May 23, 2005

Draft Condi.

USNews reports (via Wonkette):
Political associates of Secretary of State Condi Rice are stirring the 2008 presidential pot on her behalf. While she takes the high road, they're pushing her name out there. "She definitely wants to be president," said one. But, the friend added, Rice isn't planning on quitting to run. "She wants to be drafted," he said.
Great idea!


Murky Thoughts said...

Yeah, and then court martial her. Civilian justice is too good for her.

bill said...

I have to say there are few women I would think have what it takes to be President, but Condi is at the top of the list.

DrTony said...

I agree with snooker. The recent hypocrisy of the Democratic party regarding the nominations of women for judicial positions would be interesting in a Condi vs Hillary race. They wouldn't be able to say "Vote for the Woman" would they. I would like to hear how they would phrase their objection to this black woman not being a democrat in a national election.

leeontheroad said...

Good point, Tony. Yet wishing to see Condi run in opposition to another woman is no more being *for* Dr. Rice than Illinois Repubs were for Keyes when they recruited him to run against Obama.

For the matter of hypocrisy, there's always the useful (except for Bush and Frist) anti-academic elites memo Republicans have been running against Dems with Ivy backgrounds. It would be interesting to see what those folks have to say if Rice were to run-- with her Stanford provost background being academic (of sorts) but not Eastern.

In any case, I think Rice has great experience; and it would be good, I think, to see her become a party leader.

SteveR said...

If she does a great job as SecState she will get points from me versus folks like McCain and Hillary with whom every move as a senator, can be seen as a political manuever. I'm not sure it's possible these days to wait until the last minute to officially run, but I'm sick of everybody on both sides before Iowa.

Daedalus said...

chuckles... she's too old to be drafted though. i guess jenna and barbara could fill in for her, though. imagine them in BDUs.

Kathleen B. said...

why is it hypocritcal for Democrats to oppose women candidates who are not democrats? that makes no sense to me. I can only imagine your contempt for the Democrats if they supported all women no matter what those women believed and fought for.

Benjamin S. said...

This is such great news. I'm absolutely giddy about it, actually. I love Condi Rice so much. I'm a little worried, though, that there won't be enough momentum to draft her. She's great, but I'm not sure how many people realise it.

Ann Althouse said...

The Republicans need someone with charisma. I don't think they have anyone anywhere near her in charisma. And as for everything else a candidate should have: what does she lack?

John said...

i guess jenna and barbara could fill in for her, though. imagine them in BDUs.

yes. I've done that quite a bit, actually. but, not for the reasons you are thinking.

John said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
gs said...

'Rice isn't planning on quitting to run. "She wants to be drafted."'

Who does she think she is...Charles de Gaulle?

The first female and the first black and unmarried and no previous elective office.

It won't play in Peoria.

Before contemplating the presidency, Condi should get elected senator or, better, governor in 2008. (I think she has to serve as Secretary of State for at least two years.)

Condi is presidential timber, but she needs to go through the mill.

Ann Althouse said...

I don't see why being governor of a tiny state like Arkansas is seen as better preparation than what she has been doing. Clearly, she's unique. That's part of what's so compelling about her. That you can list a whole bunch of usual things about her just reminds us how exciting she is. She's different!

DrTony said...

leeontheroad: I hope you didn't interpret my comment as saying I only supported her because she was a woman. I just meant that the Dems would play the "first woman to run" angle if the Reps put a man.

kathleen b: I don't expect the Dems to support any candidate just because it's a woman. However, they wouldn't be able to use the above argument if Hil's opponent was also a woman.

Kathleen B. said...

and the Republicans would be too noble to play the "woman card" if Condi ran?

but yes to the extent this is what you are saying: Hilary vs. Condi would be a fascinating campaign.

gs said...

Ann says, "I don't see why being governor of a tiny state like Arkansas is seen as better preparation than what she has been doing."

A state government is a microcosm (or a micromicrocosm) of the national government, so being governor is perceived as a minor-league dry run for the presidency.

While granting that this prejudice may be excessive, I would argue that there is some plausible basis for it. For example, Bush 41 never succeeded in getting elected senator despite his distinguished record of appointive public service. Listening to his excuses as his administration deteriorated, I wondered if he considered himself President or a civil servant.

DB said...

I am a Rice fan, but I've always found the '08 talk a bit silly. I do not see the party putting its resources behind a candidate who has never won an election. No one has any idea what kind of campaigner she would be. I don't see the party nominating a question mark, especially in a year when everything is up for grabs. Running the state might not necessarily prepare her for the presidency (though California would be an interesting test for her) but winning the race would prepare her for running for office.

downtownlad said...

I like Condi, but she doesn't seem like she has much in the way of leadership skills.

She's a policy wonk. And policy wonks don't make good Presidents.

Ann Althouse said...

gs: You missed a key word in my comment: "better."

dax said...

While I admire Dr. Rice, I don't see the executive experiemce in her background.
If she WANTS the nomination it will be a tough fight and she will have earned it if she succeeds. If she doesn't, then she will have experience the battle and gotten a "taste"
In 08 it's McCain's to lose.
A McCain/Rice ticket is more realistic in my view.

Ann Althouse said...

dax: From her bio:

"In June 1999, she completed a six year tenure as Stanford University 's Provost, during which she was the institution's chief budget and academic officer. As Provost she was responsible for a $1.5 billion annual budget and the academic program involving 1,400 faculty members and 14,000 students."

I'm more interested in foreign policy experience. I wonder why we don't see people like Clinton and Howard Dean as woefully underprepared. Bush 2 as well.

leeontheroad said...

Many people did see Howard Dean as woefully unprepared, of course, Ann. He didn't win any early primaries, even though he'd been decalred the "frontrunner" for months.

And 1992 was a much different era: Clinton likely would have been Kerrified in 2004.

dax, McCain has no executive experience, either-- unless you count being a military officer. His leadership there was said to be exemplary and his leadership now is (except to farther right). But it's not Executive.

What McCain does have is Senate experience and previous Pres. electoral runs. This time, he might be better prepared in South Carolina and elsewhere for the lying hacks who want to float parentage rumors about his (adopted) Bangali child, etc. That is, I hope he'd be prapared for the down and dirty of the primaries, this time.

Part of the problem for a McCain ticket or a McCain/Rice ticket will be that they'd get Independent and Dem crossover, I'm certain, but many states don't allow those folks to vote in the Repub primaries.

Daddy Warbucks said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Daddy Warbucks said...

Why not? Rewarding incompetence by promoting people seems to be the trend these days. Failed NSA to Secretary of State to President would seem to be the logical progression.

Just a small sample:

RICE heeds intel warnings on weak WMD case:

"We are able to keep arms from [Saddam]. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

Condoleezza Rice, 7/29/01

RICE then ignores intel warnings on weak WMD case:

"[Iraq is] armed with weapons of mass destruction."

Condoleezza Rice, 11/21/02

Smilin' Jack said...

The Republicans need someone with charisma. I don't think they have anyone anywhere near her in charisma. And as for everything else a candidate should have: what does she lack?

As for everything else, what does she have? She's never held elective office or run a business. As far as I can tell, she wasn't particularly distinguished as a scholar either. If she weren't a black woman, why would anyone have heard of her?

gs said...

Ann, I did read your 'better'. Imho appointive office is no substitute for experience as an elected CEO. When voting for president, I view such CEO experience as highly relevant but not an absolute prerequisite. (I expect that Gov. Mike Dukakis would have been an even worse president than Bush 41 was.)

I always keep my fingers crossed while a new president learns the international ropes. I don't see how to teach what's needed. (Bush 41 had ambassadorial experience, but he left his enemy in power and stood by while Saddam slaughtered rebellious Iraqis.)

I hope Condi gets a job like chancellor of the California university system if she doesn't enter elective politics.

Ann Althouse said...

A big problem with these comments is that I can't tell when they are coming from people who vote Democratic or Republican or who genuinely waver between the two parties. What are the ulterior motives around here? People who think Hillary Clinton has a good shot at the Democratic nomination may especially not want to see a woman as the other candidate. Some of the bad-mouthing of Condi I'm reading just translate into the usual disapproval of everything about the Bush Administration.

leeontheroad said...

Descriptions won't necessarily tell you where folks are coming from either, I suspect. But here's one: I'm a politically moderate orthodox Christian. I'm more interested in function than form, process than (what) ideology (has become). I've wanted to vote for McCain for years. I unhappily voted for Kerry in 2004 at the same time I cast ballots for a Republican Congressman and independent municipal candidates. Generally, I even vote for "dogcatcher."

gs said...

One possibility is to assess Condi within Republican and bipartisan candidate lists. Unfortunately I'm heading out the door and can't take my own suggestion just now.

dax said...

leeontheroad: I don't endorse McCain, I actually loathe the guy. However; the guy is fixated on the Presidency, he's charismatic, and because of his military record he's bulletproof (no pun).
Ann: I don't consider Dr. Rice's Stanford responsibilities at the same level of a Gov. a Mayor, or a CEO.
At the end of the day, executives are only as good as the people they surround themselves with.

Kathleen B. said...

I guess where I am coming from is that it would take quite a lot for me to vote for a Republican, so I am not obviously the target voting demographic for Sec. Rice. I do not know enough about her positions on domestic issues to say for sure whether I would support her. But given my knowledge of her foreign policy work, I cannot imagine doing so.

And as far as seeing a Hilary v. Condi race, that would actually be fascinating, and I think it would help Hilary. It would help Hilary because the rabid anti-woman vote would stay home. granted a rabid pro-woman vote would now have a choice between Hilary and Condi, but not all would choose Condi, and those that do would be outnumbered by the usual staunch Republican votes who would abstain. JMHO.

Chris said...

Interesting, but a lot of the demographic comment is completely off base. When we are not running radio spots in New Hampshire, we at Americans For Dr. do a lot of back and forth on who would vote for whom. We try to be as realistic as possible.

Most of the liberals on this board assume that All Southern White Males Are Klansmen, Ergo, They Will Stay Home. However, we believe that this conclusion is simply the result of liberals projecting their prejudices on white males. Because of her vastly superior knowledge of weapons, warfare, Eastern Bloc and Chinese military weapons and tactics, and of course, her twenty years experience in the field of strategic nuclear weapons, Dr. Rice wins men going away. Eight years on the Armed Services committee simply doesn't measure up.

We also believe that while Hillary would probably win single women, she would do so only marginally, while Rice would take married women (as Bush did this last time). Finally, we believe that while black voters would remain loyal to the Democratic Party, there would be a hemorraghe up above the 20% level. Once that occurs, a Republican candidate can expect an electoral landslide.

The stable of Republican candidates in the Senate are not impressing me right now, especially after the judges disaster. And yes, the Washington Whispers story was a planned leak.

Bruce Hayden said...

I love Dr. Rice, but don't think that she is a viable candidate. The problem is that you just can't start at the top. The reason is that campaigning and running a campaign are learned through the school of hard knocks. Some of it can be gotten gratuitiously. For example, Hillary picked up a lot with her husband's AG, governor, and presidencial runs. But she probably learned as much in her senatorial campaign.

Indeed, this last election cycle, we saw here in Colorado what happens when a good businessman (Coors) runs against an experienced politician (Salzar). Coors made a lot of dumb mistakes. Salazar didn't, and won. I think that it would have been a lot tighter, and Coors would have had a decent chance at winning, if this had not been his first campaign.

What Dr. Rice needs to do, if she wants the presidency, is to run for and win a lower level office. If, for example, she were to win a senate seat in her home state, CA, she would have a very good chance at the nomination and winning.

I do love her. She is very smart, and almost scary in her self-discipline. And there are few her equal in foreign affairs.

Bruce Hayden said...

Chris makes some good points.

What liberals seem not to really understand about conservatives, is that, except for some former Southern Democrats, conservatives are much less race conscious than liberals are. President Bush didn't name her as his NSA because she was Black, but because she is one of the best, they get along, and he trusts her implicitly. And, in my experience, most conservatives look at it similarly. (well, maybe not all the former southern Democrats who had ancesters in the Klan, but - my ancesters were on the other side of that fight).

Bruce Hayden said...

That all said, you can't take the race out of the politics. Yes, I like Dr. Rice. But one of the reasons that a lot of conservatives would back her, besides that she is one of them, is that running a Black woman for president would devistate the Democratic party.

The problem is, of course, that the Democratic party is a party of convenience. A party of interests groups whose primary attraction to each other is that of power. But the actual interest of many of these groups are diametrically opposed to each other.

For example, the African-American community, by and large, ignoring its self-appointed spokesmen like the Revs. Jackson and Sharpton:
- favor school vouchers
- are more stongly opposed to abortion than the general public, and
- are a lot more strongly opposed to gay marriage.

Indeed, if you actually look at their real interests, they are much more in tune with the religious right than they are with the liberal left. Similar religion and religious intensity. Similar views (though more extreme) on abortion and gay marriage, etc.

So, imagine the effect that the GOP running a Black woman for president would have on that group. Sure, a majority wouldn't come over, at least not for a generation or so. But enough would that the election probably wouldn't even be close.

After all, how can the Black community get up in arms about being disenfranchied, etc., when the Republicans are running one of them. A black woman who grew up as a child in the segregated south. Knew kids killed by racial violence, etc.

So, I will contend that one reason that so many on the right would back her strongly is that she is the Democratic Party's worst nightmare.

dax said...

Kathleen: What is "the rabid anti-woman vote"??????? I've never heard that one before.

Kathleen B. said...

I am more than willing to be proven wrong on this, but my honest belief is that there exists a fair number of Americans who will not vote for a woman for President. They just won't. I wish it weren't so (and hope it is not). (and hence my un-scientific characterization of the 'rabid anti-woman vote').

and while Chris has pointed out some wedge issues between liberal Democrats and some African American voters (gay marriage) the fact is that poverty and financial security, and the economy is what Democrats both white and black care about, and that will hold them together. Again, as stated above, I don't know what Sec. Rice's domestic positions are, but unless she can distance herself, she will be tainted with (what I perceive as) the Bush administrations failures on those issues.

Jason said...

You must all also remember that our Senators, Governors, and Congressmen and women are here for the domestic issues! I am honestly more concerned with the presidential candidates qualifications as far as foreign and international policy goes. Condoleezza has the experience for that, and, in recent interviews, you can tell that she has been developing her opinions on domestic issues so that they can be heard. *smiles* She's going to go for it!

PurpleStater said...

Agree with most of the commenters here that Rice does not have the campaign experience, nor the gubernatorial or Senatorial resume that are usually pre-requisites. But the board can still be set for her to play through one of two potential Rove-engineered scenarios:

1) Cheney steps down for "health reasons" before 2007 and Condi is elevated to the VP slot. Then, after two years of visibility in this role (and following her very visible performance as Sec. of State), she is credible as the heir apparent to Bush in 2008.

2) Cheney has a change of heart and announces that he is running in 2008 with Condi as his VP. They are widely supported by the GOP base. Cheney then chooses to not run for a second term and Condi becomes the nominee for 2012.

chip said...

I agree with snooker. The recent hypocrisy of the Democratic party regarding the nominations of women for judicial positions would be interesting in a Condi vs Hillary race. They wouldn't be able to say "Vote for the Woman" would they. I would like to hear how they would phrase their objection to this black woman not being a democrat in a national payday loansseo article writing

ortigasclover said...

This is really a great read for me. Thank you for publishing articles having a great insight stimulates me to check more often for new write ups. Keep posting!