Co-Presidency Anyone?

[RTBerry]

Greetings all,

Is there anything in the Constitution that would disallow a
"gentlemen's agreement" co-presidency between
Hillary and Barack?  Of course, our system of government isn't
set up to allow an actual co-Presidency; but the same result
could be had if the two agreed to run as POTUS and VP in name
only.  By this I mean that one would resign in favor of the
other after two years in office, and then step into the VP
slot (after Congressional advice and consent).  They would
then run for reelection with the current incumbent as the head
of the new ticket, and then in year six swap positions again. 
Term limitations would allow them to do this (voters
permitting) through four terms.  

This way the current split in Democratic voters is solved, no
group would have a reason to pout and boycott the election
because their nominee lost, and we would get to elect the
first black President AND the first woman President.  The
press couldn't help but cover the story as the most exciting
development in US politics ever.

Thoughts?  

[Vinca]

1. One thought: NO. nt

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

23. Two thoughts: Fuck No! nt

[gristy]

2. nope

[splat]

3. Who's on top would be a constant squabble

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

26. Missionary or Reverse Cowboy.

Nothing would get done!

[elizm]

4. Hell no. nt

[Skidmore]

5. No, thanks.

It would have to be a three-some since Bill no doubt is expecting a two-fer. Besides, I am really ready for a president who doesn't think the Constitution is just a piece of paper.

[bilgewaterbill]

6. No, Thank You.

[Hamlette]

7. we tried that the last 8 years

and I can't see Bill and Hill sharing power with anyone.

It's why she won't get the VP shot, IMHO

[JayFredMuggs]

22. Seven PLUS years of VP Cheney

Making wars on the world, being an ass, and hiding in "undisclosed locations"

No........no more CO-Presidencies

[VolcanoJen]

8. No way.

I'm sorry, but that's kinda nuts.

[City Lights]

9. No thanks.

I'm not interested in a "co" anything with The Clinton.

[Joe the Revelator]

10. Wow, step back from the ledge boss, this is a TERRIBLE idea

Not to mention that Hillary has CLEARLY lost the nomination.

[anonymous171]

11. Consuls?

[myrna minx]

20. Heh. Everything old is new again.

We've already done the co-presidency with bush/cheney. No thanks.

[Moochy]

37. Quadrumvirate maybe?

That worked so well in Rome.. or maybe not, but regardless..

I say we move right to the Quadrumvirate, and save McCain the trouble of appointing Romney.

H. Clinton, B. Clinton, B. Obama and J. Mccain

[A-Schwarzenegger]

12. An irrelevant aside ...

Starting a new thread with 5 posts?
Didn't a person used to have at least, oh, four
posts before they could start a thread?

[gateley]

19. At least it's a sincere post -

rather than a drive-by.

[cornermouse]

13. No. It would never work.

[HereSince1628]

14. No thanks a presidency divided between 3 people would have no appeal

We can see how well the 2-fer worked out with Hillary and BIll.

Nonetheless this could be Hillary Clinton's best way to claim any of the next presidency.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

15. I really don't see the point

If they were tied up in delegates, maybe. But Obama has a very real lead which is going to be essentially impossible for Hillary to overcome.

[Willo]

16. No way. It automatically makes Obama a liar too.

[Connie_Corleone]

17. Hell no.

[dkf]

21. OMG, seeing Tracy Flick just brings home how awful a co-Presidency with

Hillary would be.

Ms. Entitlement would try to take over the whole place. Ick.

It would be the most dysfunctional White House ever.

And after seeing Dick Cheney operate I'm sure she would try to grasp every bit of power and authority she could.

What a horror story.

[JVS]

24. don't forget hubby wanting time at the helm

[dkf]

27. Envisioning a co-Prez was awful enough before throwing Bill

into the mix.

That three-some is untenable.

[patrice]

18. no.

I would settle for any combination, BO/HC, pRes/vp (or vice versa), but co-presidency is kind of dumb, too competitive.

[Yael]

25. I wouldn't support it

[Skink]

28. Someone would be up to answer the phone at 3 atleast.

[stray cat]

29. Welcome to DU but it is a terrible idea - especially since Bill would want to make it 3

[Honeycombe8]

30. The Clintons were going to be a co-presidency. I don't see it working unless you're married. nt

[Johnny__Motown]

31. That's nuts... It is almost as bad as her offering him the VP slot. and it is unconstitutional..

Although you can do what Shrub did for Cheney. Use executive orders to grant powers to the VP that the constitution does not provide.


Sorry, I still don't see Hillary as VP material.

[justinaforjustice]

32. Co-Presidents? Might Lead to Civil War.

I was living in Cambodia in 1967, when that country enjoyed
the reign of two co-prime ministers.  The co-prime
ministership  resulted in civil war.

This came about after the first national election following
the ouster of the Khmer Rouge by the Vietnamese.  The
Vietnamese, upon invading, installed the Cambodian communist
(and ex-Khmer Rouge militant), Hun Sen as leader of Cambodia. 
In the early 1990s , the United Nations supervised the first
national election in Cambodia, which was won by Prince
Ranariddh's royalist party, Funcinpec, but the loser, Hun Sen
and his Cambodian Peoples Party, refused to leave office.  The
negotiated result was a co-premiership of Ranariddh and Hun
Sen.  Prince Ranariddh is the son of King Norodom Sihanouk.

On the 4th of July, 1997, Hun Sen's army commenced a mortar
and tank attack upon Ranariddh's supporters and Ranariddh's
private army returned fire.  The Prince was out of the
country,  but a number of his supporters were killed.
Negotiations resulted in Hun Sen continuing as Prime Minister
while Prince Ranariddh was made speaker of the National
Assembly for a time. He has since left the country.

If we made the mistake of electing Obama and Clinton as
co-presidents, might it lead to a similar civil war?    Obama
and Clinton supporters have been hurling vicious verbal bombs
at each other, God knows what might happen if they had access
to the U.S. arsenal of mortars and tanks!

[ecstatic]

33. WTF?

not just no but HELL f*ck no!

[justinaforjustice]

34. Duplicate Deleted

[Raine]

35. Absolutely NOT

NO way, that would be a sure disaster.

[Stephanie]

36. Stupidist. Post. Ever.

Congratulations.

[havocmom]

38. I second that nomination

for this abomination

This shit about changing rules since Hillary has had it explained to her by a bunch of voters that she is NOT the inevitable candidate is getting fucking annoying.

Hillary is NOT gonna be the nominee, so we should have dual presidents? Damn, it's not just bushbots that don't deal with reality.

[RTBerry]

39. Thank you.

Do I win anything?

[Moochy]

40. Welcome to DU

you get a beer ! :beer:
I think that you get a goody bag if you make it to the semifinals, but check the GD : P leader board regularly!!
:evilgrin:

[RTBerry]

41. Excellent!

And it looks like a dark beer, at that.