Obama surges past Clinton in Democratic race | Reuters
MILWAUKEE (Reuters) - Barack Obama has surged past Hillary Clinton to open a big national lead in the Democratic presidential race, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.
Obama also leads Republican front-runner John McCain in a potential November election match-up while Clinton trails McCain, enhancing Obama’s argument he is the Democrat with the best shot at capturing the White House.
Among Republicans, McCain has a substantial national lead over his last major challenger, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, as he takes his final steps toward clinching the nomination.
I think we see the shape of the race coming this fall becoming much more clear: McCain and Huckabee running against Obama and…who?
It sure won’t be Hillary, for a lot of reasons, not the least is which having two history makers - a black man and a white woman - on the same ticket is a non-starter. That’s, frankly, too much history making at one swallow. But who else? Richardson comes from a small state, is not much of a campaigner, and doesn’t offer much either in the experience or star-power arenas. Kucinich? Don’t be crazier than Dennis is. In fact, there isn’t much at all to chose from out of the second class of also rans who made up the Dem field outside of the Obama-Hillbilly show.
Unless…
How about somebody with enormous experience, vast campaign skills, sizzling charisma, whose strengths either amplify or balance Obama’s?
How about the Barack Obama-Bill Clinton ticket?
Submit to Stumbled Upon!
I assume that this is tongue-in-cheek, as someone who cannot legally become president cannot be elected veep. At least, as far as I know.
Hmm, interesting question. Clearly Clinton could not serve as president and the 25th amendment is not clear on what would happen is both the president and the VP could not serve. I would guess that there is at least an argument to make that Clinton could serve as the vice president, and if Obama were not able to discharge his duties, the next in line after Clinton would become president (Speaker of the House IIRC).
No, there isn’t. See the tail end of the Twelfth Amendment: “But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
Ahh, that would wrap it up, good catch Clayton. Still, it was fun to imagine these law school legal scenarios :P
Hmmm. I should have read the article first. They’re splitting hairs on what “elected” and “eligible” mean. As to such hair-splitting, the full answer was given by John Marshall himself:
I’ve always thought Bill Richardson was Hillary’s stalking horse and eventual veep nominee, but his refusal so far to endorse Hillary has me wondering. Would he switch sides to attain “the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived”?
With his experience and hispanic roots, he might be an even better match for Obama, who has no experience and is having trouble winning over hispanics. Could such a doublecross occur in today’s Democratic Party?
Which, of course, Clayton, means precisely zip in today’s jurisprudence.
The hair is real. And it most certainly can be split. And if Bill wanted to be Veep, he’d start splitting it.
Agreed as to Clinton, along with the Democratic Party generally. We saw that same impulse in the aftermath of the 2000 elections. It didn’t get very far, though, in the advancement of its chosen object, unless we suppose that object to be a distrust of elections. And, of course, Bill Clinton is precisely the person to put his name on the argument, that “electable” [< L eligere (pp electus), to pick out, select] and “eligible” [< L eligere, to choose] are different things. So, since we’re going to split those hairs, here’s another one: Popular voting is only one mode of election. Appointment, with or without confirmation, is another; all that changes is the one doing the electing, and how it is done. The same for succession, which is an election made by the mere operation of law.
Since we’re splitting hairs, here’s another Presidential-succession scenario I’ve been playing around with. We have provided, by law, that the Speaker of the House is next in line behind the Vice President. The Constitution sets out eligibility for membership in the House, and those requirements are less stringent than those for the Presidency. The Constitution also sets out, with no further control, that each House shall choose its own officers. No law prevents a foreign-born thirty-year-old from becoming Speaker of the House.
The Speaker could be as young as 25, but has to be qualified as “acting” President. Unfortunately, that doesn’t preclude a socialist wearing pearls.