Hivemind:

Opinions sought.

Now that Hillary Clinton has officially announced her prelim candidacy, my friends and I were discussing possible Democratic tickets.

Names like Clinton-Obama and Obama-Clinton and various other players were brought up.

I asked if maybe Clinton-Clinton could be a possibility.

Later when I got home Andi says she thinks it would violate the 22nd Amendment. I am not so sure.

Here's the Wiki for the Amendment: [link]

Any thoughts?

Seems to me that there is indeed a loophole if you go strictly by the text of Amendment XXII, but I would argue that the last line of Amendment XII --

But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

-- closes it.

I take the point dcp, but Clinton may not not ineligible for the office, just the election to the office.

I'm still mixed that that settles the debate.

Hillary can't win. Sad true. She's hated by too many who would be inspired to come out who might not, otherwise. She could be a front-runner for a while then bow out in favor of someone else, thereby derailing any Repub efforts. It's going to be a weird two years.

Well, if he's not eligible for the election to President, Amendment XII says he's also not eligible for the election to Vice-President.

I suppose it's possible a sitting Vice-President could resign, and then the President could nominate Bill Clinton for the office. He would then have to be confirmed by Congress, and I can't see that happening. But if he got past that hurdle and then the President resigned or died, he would succeed to the office.

I tend to agree with dcp. However, since Amendment XII was written before Amendment XXI, it couldn't have been referring to two-term presidents.

wow! super skimmy! Doing way too much this week. I just zoomed over about 500 posts. I really do love you folks. Such diverse conversations. Funny. Snarky. Insightful. :: sigh :

KristinT - Honestly, the thing that bothers me most about being childless now is not having my immediate family (who I define as ND and me) taken seriously. Strike One: not married. Strike Two: no kids. But even when I was married, I still fought against that bias. Being childless somehow meant that we weren't a "real" family--that we weren't "real" adults. Some people were (and are) downright patronizing about it.

Mmm. If two folks are romantically together and sharing a residence, they are the real deal. And you and ND are the real deal. You two are the cutest, most loving, and perfect couple I've seen in ages. Not only do I love ya both, I'm honored to call you both friends.

I don't look at kids in a relationship as the capper. A family unit is a family unit. It is made of love, caring, sharing, and sacrifice for each other. If there are kids involved, so be it. If not. So be it.

Maybe that attitude is because I don't have kids. Maybe I look at the world and see over population and think nothing of folks *not* wanting kids. I'm also a bit freakish and think maybe fertility issues (in general) might be natures way of saying "there are too many folks in the world". I just wish nature would pick those folks better. Seems lots of good folk have trouble with the kids thing, and Darwin nominee's make loads of them.

Hec, JZ: lovely pictures of Matilda and the Baptism. I'm glad that it went well.

Plei: you look great! And yeah, your face is so much thinner which only makes your eyes bigger.

And yeah, your face is so much thinner which only makes your eyes bigger.

vulpes vulpes

Happy Matilda in pink is just about the sweetest thing I've ever seen ever ever ever.

I love Hillary, but I agree with Connie -- there is no way she can win. Too many people LOATHE her, and they'll mobilize like mad to keep her out of the Oval Office.

Damn, it's late. Gotta sleep.