Written by Helena Handbasket
Rating:

Share/Bookmark
Print this

Wednesday, 5 September 2007

image for Clinton's Husband Endorses Ron Paul!
Clinton's husband departs the CBC set after endorsing Ron Paul for the presidential ticket.

5 Sep 07, NEW YORK CITY, NY, USNA-- President-Elect Clinton's husband, William Jefferson Clinton, formally endorsed Ron Paul today on the CBC programme "Late Show With Art Linkletterman". Transcripts secretly provided to The Spoof by our exclusive sources revealed that he called candidate Ron Paul "wonderful" and declared Dr. Paul "would be good" for the ticket. (Tip of the hat to Matt Drudge.)

Linkletterman and Clinton's husband (also known as "Bill" Clinton) reportedly engaged in scholarly Constitutional-law banter in relation to the "Clinton-Clinton" ticket that the Council on Foreign Relations has been trial ballooning. Linkletterman apparently asked whether the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of North America prohibits such a ticket. Clinton's husband reportedly replied that, both as a former Potus and as someone who acts like he is under 30, he believed himself ineligible to run for either half of a Clinton-Clinton ticket. Then the president-elect's husband specifically named Paul as a "wonderful" vice-president for her.

The show will air on CBC this late night. Incidentally, Clinton's husband also endorsed every other announced candidate (which excludes Rudy Rompson): in full, he said, "There are lots of wonderful people out there, including all the people that are running this time would be good Vice Presidents."



(Instant legal analysis was provided by The Spoof's crack team of barristers, Weary, Stale, Flat & Unprofitable. These reputable attorneys downplayed the comment from Clinton's husband, asking whether "are" means "are" and/or "all" means "all". They further suggest that his term "including" is apparently taken from Section 1813(t) of Title 12, United States of North America Code, which reads in full, "The terms 'includes' and 'including' shall not be construed more restrictively than the ordinary usage of such terms so as to exclude any other thing not referred to or described. Paragraph (1) shall not be construed as creating any inference that the term 'includes' or 'including' in any other provision of Federal law may be deemed to exclude any other thing not referred to or described.")

Make Helena Handbasket's day - give this story five thumbs-up (there's no need to register, the thumbs are just down there!)

The story above is a satire or parody. It is entirely fictitious.

If you fancy trying your hand at comedy spoof news writing, click here to join!

Print this


Share/Bookmark

Mailing List

Get Spoof News in your email inbox!

Email:

What's 5 plus 5?

5 7 10 2

Go to top ^