Will Obama Run For His Third Term?

We have been telling everyone who will listen that it is our belief that Obama will be the Democratic candidate in the fall when he matches up with someone other than Trump.  Could the response that he received in Canada be a way of testing the water by the President?

It has been our belief that Hillary will be indicted sometime before the convention, however, time is running out on that assumption. If it does not come to fruition, the sword will fall on her sometime before the election. Could that have been the reason that former President Clinton met with Loretta Lynch yesterday in Phoenix?  Are they setting up something or was a payoff to the Attorney General confirmed?  Or was it a fact finder to see if Lynch has enough to indict his wife? Whatever, this "chance" meeting was probably scheduled and scripted weeks in advance!  The "cover story" of an accidental meeting does not make sense. So what was the reason?

On the Republican side, Trump will not get the nomination. There are too many rumors going around and too much smoke surrounding the presumptive candidate. Also, have you noticed that the interest in the candidate has slowed and any news is negative to him.

Last week we published an article from West Michigan news about how much pressure was being applied to GOP delegates to pass a resolution which would release all the delegates from their commitments to Trump and the other candidates. Trump then would have to muster the majority of delegates on the first or later ballots.  We doubt that he can pull that off especially with the "I will not vote for Trump"  by President George H.W. Bush, President George W. Bush, Jeb Bush, Lindsey Graham and others.

It is entirely possible that we will see a re-run of the 2012 elections of Obama vs. Romney.

2016 definitely is a year of confusion in the political world!

Conservative Tom

The Rachel Maddow Show / The MaddowBlog

President Barack Obama receives a standing ovation in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Canada, June 29, 2016.

Photo by Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press/AP

Canadian Parliament to 

Obama: ‘Four more years!’

06/30/16 09:24 AM—UPDATED 06/30/16 09:27 AM

facebook twitter 5 save share group 50

By Steve Benen

If you missed President Obama’s address to the Canadian Parliament 

yesterday, it was a rather extraordinary event in which the American leader

 received a rapturous welcome. Given the warmth of the reception, it 

became quite easy to believe that if Obama decided to seek public office

 north of the border, he’d win in a landslide.

6/29/16, 9:28 PM ET

Obama hears chants of 

'four more years' from 

Canadian parliament

But as Rachel noted on the show last night, one of the memorable moments of the president’s appearance in Ottawa came, oddly enough, after Obama was done speaking.

It was Obama’s third round of public remarks Wednesday during a series of talks dubbed “The Three Amigos Summit” by Canadian media, and as he concluded, the building erupted in a chant unlikely to be heard south of the border:

“Four more years! Four more years!”

Obama shook his head, waved and sat down, a wide grin across

his face.

It was heartening, to be sure, to see an American president receive

 such an outpouring of support in a foreign country. For all the Republican 

rhetoric about the lack of respect Obama enjoys on the international stage,

 even among our allies, yesterday was a reminder that complaints from the 

president’s detractors couldn’t be more wrong.

But it also got me thinking about whether those cheering the president were 

bringing attention to an under-appreciated argument.

Back in March, Vox’s Matt Yglesias raised a provocative point: President

 Obama is probably the best available candidate, even now, and if 

Americans want to vote for him again, we should have the opportunity 

to do so.

“The 22nd Amendment, ratified in 1951, prohibits presidents from serving 

more than two terms,” Matt wrote. “But though it can’t be repealed in time 

for the 2016 election, term limits clearly have to go. We should return to the

 democratic practice that served our country well for 150 years: Let the 

parties nominate whom they like, and let the voters choose their favorite.”

Americans aren’t accustomed to thinking this way, because we know, as

 a constitutional matter, that presidents are only allowed to serve two terms. 

But there’s a case to be made that this limit serves no legitimate purpose: 

if a president enjoys broad support and the public wants to vote for him or 

her, why should there be an arbitrary mechanism in place that blocks 

voters’ choices?

Indeed, Rachel noted a new PPP poll last night that found, in a hypothetical 

match-up with Donald Trump, Obama would win easily. Why shouldn’t 

Americans have the ability to cast that vote if we want to? Why artificially

 block voters’ choices, disqualifying a candidate simply because he or she

 has already done the job effectively?

Remember, there’s nothing partisan about this. In November 1987, 

then-President Reagan said he intended to “start a movement” to repeal

 the constitutional amendment establishing presidential term limits.

Six months later, Reagan spoke at Moscow State University in Russia and 

was asked about whether he wishes he could “stay for another term.” 

Reagan began by talking about Congress seeking “revenge against 

Franklin Delano Roosevelt” when lawmakers changed the Constitution, 

which Reagan apparently saw as a mistake. The Republican president

 added:

“When I get out of office – I can’t do this while I’m in office, because

it will look as I’m selfishly doing it for myself – when I get out of office,

I’m going to travel around what I call the mashed-potato circuit –

that is the after-dinner speaking and the speaking to luncheon

groups and so forth – I’m going to travel around and try to convince

the people of our country that they should wipe out that amendment to

the Constitution because it was an interference with the democratic

rights of the people. The people should be allowed to vote for who

they wanted to vote for, for as many times as they want to vote for

him; and that it is they who are being denied a right.”

This is largely a thought experiment, since there’s no apparent political

 appetite for changing the U.S. Constitution to eliminate presidential term

 limits. But hearing Canadian officials yesterday shout “Four more years!” 

with such enthusiasm served as a reminder: maybe they have a point.