The 22 Amendment needs to extend to the First Lady's of Former Presidents

www.huffingtonpost.com...

www.dailykos.com...

I'm not against Kids of former Presidents running for office because the former President won't be living with them calling the shots from behind the scenes it's really that simple. So im not against Chelsea Clinton, or Jeb Bush for that matter running as many times as they want.

Nein. We don't need to change the constitution. I think the intent and reality mingle quite well.

I don't like Hillary in the least, but she had the right to run, having never been elected. She is a different human with different lifes experiences and thoughts that her husband.

It should be the will of the people, and we should not be doing this whole "dynasty" thing. We know better. Or, i like to think we do.

a reply to: Stevemagegod

Don't fret about Michelle Obama's popularity. She doesn't want the job.

And Mich Obama will never get the job.

a reply to: Stevemagegod
" given that she lacks any visible warmth or any particular public speaking ability."
Boy, they got that right.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Stevemagegod

Don't fret about Michelle Obama's popularity. She doesn't want the job.

Thank God we dont need another Obama 3rd Term in the White House. And where Hillary lacked the 15% increase in Black early voting Michele's will get 59% Black Early voting just because she's a Black woman. Hahah. But seriously Black People didn't care about voting in the 1st white woman. The numbers were high when Obama ran just because he's the 1st Black guy.

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
And Mich Obama will never get the job.

of course she won't...she's a black woman in America....

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Nein. We don't need to change the constitution. I think the intent and reality mingle quite well.

I don't like Hillary in the least, but she had the right to run, having never been elected. She is a different human with different lifes experiences and thoughts that her husband.

It should be the will of the people, and we should not be doing this whole "dynasty" thing. We know better. Or, i like to think we do.

I think that we might have to consider as more and more these days, we are looking at a first couple situation. Hillary pushed actual law with her health care proposal even though no one actually voted on her at all to do anything like it.

Michelle Obama took up what would have been a traditional first lady's cause in fighting obesity and healthy school lunches, but then, she made her preferences have the force of law through regulatory policy. No one voted for her to do that, either.

So, in a sense, we are looking at two women who have already had a hand in shaping or attempting to shape the way the country runs itself through law or regulatory policy ... and they were not at all on the ballot.

Now, I don't necessarily have an issue with the first lady's role trending that way, but there needs to be recognition of it. Presidents need to run as a package with their first ladies and we may have to consider that the man/woman is elected as much as the spouse in those circumstances.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Nein. We don't need to change the constitution. I think the intent and reality mingle quite well.

I don't like Hillary in the least, but she had the right to run, having never been elected. She is a different human with different lifes experiences and thoughts that her husband.

It should be the will of the people, and we should not be doing this whole "dynasty" thing. We know better. Or, i like to think we do.

I think that we might have to consider as more and more these days, we are looking at a first couple situation. Hillary pushed actual law with her health care proposal even though no one actually voted on her at all to do anything like it.

Michelle Obama took up what would have been a traditional first lady's cause in fighting obesity and healthy school lunches, but then, she made her preferences have the force of law through regulatory policy. No one voted for her to do that, either.

So, in a sense, we are looking at two women who have already had a hand in shaping or attempting to shape the way the country runs itself through law or regulatory policy ... and they were not at all on the ballot.

Now, I don't necessarily have an issue with the first lady's role trending that way, but there needs to be recognition of it. Presidents need to run as a package with their first ladies and we may have to consider that the man/woman is elected as much as the spouse in those circumstances.

Other people may feel compelled to let the White House continue to scoop up power. I will not.

Congress doesn't hold hearings on her. There is no vote on her. She has no business using US funds to further whatever agenda they may have. This is influence grabbing, and just is not appropriate by any measure.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
And Mich Obama will never get the job.

of course she won't...she's a black woman in America....

Haha thats terrible