[Dilbert San Diego]

I’m pleased about this for a somewhat different reason.

I did not want to see a Bush vs. Clinton election in 2016. If we had that campaign, it would have devolved into a pissing contest about which former presidents people approved of, a Bush or a Clinton.

With Bush sinking, the focus will be on the Clintons and their record, or lack thereof, not some half baked comparison between Bush administrations and the Clinton administration and who did what during which presidency.

I’m assuming that HIllary gets the Dem. nomination. The media have declared that Hillary stared down the GOP at the Benghazi hearing. And now with only Hillary, Bernie Sanders, and O’Malley still remaining as declared Dem. candidates, it appears more likely that Hillary’s going to get the nomination.

[buckalfa]

"With Bush sinking, the focus will be on the Clintons and their record, or lack thereof,. . "

We can hope issues will mean something in 2016, but with HRC apparently skating free on Benghazi and e-mails, I envision the Democrats waging a campaign of identity politics. You know, the first uterus as POYUS.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I’m assuming that HIllary gets the Dem. nomination. The media have declared that Hillary stared down the GOP at the Benghazi hearing. And now with only Hillary, Bernie Sanders, and O’Malley still remaining as declared Dem. candidates, it appears more likely that Hillary’s going to get the nomination.

You know what would be cute? Just imagine that a couple of purple states, including Ohio, passed a law enforcing

Article 1 Section 9:

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state

Suppose they passed laws stating that no one who had violated that constitutional provision could have electors pledged to him/her on the ballot in the state - and defined “any kind whatsoever” to include being an officer in an organization (read, the Clinton Foundation - or even Hillary’s marriage) which accepted contributions or honoraria from any creature(s) of foreign government(s), and did not disgorge them. There would have to be a mechanism - such as a lawsuit filed by a date certain - by which the provision would be enforced. And positions of candidates on ballots (which often reflect recent party strength) might need adjustment in the event that a major party didn’t nominate a candidate who passed muster.

Such a law would, Hillary’s situation aside, be perfectly defensible as a simple good-government measure. In fact, it would seem legitimate to include “prospective presidential candidate” in the category of "person holding any office of profit or trust under” the US, whether or not such person held an official position such as SecState. But in Hillary’s circumstances it would leave the Democrats to either draft Joe Biden or run the socialist.

There would be no basis to contest the law, IMHO, because the Constitution doesn’t even require states to conduct a popular election for POTUS, let alone play “Mother, may I?” with SCOTUS on ballot access. Some states don’t even have the “unit rule” of having all electors run “at large” in the state; Nebraska and one other awards one elector to the winner in each congressional district, in addition to two elected at large.

It’s a nice fantasy, but it would at least be nice if Republican state lawmakers would threaten to pass such a law; it would be fun to watch the “good government” types squirm.