This is what I've read as well. But, as much as Mr. Clinton has a good majority of fans and backers, I do not think it would be in Hillary's best interest to tag hubby as VP because it might sway some people who were on the fence between her and another candidate, whereas if she'd take Obama or Edwards as VP (assuming she gets the nomination to begin with), would she not possibly get those votes too? I mean why wouldn't she select Obama or Edwards? Isn't that the move to make? Or am I way off base here ...
Of course a family that runs a country together stays together ... or is that dines together? ... You'll have to excuse me if I am off base. This is the first time in my life I'm actually attempting to have political discussions. As some of you on this list may very well know. :) On 1/24/08, C. Hatton Humphrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am22.html > > The way I read that (and I'm sure the language is simplified there) is > that he could not be *elected* to a third term. There is no language > in the 22nd Amendment that specifically prohibits the assumption of > office. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:251814 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
