Um... What Tom said.

But here is an interesting question... Has any sitting President (not counting those who "inhereted" the office like Ford) ever chosen a different running mate from their first term?

i'm not sure. but no sitting president (well except maybe lincoln) has signed into law the power to disappear citizens. also all presidents have been white. obama's a trailblazer.

why would he change his current VP? He is too quiet? Bidden stays out of trouble (by keeping his mouth shut)

"Bidden stays out of trouble (by keeping his mouth shut)"

Sure, that's what he does.

besides, Bidden has an opposite personallity to Obama, which is good in the diplomatic arena

we dont know whats going on behind the scenes; who they glad hands with; whose personalities they get along with..

After George w bush, all the giv had to do was deem you an enemy combatant. Then you'd never be seen out side of gitmo again...

@bolshoi:

Just to point out: Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus and actually did oversee the locking up of citizens labelled Confederate sympathizers. Let's not pretend Obama is the devil incarnate.

By "tap" do you mean "...that ass..."? Because....you know...not to be stereotypical or anything, but African Americans tend to like a larger ass....and Hillary has...eh hem....a larger ass....

i'm sure bush had some secret bs giving him authorization to go after american citizens abroad. at home probably too. but i don't think he exercised it. obama not only killed those american citizens abroad, but his administration demanded a provision be put into the ndaa giving authority to do it on american soil.

but yeah, bush was probably worse than obama. but there is a lot of competition among the recent presidents as to who is the greatest war criminal. obama's still got time, if he gets reelected. he is going to step up his policies, i'm sure. he doesn't want to fall out of the running.

@bolshoi: What part of the NDAA is that? I've read the bill and the section that most people refer to has an explicit exception for American citizens. It's still terrible because it formalizes the indefinite detention of terror suspects, but not Americans. Which is the only reason people are upset about it.

Also, no part of that bill could be read to indicate that the government now has the right to assassinate Americans within the U.S.

i didn't read the bill but from what i understand that exemption if bogus. one part says it exempts american citizens but somewhere else it says "oh, unless we're in a conflict" or some garbage like that. meaning that there really is no exemption.

i don't know, if you trust the aclu, here's an article on their website http://www.aclu.org/national-security/president-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-bill-law
...
said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director. “The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield. The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally.”

"The ACLU believes that any military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA."

I'd tap that.

http://troll.me/images/obama-meh/id-tap-that.jpg

The CIA has always had the right to assassinate US citizens in the US. To believe otherwise is denial.

hahahahah @check.
what the hell are you talking about. not only is it unconstitutional, but u.s. soil is not cia jurisdiction.

(when we're talking about u.s. citizens)

The CIA has prolly done it, you cannot prove that they have not.

Biden will not be replaced. I mean, Obama has trouble with the old style, working class Democrats which Biden kind of represents. and dropping the guy who is mostly responsible for failing to get a deal on continued troop presence in Iraq would mean Obama acknowledges that that was a failure. Hardly an issue he wants to bring up in the election.

The buzz seems to be that Hilary wants the World Bank job, anyway. Anything to stay away from Bill...

Yeah Czech I think they do it all the time, but this is to my knowledge the first time they've claimed they have the right to.

You mean publicly claimed the right ;-)

Selecting Hillary Clinton as VP would be like putting a bullseye on the back of your head. The number one thing one needs to be sure of when it comes to the person next in line for the throne is that they're not the sort who will kill you to get your job. JFK learned that lesson the hard way.

"Has any sitting President (not counting those who "inhereted" the office like Ford) ever chosen a different running mate from their first term?"

Yes. Several times, in fact. I believe Lincoln dumped somebody else for Andrew Johnson in '64, FDR dumped Henry Wallace for Harry Truman in '44, Kennedy was going to dump LBJ but didn't live long enough, and Reagan would've liked to've dumped Bush but wasn't dumb enough to say so out loud. I'm sure there have been others, these are just off the top of my head.

Are you saying that LBJ killed JFK or tht Hillary wold plot to kill Obama?

Yup.

I cannot tell if you are being sarcastic or not.

I'm not at all sarcastic. I believe it came out in some of the recently released letters of Jackie Kennedy that she thought Johnson had a hand in her husband's death as well. Are you one of those crazy people who believe everyone in politics is saintly and good and incapable of evil?

No, I just do not believe in CRAZY conspiracy theories like the one you are now presenting.

@ NikeFlash

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but you have to admit that the JFK assasination was pretty fishy.