What we need in '08 is a dream ticket with experience; Carter/Clinton.

We all can agree that after 8 years of horrendous mismanagement by Bush and his idiot Neo-conservative cronies, they will have destroyed America's reputation internationally and done immeasurable damage to the country at home.

It would be an almost impossible task to repair our international credibility done by a torture-happy Chief Executive and the diplomatic idiocy that led us into an unjust and illegal "pre-emptive" war that has made us the most unpopular nation the world has seen in decades.

Rolling back the assaults on our liberties at home would also entail a lot more than just taking apart the laughable "Patriot Act" and related legislation. There has been a culture of lawlessness encouraged in our government, and it will be a huge task to rein in these attacks on our freedoms by Federal agents used to total license to do anything they wish.

Five years of financial mismanagement by a Republican majority have left us in as perilous a state as one can imagine. Sooner or later the Chinese government will stop buying Treasury bonds, and then our economy will collapse.

Desperate times call for desperate measures. As I see it, we have only one viable choice. It will sound radical and a bit extreme to some. But I think it's time for a real crisis solution team to be called in to bail out America in our time of need.

There are three facts to keep in mind for the rest of this article. They are:

(1) The Twenty-second Amendment prevents a person from being elected more than twice to the office of President.

(2) There is a "learning curve" period for everyone who takes the job of American President. Some take two years to hit their stride in the job, while others never get it at all. The next person to be President will have to start immediate repairs on the entire spectrum of the Federal government and will have no time to make beginner's mistakes.

(3) Historically speaking, U.S. Presidents have either been good at international affairs or good with domestic issues. It's been rare to have a President who was good at both. And our next Presidential administration will need to excel at both.

I suggest with these three facts in mind, we only have one option left to us as a nation. We need to draft as candidates the two most qualified and respected men in America for the 2008 Presidential election. I'm speaking of James Earl Carter for President, and William Jefferson Clinton for Vice-President.

After James Carter left office in 1980 after serving one term, he assumed the role of an elder statesman and international mediator, using his prestige as a former president to further many causes. He founded the Carter Center as a forum for issues related to democracy and human rights. He has also traveled extensively to monitor elections, conduct peace negotiations, and establish relief efforts. In 2002, Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize for his "efforts to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development."

Can you possibly imagine a person more qualified on the International stage to repair the damage done by the worst President in American history?

And as a one-term President, he can be elected to one more term.

William Jefferson Clinton oversaw the greatest economic boom in U.S. history. That wasn't due just to luck. His 1993 tax increase assisted in reducing the annual budget deficits every year of his tenure. These deficit reductions stimulated consumption and consumer spending and strengthened the dollar, which encouraged foreign investment in the United States economy.

His brilliance on domestic issues and in inspiring the public is shown by the fact that he still has an amazingly high approval rating. In a May 2006 a CNN poll comparing President Clinton’s job performance with that of George W. Bush, a strong majority of respondents said President Clinton outperformed Bush on a host of issues. Respondents favored Clinton by greater than 2-to-1 margins when asked who did a better job at handling the economy (63 percent Clinton, 26 percent Bush) and solving the problems of ordinary Americans (62 percent Clinton, 25 percent Bush). On foreign affairs, the margin was 56 percent to 32 percent in Clinton's favor; on taxes, it was 51 percent to 35 percent for Clinton; and on handling natural disasters, it was 51 percent to 30 percent, also favoring Clinton.

Can you possibly imagine anyone more qualified to oversee repairing the damage to America done by the Republicans since 2000?

Poll after poll has shown a majority of Americans would vote for Bill Clinton again. And while he served two terms in office, the Constitution would not bar him from serving as a Vice-President in a four year Carter administration.

Jimmy Carter as an elder statesman to work on improving our international image, and Bill Clinton working at home to repair the nation would be an amazingly effective team. They have the experience and the creditability to undo what the Bush administration has done. In a four year term they could lay the groundwork for the next President to take office in a far better position in 2012.

Even the staunchest Republican would have admit both these men did a good job leading our country in their times, and that they learned from every experience that they ever had. This ticket would win without any problem at all. The voters would know exactly what they could expect from these men.

I'm planning on putting together an on-line petition to attempt to convince Mr. Carter and Mr. Clinton to once again step up and help their country. Considering what the challenge would be in fixing the mess Bush has created, I would understand if neither man wanted to accept. I hope that they will consider this joint venture however.

Your thoughts fellow Democratic Underground members on how to persuade them to bail us out of the Bush mess?

still, we can dream

Or just more distracting, demoralizing, disinformation?

Sorry, but we have a huge selection of viable candidates to choose from. Unlike the Republicans who can only choose Least Likely to Be Indicted Before the Election.

...bloodless focus group picked loser that will try to look as much like a moderate Republican as possible, or a well meaning inside the beltway boob who can't communicate clearly to voters. That's how we lost the last two times, after all.

What does it say for our party or even the country? We have no viable candidates that are under 60?

Sorry, Clinton is not qualified to be VP!!!

or are you hypothetically saying former Presidents would make winning candidates? :shrug:

I doubt either Carter or Clinton wants to be President again, and I know neither would run again. Keep your eye on Carter's son in Nevada, if he defeats John Ensign for the Senate this year..then he might become a contender for President in 2008.

"And as a one-term President, he can be elected to one more term. "

Bill Clinton can no longer serve as President or run for Vice President after serving for two complete terms. The 12th Amendment states that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of the Vice President"

Granted I only took a little law in college, but I looked at it pretty carefully. I'm pretty sure it would stand up to scrutiny. He could run as V.P, and when Jimmy got sick of it, Bill could finish the term. It'd be a 4 year total limit, but as I say in the O.P., we'd bypass the whole "training period" and be able to have competent people in the White House who could get right to work fixing the Bush caused disaster, "co-Presidents" as it were.

"Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice,

I mean, Bush and Cheney were technically both Texans in 2000, and no one sweated the "President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves" clause, right? Technically their ticket should have been invalid.

so he might of spent much of his time in Texas, but legally he was a resident of another state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution/Amendment_Twelve

I doubt the Supreme Court would let a constitutionally ineligible person for President run as a candidate for Vice President..because the 12th Amendment doesn't allow that. IMO..a Carter/Gore ticket could be a better means of testing the point you're making.

You can be Vice-President for two terms then President for two but you can't do it the other way around. A big part of the job of the Vice is to succeed the President in emergency and that means you have to be eligible. Bill Clinton isn't.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxii.html

Amendment XII defines the basic process to elect a President. The last line in the article is But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Now we go to Amendment XXII which defines term limits. It starts with the following line.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxxii.html

Section 1. 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.

Clinton served his full two terms so is ineligible to serve another day as President, that also makes him ineligible for Vice. edit for this. Might be a loophole in the "elected to" line, but I'm not so sure of it.

I loved Clinton until I seen how he smoozes with chimpy and chimpy's dad. I will never trust him again!

Sorry to be the spectre at the feast but until we can ensure the votes are counted fairly, this is a pointless discussion. Right now, it wouldn't matter if the Dems ran a Jesus Christ/Mahatma Gandhi ticket against the Republican's Hitler/Stalin, the Republicans would still win.

Although I'd be interested to see exactly how many seconds it would take the majority of teh GOP to become maltheist and how quickly Faux "News" could run their first documentry about the crucifixion being staged.

All we need is a candidate,,ANY candidate who will go back to true democratc principles, state them plainly and stick to them..

What we DON'T need is a field of 10 or 11 wannabees who will trash each other for MONTHS, and weaken the eventual "winner"..

along with some compassion, some wisdom, and some smarts . . .

I vote for Gore/Feingold . . . or Gore/Kerry . . . or Gore/Conyers . . . or Gore/Moyers . . . or Gore/Redford . . .

or Gore and pretty much any good progressive/liberal . . .

waters along the Potomac.

And Bill Clinton is busy golfing with Poppy. And I'm not sensing that his marriage would be enhanced if he took a veep role after his wife gets whupped for the top spot.

Plus the field is already getting pretty crowded with potential candidates.

Don't forget the undeniable groundswell for Mike Gravel.

Al Gore, John Kerry, and John Edwards, I'd say, are more likely ticket-toppers at this point than HClinton. And you could add Clark, Feingold, Warner, Bayh, and maybe others to the list fairly persuasively. One of the three of Gore/Kerry/Edwards seems more likely to top our ticket than HClinton. The media disagree, but I'm not listening that closely to Kate O'Beirne at this point.

If Gore opts out, HClinton's chances improve, but not dramatically. If Kerry AND Gore opt out, Edwards' path is easier still. If all three opt out, it's going to be a real dust-up, but HClinton's nomination is still far from assured. She has my vote if she's our nominee but I'm not seeing the scenario where she wins Iowa or New Hampshire, and without one or both of those, I think she's toast.

It could be Warner-Bayh just as easily as Gore-Clark, or HClinton-Richardson, Kerry-Cleland, Biden-Kaptor, Edwards-Murray, etc. It just mostly feels wide open.