Obama Thanks Supporters After Winning Re-Election

[mania]

Why not? Well, there's a real question as to whether he's eligible and it would wind up going to the Supremes for sure. But I confess, a ticket with Bill Clinton on it would be one I'd be inclined to look at favorably.

I haven't looked into the legalities, but assuming you're right and would need to be tested at the Supreme Court, one clue in the next 4 years, will be someone trying a case on that issue, through the federal appellate system, and then on cert. to the Supremes to set the stage. If we see that, we can assume the Clinton machine is in motion.

Legalities aside ( As I do not know if they exist)

I doubt anyone would consider a husband & wife a good team for the President/Vice President positions.

The VP is there in case the President falls.

Would anyone expect a grief stricken husband or wife to function well as the new President?

[SteeleJoe]

Why not? Well, there's a real question as to whether he's eligible and it would wind up going to the Supremes for sure. But I confess, a ticket with Bill Clinton on it would be one I'd be inclined to look at favorably.

I haven't looked into the legalities, but assuming you're right and would need to be tested at the Supreme Court, one clue in the next 4 years, will be someone trying a case on that issue, through the federal appellate system, and then on cert. to the Supremes to set the stage. If we see that, we can assume the Clinton machine is in motion.

Legalities aside ( As I do not know if they exist)

I doubt anyone would consider a husband & wife a good team for the President/Vice President positions.

The VP is there in case the President falls.

Would anyone expect a grief stricken husband or wife to function well as the new President?

The legal issues exist.

You make an excellent and seemingly obvious point - that foolishly hadn't even occurred to me (I'd like to think it would have eventually!)

Imagine if it had been Jackie being sworn in on that plane, rather than LBJ. Or Mary Todd Lincoln! (yeah, I know -- not analogous as they wouldn't have been elected VP. But fun to think about).

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[keemapoot]

^Yes, wifey dying seems to present a quandry, but upon reflection, why? Any VP's spouse who died would be tragic, but we would never say that the VP could not continue his duties after some grieving. I think it would be the same analysis with Bill/Hilary.

[Genericnic]

Why not? Well, there's a real question as to whether he's eligible and it would wind up going to the Supremes for sure. But I confess, a ticket with Bill Clinton on it would be one I'd be inclined to look at favorably.

I haven't looked into the legalities, but assuming you're right and would need to be tested at the Supreme Court, one clue in the next 4 years, will be someone trying a case on that issue, through the federal appellate system, and then on cert. to the Supremes to set the stage. If we see that, we can assume the Clinton machine is in motion.

The Twenty-second Amendment that limits presidential terms only says, "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." Under the plain wording of the Amendment, there would be no prohibition of Bill Clinton succeeding to the presidency if he were Hillary's VP and something happened to her.

The only limit to someone succeeding to the presidency, whether that person be the VP or anyone else in the line of succession, is that stated in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution which states, "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." That article does not speak of electability but of holding the office. Of course, there is the constitutional issue that arrises due to the wording of the Twenty-fifth Amendment that deals with presidential succession. It says "In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President." The Amendment makes no reference to the limitations of Article 2, Section 1. The question for the Supreme Court would be, does the Amendment invalidate the Article 2, Section 1 which resides in the body of the Constitution and which has not been amended. It should make a lively debate if the issue ever arrises Revison: The Twelfth Amendment takes care of the VP issue. It states, in part, "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

David

Edited November 8, 2012 by Genericnic

[geriatrickid]

One of the analysts offered an explanation as to why Asians identified with the Obama message; He spoke of a team effort, of working together, of the importance of family in helping someone to succeed. The Romney message was one of individual success and a celebration of individual achievement. Asian culture emphasizes the role of community cooperation and of family support. The GOP message didn't click with Asian culture.

I'd venture that it wouldn't have stuck with Latinos either. As much as latinos suffer the same family decay as any other culture, its immigrants work hard to bring other family members in or to send money back home. Someone is always helping a cousin or uncle etc.

Seems strange that the GOP that talks all about family values lost the plot on that theme.

The younger demographic stuck with Obama and that's what really counts. Those young people often come from Republican families and while they may appreciate the fiscal responsibility aspect, they do not share the same views on social issues. People may moan about the state of youth today, but they are alot more caring, and accepting of differences than the older generation. It's only been over the past two decades that integration has really taken hold in practice (Remember the protests against desegregation by bus of black kids in Boston during the 70's and 80's?) Kids today have grown up with latino, gay, and black kids. They've seen a more balanced approach to women in practice and they went to school with special needs kids. Some of them have probably even dated across racial and religious lines and realized they wouldn't combust if they did so. It's a generation and 1/2 that isn't afraid of the social issues that terrify Limbaugh and company. It's called progress.

[keemapoot]

Generic, many thanks for that. The interesting legal issue is whether, if Bill runs with Hilary in 4 years and they throw caution to the wind, Hilary is elected, if Republicans later succeed in having Bill's VP status declared void, would that invalidate the election results for Hilary. In other words, can the GOP kick Hilary out of office if Bill is one of the big reasons she gets elected. I think the answer would be clearly no, so that in terms of getting elected, Bill might be happy to be the sacrificial lamb.

[Jingthing]

Reality check: Bill Clinton is not interested in any way in being VICE president. That's an absurd idea. Ex-presidents know what a ridiculous job VP is anyway. Ex presidents don't run for LESSER offices after being president. That is beneath their dignity and degrades that grand office. Yes, Bill wants Hillary to be president. Americans do love Bill and if Bill and Hillary are healthy in four years they know they will get more than their fill of Bill anyway if Hillary is elected. He would need NO official office for that. Lots can change in four years. Not sure Americans will really be wanting to be looking back so far to the Clinton era at that time, but we'll see.

Edited November 8, 2012 by Jingthing

[Genericnic]

Generic, many thanks for that. The interesting legal issue is whether, if Bill runs with Hilary in 4 years and they throw caution to the wind, Hilary is elected, if Republicans later succeed in having Bill's VP status declared void, would that invalidate the election results for Hilary. In other words, can the GOP kick Hilary out of office if Bill is one of the big reasons she gets elected. I think the answer would be clearly no, so that in terms of getting elected, Bill might be happy to be the sacrificial lamb.

Could make an interesting case though I doubt that they would succeed. They couldn't even impeach him. When it comes to political ability (not withstanding personal issues), I think Bill ranks at the top of all that the U.S. has produced.

David

[keemapoot]

Generic, many thanks for that. The interesting legal issue is whether, if Bill runs with Hilary in 4 years and they throw caution to the wind, Hilary is elected, if Republicans later succeed in having Bill's VP status declared void, would that invalidate the election results for Hilary. In other words, can the GOP kick Hilary out of office if Bill is one of the big reasons she gets elected. I think the answer would be clearly no, so that in terms of getting elected, Bill might be happy to be the sacrificial lamb.

Could make an interesting case though I doubt that they would succeed. They couldn't even impeach him. When it comes to political ability (not withstanding personal issues), I think Bill ranks at the top of all that the U.S. has produced.

David

Legally speaking, even more dramatic would be if in the heat of an election, could the GOP obtain an injunction, pending trial, to stop Bill from running as VP. That would be high drama. But, probably bite the GOP in the butt for being nasty, and the Dems win again....

Edited November 8, 2012 by keemapoot

[Genericnic]

Reality check: Bill Clinton is not interested in any way in being VICE president. That's an absurd idea. Ex-presidents know what a ridiculous job VP is anyway. Ex presidents don't run for LESSER offices after being president. That is beneath their dignity and degrades that grand office. Yes, Bill wants Hillary to be president. Americans do love Bill and if Bill and Hillary are healthy in four years they know they will get more than their fill of Bill anyway if Hillary is elected. He would need NO official office for that. Lots can change in four years. Not sure Americans will really be wanting to be looking back so far to the Clinton era at that time, but we'll see.

@Jingthing, not quite true.

John Quincy Adams served in the House of Representatives after being president and Andrew Johnson served in the Senate after being president. William Howard Taft served on the Supreme Court (and became Chief Justice) after being president.

David

Edited November 8, 2012 by Genericnic

[Genericnic]

Generic, many thanks for that. The interesting legal issue is whether, if Bill runs with Hilary in 4 years and they throw caution to the wind, Hilary is elected, if Republicans later succeed in having Bill's VP status declared void, would that invalidate the election results for Hilary. In other words, can the GOP kick Hilary out of office if Bill is one of the big reasons she gets elected. I think the answer would be clearly no, so that in terms of getting elected, Bill might be happy to be the sacrificial lamb.

Could make an interesting case though I doubt that they would succeed. They couldn't even impeach him. When it comes to political ability (not withstanding personal issues), I think Bill ranks at the top of all that the U.S. has produced.

David

Legally speaking, even more dramatic would be if in the heat of an election, could the GOP obtain an injunction, pending trial, to stop Bill from running as VP. That would be high drama. But, probably bite the GOP in the butt for being nasty, and the Dems win again....

High drama indeed.

David

[mania]

Reality check: Bill Clinton is not interested in any way in being VICE president.

Not to mention ex- US Presidents get paid for life a decent amount

about 200k a year I think? Also SS as in Secret Service protection for 10 years after I believe it is now?

Plus medical services at military facilities

I have not bothered to check if all these things are still accurate as to amounts & time frames.

Edited November 8, 2012 by mania

[SteeleJoe]

Reality check: Bill Clinton is not interested in any way in being VICE president. That's an absurd idea. Ex-presidents know what a ridiculous job VP is anyway. Ex presidents don't run for LESSER offices after being president. That is beneath their dignity and degrades that grand office. Yes, Bill wants Hillary to be president. Americans do love Bill and if Bill and Hillary are healthy in four years they know they will get more than their fill of Bill anyway if Hillary is elected. He would need NO official office for that. Lots can change in four years. Not sure Americans will really be wanting to be looking back so far to the Clinton era at that time, but we'll see.

Well, I'm not sure one can safely state it so categorically as you have but I think you're probably correct about most of that.

However, the office of VP has changed over time (Cheney, for example, was arguably very powerful and not viewed as ridiculous) and it is largely dependent on the POTUS an the VP as to how much influence they have and how active they are.

And as for lesser office: After his time as president, John Quincy Adams spent the rest of his life as a congressman. Andrew Johnson pursued congressional politics and was eventually successful. Taft didn't run for it, it's true, but he was on the Supreme Court. There's a couple others I think who did or attempted some sort of public office after being POTUS.

One can argue that given that he's already been elected 2 times, thus proving that he was up to winning the top job but is now not allowed to run for it again, there's no shame in doing the next highest job available. Maybe even a special achievement -- a champ in two different weight classes

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[SteeleJoe]

Generic, many thanks for that. The interesting legal issue is whether, if Bill runs with Hilary in 4 years and they throw caution to the wind, Hilary is elected, if Republicans later succeed in having Bill's VP status declared void, would that invalidate the election results for Hilary. In other words, can the GOP kick Hilary out of office if Bill is one of the big reasons she gets elected. I think the answer would be clearly no, so that in terms of getting elected, Bill might be happy to be the sacrificial lamb.

Could make an interesting case though I doubt that they would succeed. They couldn't even impeach him. When it comes to political ability (not withstanding personal issues), I think Bill ranks at the top of all that the U.S. has produced.

David

They did impeach him. And in this instance, "they" would be the Supreme Court deciding a matter of constitutional law. Not a divided body of partisan legislators in a political battle.

(At the top? You mean #1? Personally, I'd hesitate to agree.)

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Edited November 8, 2012 by SteeleJoe

[Genericnic]

Generic, many thanks for that. The interesting legal issue is whether, if Bill runs with Hilary in 4 years and they throw caution to the wind, Hilary is elected, if Republicans later succeed in having Bill's VP status declared void, would that invalidate the election results for Hilary. In other words, can the GOP kick Hilary out of office if Bill is one of the big reasons she gets elected. I think the answer would be clearly no, so that in terms of getting elected, Bill might be happy to be the sacrificial lamb.

Could make an interesting case though I doubt that they would succeed. They couldn't even impeach him. When it comes to political ability (not withstanding personal issues), I think Bill ranks at the top of all that the U.S. has produced.

David

They did impeach him.

(At the top? You mean #1? Personally, I'd hesitate to agree.)

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

True. Sorry. Was using the popular rather than the legal meaning of impeachment. They did impeach but were unable to convict. And he didn't even need Johnny Cochran.

David

[chuckd]

To add a little sanity to Hillary's pending inauguration...

She still has to come up with a reasonable explanation as to her actions preceding, during and following the attack and murder of four Americans in Benghazi.

Nobody seemed to answer that "3 AM" phone call on 9/11/12.

[keemapoot]

Bill Clinton once famously said "If the condom don't fit, you must acquit."

[SteeleJoe]

Reality check: Bill Clinton is not interested in any way in being VICE president.

Not to mention ex- US Presidents get paid for life a decent amount

about 200k a year I think? Also SS as in Secret Service protection for 10 years after I believe it is now?

Plus medical services at military facilities

I have not bothered to check if all these things are still accurate as to amounts & time frames.

Can't see the relevance. Mr. Clinton can and does earn millions just by speaking and such. People don't run for office for the salary or the benefits.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[SteeleJoe]

Generic, many thanks for that. The interesting legal issue is whether, if Bill runs with Hilary in 4 years and they throw caution to the wind, Hilary is elected, if Republicans later succeed in having Bill's VP status declared void, would that invalidate the election results for Hilary. In other words, can the GOP kick Hilary out of office if Bill is one of the big reasons she gets elected. I think the answer would be clearly no, so that in terms of getting elected, Bill might be happy to be the sacrificial lamb.

Could make an interesting case though I doubt that they would succeed. They couldn't even impeach him. When it comes to political ability (not withstanding personal issues), I think Bill ranks at the top of all that the U.S. has produced.

David

They did impeach him.

(At the top? You mean #1? Personally, I'd hesitate to agree.)

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

True. Sorry. Was using the popular rather than the legal meaning of impeachment. They did impeach but were unable to convict. And he didn't even need Johnny Cochran.

David

I think you mean "I was using the totally inaccurate but widely used meaning rather than the correct one".

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Edited November 8, 2012 by SteeleJoe

[SteeleJoe]

To add a little sanity to Hillary's pending inauguration...

She still has to come up with a reasonable explanation as to her actions preceding, during and following the attack and murder of four Americans in Benghazi.

Absolutely. An important point.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[keemapoot]

Not sure if this is a good or bad sign, but here it is:

Rich Candidates Punished by Voters Last Night

Across the country, millionaires and billionaires who used their own money to run were roundly rejected by voters last night. A quick survey of wealthy, self-financed congressional candidates showed that vast majority were defeated - and many were targeted during the campaign for their wealth.

Rich, is seems, is now a four-letter word in politics.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/rich-candidates-punished-voters-last-194519308.html

A word of warning for future candidates: Never tell anyone your wife drives a couple of Cadillacs.

[SteeleJoe]

Not sure if this is a good or bad sign, but here it is:

Rich Candidates Punished by Voters Last Night

Across the country, millionaires and billionaires who used their own money to run were roundly rejected by voters last night. A quick survey of wealthy, self-financed congressional candidates showed that vast majority were defeated - and many were targeted during the campaign for their wealth.

Rich, is seems, is now a four-letter word in politics.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/rich-candidates-punished-voters-last-194519308.html

A word of warning for future candidates: Never tell anyone your wife drives a couple of Cadillacs.

Have but a minute but thought I'd add: a study of presidential campaigns going back a while indicates that, contrary to perhaps popular belief and what may be intuitive, by no means does the candidate with the most money behind him (personal wealth or not) always or usually win.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[yourauntbob]

I dont like Obama, I dont think he did anything to earn re-election, and I am worried he will bury us in debt.

I'm sorry, I simply do not get what campaign you have been following. Romney said he wouldn't even balance the budget till his fourth year, which means the debt was going to grow under him anyway. Plus he was planning on adding (I'll be generous) $6 TRILLION to spending without actually saying how he was going to pay for it.

And you're worried about what Obama might do when he's specifically said he's going to raise taxes, cut military spending, and so on?

The Republicans have done everything they can to make Obama look bad, it's about time that they realise that this does not make them look good to the electorate.

I hope every voter, Republican and Democrat, watches every single one of these people like a hawk. Find out who's giving them money for their campaigns. Find out what legislation they are pushing or blocking and whether it helps their sponsors or the people that elected them.

And the self servers: Get rid!

There is a lot of talk about how the house is "do nothing" and that they will not work witth president, i would say it goes both ways.

if you want to know who is not cooperating, look to the senate. they have not passed a budget in FOUR years.

Obama's plan is no more thorough than Romney's.

[thaibeachlovers]

Obama is the new dictator. He rules with Executive Order not within the Constitutional guidelines. If he knows he can't get what he wants he just does an EO without thinking of the countries wishes or what is best. That is why the congress hates him so much and nothing he wants will be passed. Obama is a real dictator. I am not a Romey supporter or for any party but I do know the Constitution and what Obama is doing is not in line what our founding fathers wanted for America. You will see congress come up in anger wanting to support the constitution and Obama will just continue to defy the constitution and do his will. So sad,

So true. The founding fathers also decided that a black person only counted as 3/5's of a white person, so I guess you can say he is really taking it to the founding fathers on that front as well.

There was a very good reason for them doing that. So before you use that in the wrong sense, perhaps you should find out why that was.

[thaibeachlovers]

To add a little sanity to Hillary's pending inauguration...

She still has to come up with a reasonable explanation as to her actions preceding, during and following the attack and murder of four Americans in Benghazi.

Nobody seemed to answer that "3 AM" phone call on 9/11/12.

She claimed responsibility for what happened, so that should mean she accepts it was her screw up that allowed them in Benghazi with insufficient protection. However, she hasn't done the right thing and resigned. Surely an example of when taking responsibility doesn't mean being responsible. She has lost any semblance of statesmanship, and proven that she is just another politician.

[Scott]

I think that the discussion of the Benghazi situation is better left discussed in this thread:

Both Hillary and Benghazi are on-topic in that thread. In this thread, less so.

[SteeleJoe]

Obama is the new dictator. He rules with Executive Order not within the Constitutional guidelines. If he knows he can't get what he wants he just does an EO without thinking of the countries wishes or what is best. That is why the congress hates him so much and nothing he wants will be passed. Obama is a real dictator. I am not a Romey supporter or for any party but I do know the Constitution and what Obama is doing is not in line what our founding fathers wanted for America. You will see congress come up in anger wanting to support the constitution and Obama will just continue to defy the constitution and do his will. So sad,

So true. The founding fathers also decided that a black person only counted as 3/5's of a white person, so I guess you can say he is really taking it to the founding fathers on that front as well.

There was a very good reason for them doing that. So before you use that in the wrong sense, perhaps you should find out why that was.

It was a compromise. But it isn't really an indication of how the Black race was viewed per se in that those who who opposed slavery didn't want to count slaves at all. It was about representation and how counting people who would never have the vote would affect that.

There's plenty by which to indict the founders over their role in and attitudes about the plight of Africans in America (though one needs to consider context and nuance to do so at all fairly and realistically) but the "3/5 compromise" is widely misunderstood.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[thaibeachlovers]

It's here. That dreaded day of reckoning for the Republicans.

According to exit polls, Obama won 60 percent of the 18 to 29 year old vote and 52 percent of the 30-40 vote. He won 69 percent of the vote in big cities and 58 percent of the vote in mid-sized cities. He won 93 percent of the black vote and more than 70 percent of both the Asian vote and the Hispanic vote. He won over half of the female vote. And he won 76 percent of the gay, lesbian and bisexual vote.

Mitt Romney won the white vote, the male vote, the elderly vote, the small cities vote and the high-income vote.

On election night, Bill O’Reilly said:

It’s a changing country, the demographics are changing. It’s not a traditional America anymore, and there are 50 percent of the voting public who want stuff. They want things. And who is going to give them things? President Obama. O’Reilly continued: “The white establishment is now the minority.”

http://campaignstops...nce-apocalypse/

Another Republican outside the Romney campaign but privy to its thinking described the defeat as a complete pummeling, with Senate losses adding salt to the wound.

Read more: http://www.politico....l#ixzz2BbE68Zzv

While the Republicans lost the presidency in a close contest, they won in many state contests, and they control the House, ergo the Presidents spending, so let's not write them off yet.

If Obama doesn't solve the many problems facing the country in the next 2 years, the Dems will probably be annihilated in the mid terms.

[Jingthing]

It wasn't a close contest. Obama WILL win Florida adding to his COMMANDING electoral college lead. His TWO PERCENT popular vote margin would have easily been three percent if the turnout in New York and New Jersey had been normal. The turnout in those massively populated states was hugely depressed because of the STORM. Obama did not win a landslide, but he indeed won a mandate to continue with his policies, and set his grand achievements like OBAMACARE in stone for the benefit of future generations of Americans.

Edited November 8, 2012 by Jingthing

[thaibeachlovers]

I will admit to being wrong about a couple of things. I claimed that Dick Morris would never be seen again, yet he was on The Factor this morning, eating crow, and Sandy appeared to have improved Obama's standing, rather than turning people against him. However, as it was Christy's embrace that seems to have done the trick for Obama, it will be interesting to see if the party turns against him.