Pat Oliphant by Pat Oliphant

Pat Oliphant

Comments (33) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Absalom57

    Absalom57 said, about 2 years ago

    No, there is not. Hillary won’t run in 2016. She’s 65 now and would be 69 in 2016. Dems do not vote for older people for the president, unless that person is already the Pres.Obama will appoint his successor during the 2014 cycle. Someone who is in lock step with his statist ideals.

  2. Stipple

    Stipple said, about 2 years ago

    Women live soooo much longer than men. Age is not the factor is was with Reagan.

  3. AlexanderTheGoodEnough

    AlexanderTheGoodEnough said, about 2 years ago

    Back in Nineteen Hundred and Eighty-four, a woman was running as a Vice Presidential candidate, Geraldine Ferraro. At the time, I worked for a fellow who had for decades hung with and was a consultant to the likes of the Rockefellers and Armand Hammer, and who liked to ruminate about things political. One day I had a bright idea and asked him, in the context of Ferraro’s candidacy, what he thought of the idea of woman President. “Ruthless!” was the immediate reply. “Huh?” says I. He explained. At the time, there had been three women heads of state of western-style democracies post WWII, Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir and Margaret Thatcher. Each one of them had successfully prosecuted a war and were themselves the roughest, toughest politicians in countries where politics was all but a blood sport. They were more formidable than any man of their place, day and time. Ruthless. QED. And Hillary certainly measures up. Imagine poor Boehner going up against her! (Myself, I imagine poor Bill. She’d bite the head off a railroad spike if you put it in her mouth…) GO HILLARY!!

  4. saywhatwhat

    saywhatwhat said, about 2 years ago

    @Absalom57

    What Democrats don’t do is blindly vote for anyone “appointed” by an outgoing President. It might actually be better if they would. 1968 and 2000 come to mind.

  5. ronald rini

    ronald rini said, about 2 years ago

    First ask her if she or her husband paid back any of that 6 million dollars that the people sent in to pay for the legal expenses. Second I thinking you are going to hear more from chelse(sorry for spelling) Bill did not push obama for nothing.

  6. JmcaRice

    JmcaRice GoComics PRO Member said, about 2 years ago

    today’s comic is not very critical nor insightful. what gives Oliphant ?

  7. Gary Kleppe

    Gary Kleppe said, about 2 years ago

    @saywhatwhat

    The voters did choose Al Gore in 2000. It was the Supreme Court who chose otherwise.

  8. masterskrain

    masterskrain GoComics PRO Member said, about 2 years ago

    @Ms. Ima

    So, what you are saying is that Hillary would have kicked Romney’s butt even worse then Obama did?
    Maybe have won by a margin of 60% to 40%, rather then 53% to 47%?
    Maybe 450 Electoral College votes instead of the 323 that Obama got?
    Maybe, just maybe…

  9. Clark  Kent

    Clark Kent said, about 2 years ago

    @Stipple, age was not the factor in the raygun misadministration, alzheimers was.

  10. masterskrain

    masterskrain GoComics PRO Member said, about 2 years ago

    @Clark Kent

    As Gallagher once asked; “If Reagan developed Alzheimer’s Disease, how could you tell??”

  11. Simon_Jester

    Simon_Jester said, about 2 years ago

    @Richard S. Russell

    Uhhh, just one little problem. Hillary is related to Bill Clinton by marriage, not by blood, so it’s NOT hereditary,

    Personally, I’d like to see Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer take shot at it

  12. capndunzzl

    capndunzzl said, about 2 years ago

    …we knew it would happen.

  13. emptc12

    emptc12 said, about 2 years ago

    @Richard S. Russell

    Sorry, kiddo:
    .
    I think our republic will head toward a new type of hereditary monarchy. There are large numbers of career politicians now; so many families for which politics is the clan business.
    .
    Eventually the dominant political forces will entrench themselves as pseudo-monarchical powers. The result will be the establishment of kings, queens, princes, princesses, and all the other noble hodge-podge. (They won’t be called that, at first; but the divisions will be comparable.)
    .
    Look: Every election, a diminishing percentage of citizens vote. The percentage will continue to decline. Eventually like-minded blocks of voters will consolidate within bounded areas and the need for voting will vanish.
    .
    Super-smart phones will connect them all and sense their needs (or modify their wants). Regional differences of nationality and lifestyle will initially determine how the United States will be divided. Sure, there will be political skirmishes, even actual battles, to gerrymander emerging kingdom states for access to natural resources.
    .
    But humans and apes are naturally inclined toward tribal organizations. The Kingdom will come. And Royals are so COOL! They’re like an endless high-class reality show: Entertaining — AND EDUCATIONAL. For instance, the world was astonished to discover that royal females have breasts, as per the recent photos of Catherine. And that Prince Harry can dress and undress himself without help (I guess).
    .
    In the near future, as the harbinger to serious monarch-ization, I think Illinois will roll over its political families into royalty. It actually has happened already, in Cook County and near environs. The whole state is nearly bankrupt, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it will soon gather forces to invade Indiana or Iowa, if for no other reason than to make them wear shoes when driving and to enforce worship toward the divine Daley Dynasty.
    .
    Northward, Wisconsin will be safe for now, as there are too many mosquitoes there. Wisconsinites might also stave off invasion by offering tribute in cheese and beer.
    .
    No doubt another temporary kingdom will center in Texas, and other kingdoms will contain several southeastern states. And of course New York will be a center, too. Global warming will form a moat around a large area of New England as extra protection against invading ground troops.
    .
    But these forces WILL consolidate, and within a century or so, our nation will be an actual Monarchy, with a few small rogue fiefdoms scattered about. (Descendents of Sarah Palin will doubtless rule one of them.)
    .
    Sorry, it’s inevitable, and communications technology will assist. The Internet will be subsumed to serve the cause; and techo-language and text-speech will narrow the number of ideas citizens are capable of.
    .
    News will go virtual, half reality and half fantasy; and most entertainers will be simulacrums with fantastically buff bodies. Everybody in power will seem smart and beautiful (but actually they’ll be dumb as rocks), so ordinary people will idolize them, grovel as needed, and despair of rebellion. Ubiquitous huge public lotteries will hold out hopeless hope to naïve billions.
    .
    And best of all, Twinkies will return by popular demand and be a free staple food item, fortified with vitamins and tranquilizers.
    .
    Hey, uh, don’t tell anybody I told you all this – okay?

  14. prfesser

    prfesser said, about 2 years ago

    @JmcaRice

    Oliphant is pointing out that although Hillary has “rejected” any idea of running for Prez, the Democrats are running her, anyway. And the polls bear the Dems out – Hillary is far and away the preferred candidate for 2016. Her stint as sec’y of state pretty much is the icing on the cake. Unless the Republicants can come up with a good moderate candidate who blows off the religious right, democrats have the White House for 8 more years after B.O.

  15. Fourcrows

    Fourcrows said, about 2 years ago

    @emptc12

    I sincerely love your post! Now if we can get Stephen King and George R. Martin to turn it into a series of seven 1500 page novels…

  16. Load the rest of the comments (18).