TAKE A BREAK

And check out the great links at Discourse.net, He's got a passel of 'em. Here are just a couple.

Clinton (look, he's my hero!) campaigning for Sestak.

Sestak responding to attempts to swift boat him. How Weldon thinks he can even campaign against this guy is an example of Republican stupidity.

Speaking of stupidity, here's a great animation about our (too stupid to be) President and budpaul's favorite, Lieberman.

Finally, a very nice and really good song, America My Daddy Taught To Me.

MR. VICE PRESIDENT?

BILL CLINTON

The Washington Post has an interesting article on the subject. Before reading it, I thought that it was pretty cut-and-dried that, given the 22nd Amendment, coupled with the 12th Amendment would make his running for the second slot on the ticket impossible. After reading the article, I see that there is apparently some amount of gray area, most of it revolving around the difference between being elected, being eligible and serving as president.

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.

"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," [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] wrote. "If this view is correct, then Clinton is not 'constitutionally ineligible to the office of president,' and is not barred by the 12th Amendment from being elected vice president."

Others, of course, disagree:

"My tentative answer is that 'eligible' roughly means 'elected,' " [Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles ] 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.

The Post isn't saying that Bill is looking to run and notes prominently at the beginning of the article that "politically ... it's a non-starter". Still, it is an interesting exercise in Constitutional interpretation.

For me, after eight years of Bush, I'd take another four of Clinton, even if it is only the vice presidency.

MY LETTER TO CHRIS WALLACE

CHRIS WALLACE


Dear Chris,
Dude, you got cocky. You and your crew over at Fox News have been eating Dems for breakfast for over half a decade. You're so used to dealing with an opposition party that so many times has demonstrated they are afraid of their own shadow the second that national security is brought up. You all have developed something of an overinflated sense of self as night after night your left-of-center guests are browbeaten by the likes of Hannity and O'Reilly. You all got complacent as you dealt with Democratic presidential candidates like Al Gore and John Kerry who were quickly pigeonholed by your noise machine as an exagerator and a flip-flopper, respectively. Nothing against those two gentlemen, but on their very best days, they will never be President Bill Clinton.
See, you thought that you could lull him in and make him feel comfortable with a couple of softballs; nothing too strenuous or controversial. But then you went ahead and made your mistake. You went in for that shot - why he didn't do enough to get bin Laden. Oops.
You site this as a question that countless of your faithful viewers and emailers desparately need an answer to. As you prattled on about some book that I'm sure you thought would bolster your case, the camera focused on Clinton, and you could just see that look in his eyes. It was a calculating look that said, "I am going to completely and utterly destroy you."
How long did it take for you to realize that you had bitten off more than you could chew? How long did it take for you to realize that this was not some milquetoast Dem that carefully measures everything that comes out of their mouth for fear that some slip might be taken out of context and used against them. In this interview, you took on a man who will never run for office again and therefore has little to lose. He is a man who sees his legacy being attacked by calculating right wingers with an agenda and he simply will not stand for it. He is a man who spent eight years being attacked and investigated and even impeached; did you think that your little veiled attacks on him were supposed to make him piss his pants?
It's been a long time since we've all seen a Democrat stand up tell it like it is. I would sort of think that Clinton made his first and last appearance on your program this Sunday, lest other Dems watching start to grow a spine and stand up the next time they're attacked. As it is, you and your company have attempted to minimize Clinton by calling him crazed. If by crazed you mean someone who stands up and calls you out when you attempt to use your bs talking points on him, then I can only hope that there are more crazed Democrats coming down the pike.

Sincerely,

Paul Fogarty