Here's a fun question for you.

Would you rather be the king or the king maker?

Are you the kind of person that likes sitting in the big seat, being the face of the operation, wearing the crown and marching in the parade in a place of

honor? Or would you rather stand to the side, wield power quietly, planting seeds and tending the

ground so that your vision ultimately bears fruit? The kingmaker role comes with less fame and accolades, perhaps,

but there's a certain type of quiet authority that comes with knowing that you are the power

behind the throne. Now, it's perfectly understandable if neither of these roles appeal to you. In fact, that might be very healthy.

But this week, we are talking about politics. And in politics, ambition is just part of the water in which we swim.

And politics is filled with people who either want to be the

king or want to be the kingmaker. You see, one of the big debates around the legacy of U.S.

President William McKinley is how much he was influenced, beholden to, or even puppeted by

the powerful men who supported him. You see, in the William McKinley story, there is a kingmaker,

or perhaps it's fairer to call him an alleged kingmaker.

This was a man named Marcus Alonzo Hanna.

Hannah was an Ohio-born businessman, who, after a number of fairly disastrous false starts,

eventually built a small business empire in Cleveland that involved coal, iron, and

shipping on the Great Lakes. He was a millionaire by the age of 40, and after that, he threw

himself energetically into politics. He gravitated to the Republican Party, where he gained a reputation for being an

effective behind-the-scenes operator. He was the kind of political organizer and strategist who was good

at fundraising and knew how to whip up support for a particular candidate. He was a persuasive

backroom negotiator, which of course gave rise to

rumors that he wasn't above using his wealth or the wealth of his donors to grease palms in order

...