But he was not a sitting President who left office who left office then tried to win it back. Alot of people have run for President, lost then run again; Naders about to do it for a third time. Adali Steveson lost to Eisenhower twice in 1952 & 1956.
Bush Sr. in 2008!! 
How’s this for a scenario???
George W. Bush gets relected.
Dick Cheney decides that he doesn’t want to be VP anymore.
GWB picks GHWB as his new VP, he gets confirmed and takes office.
GWB resigns 2 1/2 years into the second term.
GHWB becomes president.
Now, George H W Bush is in the position of being the incumbent President, and is still eligible to run for President in 2008.
Yes, but that semantic loophole could theoretically come into play – as noted earlier, the 22nd Amendment addresses being elected President, not holding the office of President.
Well, I was talking about Bill Clinton specifically not being eligible for the office of Vice-President. I suppose if he ran for Congress and eventually became the Speaker of the House, and the President and Veep died/resigned…
Meh, screw it and just throw the job open to anyone the people will vote for.
Nope, people in the line of sucession must have the same qualifications in order to become President. The Secretary of State comes after the Speaker and Pres pro tem of the Senate, but Madeline Albright was born in Czechoslovakia, so she would have been skipped.
I know, I’m just playing into the whole samentic argument where if you twist the circumstances around enough, anything is possible.
I say yes. Bryan has laid out the contrary position (which essentially boils down to “That can’t be right!”). The Amendment explicitly discusses only election to the presidency, it does not add additional qualifications to holding the office; therefore IMO Clinton or another two-term pesident could be elected V-P and could, in fact, return to the Oval Office if he got there by means other than election.
–Cliffy
By a strictly literal reading of the ammendments in question, yes, Bill Clinton could be VP. But if he tried it, two things would happen: First, the voters would consider there to be shenanigans going on, and would be disinclined to vote for that ticket. And second, it would be challenged in the courts and eventually make its way to the Supremes, who would most likely rule that such activity was contrary to the intent of the Constitution.