With the recession now in the rearview mirror, black people want to be part of the nation’s economic recovery. Hillary Clinton proposes a menu of solutions to raise incomes for struggling families. They range from tax cuts for child care to encouraging corporations to share their rising profits with workers. In an interview with The Root, Clinton’s senior policy adviser, Maya Harris, underscored the candidate’s plan to “unleash small-business growth.” Harris says black women, who represent the fastest-growing group of entrepreneurs, would benefit.

So the question that once seemed absolutely ludicrous to think let alone ask is now a question that can be seriously asked and even to an extent answered. Just how would Trump govern? There’s little reason to think Trump is suited to patient, give-and-take negotiation and compromise to get his initiatives through Congress. His style is to bellow, bully, and harangue to get his way. As for the issues, Trump has been on the political scene long enough to have enough of a paper trail to piece together from his statements in debates and interviews and speeches a fairly accurate picture of what he will say and do on the big-ticket issues. 

He knows that his nutty quips will be spreadeagled over every media outlet and roil legions on Facebook and social media. He’s at or near the top of the heap in some polls as a top GOP presidential candidate and that show him even more implausibly actually beating Hillary Clinton in a hypothetical head-to-head showdown. But beyond his endless milking of his rags-to-successful-neurosurgeon story and the inane quips about President Obama and Democrats before packs of ultraconservative fawners and groupies, what makes him real political timber, let alone presidential stuff?

The reasons for Clinton’s steady lead aren’t hard to find. While the chatter about outlier inflammatory curiosities such as Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, and the politically radical Sanders, awes, fascinates, and titillates the media and a wide body of the public, they are far from electable. Polls do show that the overwhelming majority of Americans are sick of and disgusted with the dysfunctionality, deal-making, and big money manipulation of American politics. Yet there is no evidence that this has now, or in the past, ever translated into a repudiation of traditional party politicians at the polls.

Arguing that every citizen should have the right to vote, Clinton argued the common sense position that we should do what we can to make voting easier, not make it harder. She called for restoring the Voting Rights Act, to ensure pre-screening of election law changes that potentially discriminate against classes of voters. She embraced the bipartisan presidential commission recommendations for expanding early absentee and mail voting and for ensuring that no one waits more than 30 minutes to cast a vote.

For quite a while it has become a foregone conclusion to many that Hillary Clinton is Barack Obama’s natural successor and the inevitable Democratic nominee in 2016. Although she was also seen as the frontrunner in the lead up to the 2008 election the sentiment was no means as widespread as it is today.Her 2002 vote in favor of authorizing the disastrous Iraq War was fresh in the minds of many Democrats and ultimately was probably the deciding factor in the hotly contested primary against Obama. These days, however, that vote is a distant memory.  

On the surface, the fight between the GOP and NBC is about the effects of media on audiences.  The party’s presumption – based on no evidence – is that the miniseries would put Clinton in a favorable light, and – also based on no evidence – that the halo would translate into votes.  But if a movie could do that, then John Glenn, heroically portrayed in the 1983 movie The Right Stuff, would have been the 1984 Democratic presidential nominee.  The real issue here isn’t the impact of entertainment on audiences, it’s the coup that took presidential debates out of the hands of citizens and handed them to party hacks.

 Iran’s nuclear program, on the other hand, is alive and well. Vice President Joe Biden practically bragged of the economy-crippling effects of the latest round of sanctions during last year’s vice presidential debate, even as his Secretary of Defense acknowledged that despite U.S. efforts, Tehran remained intent on advancing its nuclear program. Indeed, the IAEA’s latest report shows that if anything, Iran is likely expanding its enrichment capacity. Iran’s civilians, however, find themselves in the midst of one of the worst medical supply shortages in the nation’s long history.

The sudden spotlight on Burma commenced over two years ago with democratic and economic reforms. In November 2010, Burma held its first elections in 20 years, and the government released pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest. In 2012, Aung San Suu Kyi won a seat in parliament and became the chairperson of the opposition National League for Democracy party. Foreign governments have taken notice of these reforms and eased sanctions on Burma. 

Current member of the House Paul Ryan offered this theory regarding the current economic battles facing our country: "Look, if we had a [Hillary] Clinton presidency, if we had Erskine Bowles as chief of staff of the White House or president of the United States, I think we would have fixed this fiscal mess by now," Ryan said. "[But] that's not the kind of presidency we're dealing with right now." Both pronouncements raise questions that have been pondered by some political watchers since the conclusion of the 2008 presidential election: Would African Americans have fared better under a Hillary Clinton presidency than under Obama (and will they if she runs and wins in 2016)?