Of course it is personal – Obama winning kept party-in-his-pants, slick willy (boy, does that phrase have new meaning since the Monica story, no?) Bill from having full run of the white house to have all the fun he wanted with the interns.

(**Takes one to know one, Rev. Sleazy.**)

The same epitaph goes for the delicate Missus Clinton except NO Political Talent.

Not ordinarily but arguably, always. Today, only the egotistical seek it.

The Grandmaster SciFi author Robert Heinlein suggested as a premise, that the desire for the job demonstrated unfitness for the office. He suggested that the ideal was the patriotic citizen who accepted out of duty but wanted out of the job as quickly as possible. An example is Pres. Rutherford B Hayes, historians rate him highly;

“the 19th President of the United States (1877—1881). As president, he oversaw the end of Reconstruction, began the efforts that led to civil service reform, and attempted to reconcile the divisions left over from the Civil War and Reconstruction.

Hayes believed in meritocratic government, equal treatment without regard to race, and improvement through education. He ordered federal troops to quell the Great Railroad Strike of 1877. He implemented modest civil service reforms that laid the groundwork for further reform in the 1880s and 1890s.

He vetoed the Bland-Allison Act, which would have put silver money into circulation and raised prices, insisting that maintenance of the gold standard was essential to economic recovery. His policy toward Western Indians anticipated the assimilationist program of the Dawes Act of 1887.

Hayes kept his pledge not to run for re-election (didn’t want the job and resisted acceptance of the nomination), retired to his home in Ohio, and became an advocate of social and educational reform.

His biographer Ari Hoogenboom says his greatest achievement was to restore popular faith in the presidency and to reverse the deterioration of executive power that had set in after Lincoln’s death.”

Heinlein speculated that a computer program could be used to randomly select from a qualified list of candidates a suitable choice for President. Polls could determine the majority view on the important issues and select a candidate that basically supported those views.

I would suggest one fixed year term of 6 years, no reelection possible and a mandatory return to civilian life.

No billions spent on elections.

It is IMO and at first glance, at least worthy of consideration because our current system is undeniably broken. Perhaps it can be fixed but otherwise we need an alternative.

Maybe that’s one of the reasons that he chose HRC. Because her aspirations would make her less likely to be rock the boat.

As for speculation as to how resigning in the wake of Benghazi would have affected Clinton’s chances in 2016, in the long run it might have given her a boost, especially given this administration’s current low approval ratings. Had the Iraqi surge been a failure, I wonder whether McCain, who had continued to support our efforts there, would have fared in the GOP primaries.

I think its exactly what happened. It’s got the Clinton’s to a ‘T’. I’m with Highlander @ 3:30

And neo, that would have been the only honorable thing to do, a characteristic entirely foreign to the Clinton’s nature.

Rickl,

To point out the obvious, Bill Clinton does not hate Obama for our reasons. I suspect that Bill Clinton hates Barack Obama for several reasons; resentment at Obama’s entirely undeserved regard, resentment at Obama’s dismissal of the Clinton’s historical importance, (Bill is the ‘John the Baptist’ to Obama’s ‘Messiah’) and finally that Obama and Hillary are both birds of a feather; (ruthlessly ambitious with a narcissistic belief in their unearned worth, as having the ‘right’ opinion is all that matters) but… while Bill got to f**k Hillary, Obama f**ked Bill…

“How stunned could she be? In front of the caskets of the Benghazi dead, she blamed the video.” kit

And that is the sin she cannot escape because she did so in front of the caskets of the Benghazi dead with parents present. It is an obscenity.

I R A Darth Aggie Says:
“SoS: No, I won’t do that.
President: I regretfully accept your resignation.
SoS: I didn’t resign!
President: I expect your letter on my desk in an hour. Or are you willing to reconsider you position on the matter?”

SoS: No I won’t resign, you’ll have to fire me but if you do, I’ll go before the nation and tell them exactly why I was fired…

Sure, Hillary going before the camera’s would have destroyed her political career but it would have led to Obama’s defeat. He wouldn’t have risked it and would have gone to plan b.

Side thought; what did Hillary demand of Obama to go along? She sure as hell didn’t do it as a favor.

As far as there being animosity between between the royal couples is concerned, they obviously detest each other. WJC to Teddy Kennedy, “A few years ago, this guy (Obama) would be getting us coffee.”

The problem is that people don’t know what to believe, so they rely on proxies like “mainstream” opinion.
Since honest politicians are outnumbered 100 or more to 1 by hacks, the narrative is created to promote the hacks at the expense of the honest pol.
The people then go along with it.

That’s one of the reason presidential aspirants should not be appointed Secretary of State, IMHO. Of course, an SOS could aspire to the presidency after the SOS stint. But someone already known to want to be president, such as Hillary was when she was appointed, would ordinarily be a poor choice. Too political.

Naturally, that’s probably one of the reasons Obama appointed her. It meant he knew she’d do his bidding, rather than alienate the party whose support she needed to be president.

The information that Hillary initially didn’t agree with Obama’s decision to spin Benghazi as a movie response- but still went along with the movie spin story- damns both the POTUS and the Secretary of State. The POTUS- damned for lying/spinning.

Secretary of State Clinton- damned for going along with the movie spin, which was according to the tale presented, not one she initially agreed with. Not exactly the profile of a principled person.

Obama and Hillary are two peas in a pod- they would both throw their grandmothers under the bus- or sell them down the river- to advance their political careers. Come to think of it, Obama already did, with his “typical white person” remark in 2008 about his grandmother.

Such Machiavellian tendencies wouldn’t be so bad if Obama viewed Al Queda as a greater enemy than he does the Republicans. But as Obama views Republicans as a greater enemy than Al Queda, his Machiavellian ways are concentrated in the domestic sphere and not in the international sphere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_Vance