Pat Oliphant for November 06, 2013

You know, I have some rather mixed feelings about the idea of Queen (King?) Hillary as President. But unlike Obama, as President she’d no doubt kick Tea Bagger butt and give those sorry wacko birds something to actually complain about.

In January 2007, Hillary was considered inevitable. Best not to count your votes before the votes are counted. Voters may be even less interested in establishment candidates (from both parties) this time around.

I’m sorry, but what has she done to indicate that she has grabbed the crown? The media is pushing it, not her.

I would like to see a listing that shows to what extent politics has become a form of “family business.” Let the list show (lest it become encyclopedic in length) all politicians with family members that have hold, or have held, office above the level of state representative, going back for two generations or more. .Obviously, a social class of professional politicians has steadily developed, starting nearly from the beginning of our country. We tend to sneer at monarchies in other countries, but isn’t our political class becoming a form of hereditary royalty? Is it a bad thing? Does this contribute to our present problems? Should something be done about it? I suspect this family hand-off of political offices occurs most frequently at state and county levels..The father-to-son situation was bad enough, then it started to become father-to-son-to-grandson. Now, it’s becoming husband-to-wife? It just seems Not Right. Is there anything in early national political writings that speaks to this?

She says she has not made up her mind. She will run, she has no choice, the establishment and the media demands it. Media ratings and content are what is important.

sorry do not see why anyone would want a liar and someone as incompetent as her. sorry must be the emperor new clothes thing

The huge anchor of which you speak is more likely to sink the Republicans, if they continue to obsess on the non-issues.

I knew that, obviously. The Harrison’s were grandfather-grandson. The Roosevelts were distant cousins. Let’s not have any more. .Our candidate pool is big enough now that it shouldn’t happen, shouldn’t be allowed to happen. And a wife following her husband in presidential office — I consider that ridiculous, and it doesn’t matter who it is. .And I’d respect Jeb Bush if he did not run. All in all, these sorts of situations seem to me like political incest, bad for the country in the long run.

Yes, it’s Chris Christie who is already campaigning for 2016, not Hillary. I fully expect her to, but heck, it’s three years away. (More of an Elizabeth Warren fan, myself.)

Some folks here seem to like the idea of Elizabeth Warren for President. Nope. Won’t happen. She’s sane, mostly.

^^ The attack on the consulate is not a non-issue. The Republican interpretation and so-called coverup should be a non-issue because it is pure political spin.

“….I sincerely hope we do not ever see another President Clinton…..”.You would instead prefer a Bush or a McCain, or a Dole, or a Romney?.How would you compare Clinton’s qualifications up against those of Cruz, Rubio, or Rand Paul? In comparison, Clinton’s qualifications are exemplary. Her so-called bagage is largely Republican created..So far as America’s International reputation is concerned, it is far higher now than any time in recent memory. You would have to go back to Bill Clinton to get a similar standing.

I agree with idealistic portion of your post that a great person should be elected president. I don’t think that happens very often. Mostly we get just the election-winner. To a large extent, the advisors surrounding a president lead to his success or failure. But no matter how accomplished in business, philosophy, or ethics these intellectual fire-cracker advisors (ivy-league graduates, even Nobel-prize winners), they tend to fizzle in the face of real-life world events. .A great man is needed, sure. And what is the definition on a “great man”? A leader encounters events and makes good as well as poor decisions in regard to them; and if his good decisions outnumber the bad he or she might be considered “great.” Sometimes it’s inspiration or just luck. Resultant bloodshed might or might not matter. But the idea of a Great Man making lonely, great decisions is a false literary construct. There’s usually a group effort with all branches of government. Even Julius and Octavius with their enormous powers needed political cooperation..Great Men don’t burst forward, with auras about their heads. If they step slowly forward, how would we recognize them? Our media have the capabilities to show people down to their pores and pimples. Things contenders ever did, said, or wrote is exposed to calculated analysis. And then the PR spin churns mud in the water, CW or CCW. .We who elect them have to judge their potential, elect them, then allow events to test them. (These are tests and they will count toward your final grade.) A small percentage distinguish themselves positively. They should accomplish at least the smallest possible amount of harm..Examples I would suggest in the Twentieth Century are Churchill and Roosevelt. Many would disagree with those. And then, who? There are many European and Asian leaders to qualify. Then , we get into controversy: Stalin and Mao and … Hitler? There are actually many to insist those people were great. .Unfortunately, violent world wars and revolutions brought these people forward. What are the comparable issues today that will define greatness in leadership? Energy, health care, climate change? Not seemingly as bad and bloody as political revolutions, but potentially of greater concern. In the long run, just as many people could die as the result of wrong decisions. It seems at present we are less worried about society as a whole, and more for individual comforts; and the ability for consumer product industries to supply entertainment items. These comforts are temporary, and soon real life-and-death issues will appear again. These things come in waves (subtle pun intended)..I don’t think we recognize the degree of greatness leaders had until they’ve left office. Sorry, when they first appear there are no color-coded labels on their foreheads. It’s a risky chore each time to give them a chance, and to support them unselfishly and without petulance in thoughtful requests. Then possibly after years have passed, we make first evaluations as to their relative greatness. Not too soon, or the judgment is subject to self-interest. It takes a while for the smog of time to clear from political events. History judges..Thanks for your time. It’s one thing we can seldom make more of, and to ask it of a person is a serious thing.

Why is that? It’s not a new thing, is it? I recall in school reading a letter Benjamin Franklin wrote to George Washington to reassure him that his accomplishments were appreciated by enlightened people in Europe — even though he had so many political opponents in the U.S. When we’re children, we think such national icons as Washington were always considered “holy.” Not so..Does it seem that at present there is love of opposition for its own sake, some kind of degradation of reasoned political discourse? Disagreement for the hell of it? I think the media still encourage controversies way beyond reason and encourage them for their profit. I know they always have, to a certain extent; but I thought things were getting better. Then along came the Internet, and all the bogus ideas and pseudo-science from the past have been pulled up dripping from the mud. .As I’ve said before, I often dream of reading future history accounts that describe our present time from more objective perspectives.

Very definitely….not yet.

RIP Pat.

“…don’t blow it out of proportion because of one idiot, then again, having read your posts…”.Wrong. One THAT WAS CAUGHT. As far as your little dig… thank you. Being slammed by a lover of the lefty Kool Aid is high compliment.