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!
२३ मे, २००५
Draft Condi.
USNews reports (via Wonkette):
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२० टिप्पण्या:
Yeah, and then court martial her. Civilian justice is too good for her.
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.
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.
chuckles... she's too old to be drafted though. i guess jenna and barbara could fill in for her, though. imagine them in BDUs.
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?
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.
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!
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.
gs: You missed a key word in my comment: "better."
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.
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.
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?
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: 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.
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.
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).
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.
Kathleen: What is "the rabid anti-woman vote"??????? I've never heard that one before.
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.online payday loansseo article writing
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा