McCain winning and serving one term and having Hillary challenge whoever is the candidate in 2012 (probably Jindal, Pawlenty, or Romney), or have Obama win and challenge an incumbent President in the primary. Probably the former but I don't think Bill and Hillary believe Obama is going to do well as President. If she asked to have her name on the ballot, I think that would be a clear sign to Howard Dean, Barack Obama, the media, and the rest of the Democrats who turned on her. That sign would probably read "Fuck you." Conventions are supposed to bring a candidates numbers up, this one could bring Obama's down</div> I think Hillary's endorsement went a long way in healing the wounds. It sounded fairly decent and wasn't completely half-assed. Granted it was politics as usual, but I don't see Hillary as the one bringing Barry down.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Aug 7 2008, 10:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I think Hillary's endorsement went a long way in healing the wounds. It sounded fairly decent and wasn't completely half-assed. Granted it was politics as usual, but I don't see Hillary as the one bringing Barry down.</div> It's not just Hillary that has to heal the wounds, it's Bill's job as well and he's not doing a good job of it. Though now he's supposed to speak at the Convention the Obama campaign thinks its supposed to be the end of the Bill saga...we'll see
How about if Obama picks Clinton as his VP? I mean BILL Clinton. That'd be a shocker, and I do think it's constitutional.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Aug 8 2008, 06:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>How about if Obama picks Clinton as his VP? I mean BILL Clinton. That'd be a shocker, and I do think it's constitutional.</div> Bill Clinton has said he thinks it is not constitutional. He wouldn't do it anyway either.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Aug 8 2008, 06:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Why wouldn't it be constitutional?</div> In his words because he believes that we should interpret the constitution as if it were written on the same day at the same time, and he didn't believe that it would be in the spirit of the founding fathers and what they intended the executive power to be.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Aug 8 2008, 04:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Aug 8 2008, 06:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Why wouldn't it be constitutional?</div> In his words because he believes that we should interpret the constitution as if it were written on the same day at the same time, and he didn't believe that it would be in the spirit of the founding fathers and what they intended the executive power to be. </div> Doesn't make sense. There were no term limits in the constitution until after FDR.
He'd run afoul of the 12th Amendment's closing line: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>....no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.</div>
Eligibility for president of the united states is 35 years of age, natural born citizen, etc. That's all the 12th implies - if you're not eligible because you don't qualify for any of those reason, then you're not eligible to be vice president. Makes perfect sense. The 22nd doesn't preclude someone from serving two terms as president and unlimited terms as VP. If he is a sitting VP and the president dies, then he would become president without being ELECTED. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6101901572.html VP Bill? Depends on Meaning of 'Elected' By Peter Baker Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, October 20, 2006; Page A19 The prospective presidential candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton has given rise to plenty of speculation about the notion of Bill Clinton as the nation's first gentleman. But what about another role? How about, say, vice president? Politically, of course, the idea is a non-starter for all sorts of reasons. But that doesn't stop the parlor games, especially on the Internet. The issue came up last week during a chat on washingtonpost.com: What if Hillary picked Bill as her running mate? A Post reporter rashly dismissed the idea as unconstitutional. But that only proved the dangers of unedited journalism. The answer, it turns out, is not so simple. A subsequent sampling of opinion from professors of constitutional law, former White House lawyers and even a couple of federal judges reveals a simmering disagreement on whether a president who has already served two terms can be vice president. Some agree with the conclusion that the presidential term limit embedded in the Constitution bars someone such as Clinton from returning to the White House even in the No. 2 slot. Others, though, call that a misreading of the literal language of the law. As the former president might say, it all depends on the meaning of the word "elected." Under Article II of the Constitution, a person is "eligible to the Office of President" as long as he or she is a natural-born U.S. citizen, at least 35 years old and a resident of the United States for 14 years. The 12th Amendment says "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President." Okay, so that means if you're not eligible to be president, you're not eligible to be vice president. Makes sense. What would be the point of electing a vice president who can't succeed the president in case of death, incapacity or vacancy? But then Congress and the states added the 22nd Amendment in 1951 to prevent anyone from following the example of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who won four terms. That's where things get dicey. "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice," the 22nd Amendment says. On its face, that seems to suggest that Clinton could be vice president because he is only barred from being elected president a third time, not from serving as president. That's the argument of Scott E. Gant, a partner at Boies, Schiller & Flexner in Washington, and Bruce G. Peabody, an assistant professor of political science at Fairleigh Dickinson University in New Jersey. The two wrote a law review article in 1999 called "The Twice and Future President" and reprised the argument this summer in the Christian Science Monitor. "In preventing individuals from being elected to the presidency more than twice, the amendment does not preclude a former president from again assuming the presidency by means other than election, including succession from the vice presidency," they wrote. "If this view is correct, then Clinton is not 'constitutionally ineligible to the office of president,' and <span style="font-size:24pt;line-height:100%">is not barred by the 12th Amendment from being elected vice president</span>." Others share that opinion. Three former White House lawyers consulted by The Washington Post (two who served President Bush and one who served Clinton) agreed that the amendment would not bar Clinton from the vice presidency. A federal judge, who noted that he has "no views on the matter," said the plain language of the amendment would seem to allow Clinton to "become president through succession." Kathleen M. Sullivan, director of the Stanford Constitutional Law Center, said the 22nd Amendment, "as I read it, does not preclude a Clinton-Clinton ticket." She added: "Bill, if elected VP, could become president in the event that President Hillary became incapacitated; he just could not run for reelection from that successor post." Still, that view is not universal. Judge Richard A. Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit said by e-mail that "read literally, the 22nd Amendment does not apply" and therefore Clinton could be vice president. "But one could argue that since the vice president is elected . . . should he take office he would be in effect elected president. Electing a vice president means electing a vice president and contingently electing him as president. That interpretation, though a little bold, would honor the intention behind the 22nd Amendment." <span style="color:#0000FF">(People don't vote for the VP candidate as if he were a presidential candidate. Makes no sense!)</span> Bruce Ackerman, a constitutional scholar at Yale Law School, also pointed to original intent in addressing the issue in his book this year, "Before the Next Attack: Preserving Civil Liberties in the Age of Terrorism." The amendment, he wrote, "represents a considered judgment by the American People, after Franklin Roosevelt's lengthy stay in the White House, which deserves continuing respect" and "should not be eroded" by a narrow interpretation allowing someone to manipulate his way to a third term. <span style="color:#0000FF">(Not a strict constructionist view!)</span> Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles who was a clerk for Sandra Day O'Connor when she was on the Supreme Court, focused on the broader meaning of the language in the amendment in reaching the same conclusion. "My tentative answer is that 'eligible' roughly means 'elected,' " he wrote on his Web site, the Volokh Conspiracy, this summer, meaning that if Clinton cannot be elected president, he is no longer eligible at all. One constitutional lawyer not heard from on the issue is William Jefferson Clinton, Yale Law class of 1973. But he has offered thoughts on the 22nd Amendment. Before leaving office and again in 2003, he suggested amending the amendment to let a two-term president leave office and then run again: "Since people are living much longer . . . the 22nd Amendment should probably be modified to say two consecutive terms instead of two terms for a lifetime." Now, who might he have had in mind?
Hillary is campaigning for Obama, but its interesting that she has not released her delegates at this point....What could that mean? Well, lets say something happens between now and the convention that severly cripples Obamas campaign and the Super Delegates flip sides....guess who would be the nominee? It is a possibility becasue neither candidate has the the number they need without those Super Delegates....so what does she want? She wants Obama to screw up so she can get back to the top of the ticket....
You're right, a gaping loophole in the constitution that would allow Bill Clinton to become President once again should Obama die, resign, or be impeached while in office. I agree with what Clinton said though, in the fact that I just can't believe the framers ever intended that to be.
^^^ Or to show by vote just how narrow Obama's victory over her was; though I would expect her to do worse at a convention roll call vote than the number of super delegates who supported her would suggest. Obama's clearly going to win, and people want to vote for the winner or get in his good graces. On the other hand, there is some minuscule chance that the super delegates who support Obama can change their mind - there's absolutely no technical obligation for them to vote for specifically for either candidate.
I wouldnt think theres any chance unless something happens between now and then to change their minds, but with Obama's lack of experience, lack of actual ideas, and loose and conivenient morals, anything could happen....
The only reason Hillary Clinton could have to come to the Convention and demand a roll call is to try to hurt Obama. She doesn't give a shit about him and the Democratic party at this point. She wants him to fail so she can come in four years later and win.
I suggested it as a means for Obama to unify the two factions without having to take Hillary as his running mate. It's a way out there idea, I admit
As a textualist. I'd love to hear what Judge Easterbrook has to say about how the 22d Amend. applies to the 12th in this case. I'm still inclined to apply the 22d to the 12th, in that a Vice-President is still elected as part of a Presidential ticket. The Supreme Court could have a field day with the issue.
