I respect Sagan enormously. His works have had a huge impact on who I am as a person. Nevertheless, there's no need to deify him, I think that's the last thing he would have wanted. That being said, I think he would probably not have made a good president.

Even so, his contribution to humanity was tremendous, we are very much diminished by his absence.

> there's no need to deify him, I think that's the last thing he would have wanted

Well, if you're going to deify someone, a good first criterion is to avoid anyone who does want the position :)

The best presidents were scientists and writers. Jefferson saw himself as a scientist before a politician...

I'm interested in what aspects of Sagan you perceive as not being suitable for political leadership?

Not that I want to imply that I think he was suitable (I've never really considered that particular option) - but I do view with dismay what is typically seen as being required to be an effective politician and it is perhaps interesting to consider the alternatives.

I wouldn't say I deify him but that is a fair point, it would be easy to do so though so one must always reflect.