Full Version: Vice-President Rice?
Is this the Dems worst nightmare--a McCain-Rice ticket? Nick Hoffman at The Nation seems to think so:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080225/howl2
Do read the entire article--it is interesting.
So, questions for debate:
1) Is Ms. Rice McCain's best option for a running mate?
2) Can Rice negate any female/black advantages either Clinton or Obama will bring to the table?
3) Does Rice turn the tables on any debate about McCain's age, or was McCain putting his 90-plus year old mother on stage with him enough?
4) If McCain goes with Rice, are either Clinton or Obama forced to pick a moderate-to-conservative white male for a running mate?
4) If your answer to 4) is "yes", then whom would either Clinton or Obama choose? Would this white male be willing to run?
QUOTE
With Rice on the ticket the Republicans are freed up to run a much stronger negative campaign against either Clinton or Obama because the Secretary of State provides them with cover against charges of sexism or racism. They would be able to go after Obama's membership in Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., with whom Obama is close, has won himself the militant tag from conservatives because of his association with Nation of Islam leader the Rev. Louis Farrakhan.
They can attack Hillary's experience claims as consisting of her being Bill's wife. They can challenge her boast that she is a strong, independent woman and paint her as a weak, hopelessly-in-love woman under the spell of a man subject not only to "bimbo eruptions" but also eruptions of smarmy deals with shady business figures.
They can attack Hillary's experience claims as consisting of her being Bill's wife. They can challenge her boast that she is a strong, independent woman and paint her as a weak, hopelessly-in-love woman under the spell of a man subject not only to "bimbo eruptions" but also eruptions of smarmy deals with shady business figures.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080225/howl2
Do read the entire article--it is interesting.
So, questions for debate:
1) Is Ms. Rice McCain's best option for a running mate?
2) Can Rice negate any female/black advantages either Clinton or Obama will bring to the table?
3) Does Rice turn the tables on any debate about McCain's age, or was McCain putting his 90-plus year old mother on stage with him enough?
4) If McCain goes with Rice, are either Clinton or Obama forced to pick a moderate-to-conservative white male for a running mate?
4) If your answer to 4) is "yes", then whom would either Clinton or Obama choose? Would this white male be willing to run?
QUOTE(quick @ Mar 5 2008, 10:25 AM) 
Is this the Dems worst nightmare--a McCain-Rice ticket? Nick Hoffman at The Nation seems to think so:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080225/howl2
Do read the entire article--it is interesting.
So, questions for debate:
1) Is Ms. Rice McCain's best option for a running mate?
2) Can Rice negate any female/black advantages either Clinton or Obama will bring to the table?
3) Does Rice turn the tables on any debate about McCain's age, or was McCain putting his 90-plus year old mother on stage with him enough?
4) If McCain goes with Rice, are either Clinton or Obama forced to pick a moderate-to-conservative white male for a running mate?
4) If your answer to 4) is "yes", then whom would either Clinton or Obama choose? Would this white male be willing to run?
QUOTE
With Rice on the ticket the Republicans are freed up to run a much stronger negative campaign against either Clinton or Obama because the Secretary of State provides them with cover against charges of sexism or racism. They would be able to go after Obama's membership in Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., with whom Obama is close, has won himself the militant tag from conservatives because of his association with Nation of Islam leader the Rev. Louis Farrakhan.
They can attack Hillary's experience claims as consisting of her being Bill's wife. They can challenge her boast that she is a strong, independent woman and paint her as a weak, hopelessly-in-love woman under the spell of a man subject not only to "bimbo eruptions" but also eruptions of smarmy deals with shady business figures.
They can attack Hillary's experience claims as consisting of her being Bill's wife. They can challenge her boast that she is a strong, independent woman and paint her as a weak, hopelessly-in-love woman under the spell of a man subject not only to "bimbo eruptions" but also eruptions of smarmy deals with shady business figures.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080225/howl2
Do read the entire article--it is interesting.
So, questions for debate:
1) Is Ms. Rice McCain's best option for a running mate?
2) Can Rice negate any female/black advantages either Clinton or Obama will bring to the table?
3) Does Rice turn the tables on any debate about McCain's age, or was McCain putting his 90-plus year old mother on stage with him enough?
4) If McCain goes with Rice, are either Clinton or Obama forced to pick a moderate-to-conservative white male for a running mate?
4) If your answer to 4) is "yes", then whom would either Clinton or Obama choose? Would this white male be willing to run?
41 views but not even one response? The Veep question has to be one of the most interesting parts of this very interesting election, and no one will even venture an opinion? I am sure some of you have an opinion on this, so let's have it. TTT
QUOTE(quick @ Mar 6 2008, 10:39 AM)
41 views but not even one response? The Veep question has to be one of the most interesting parts of this very interesting election, and no one will even venture an opinion? I am sure some of you have an opinion on this, so let's have it. TTT
Sometimes we just have to live with the fact that a topic we thought was "brilliant" just lies there.
Jumper cables don't always work on battery dead threads.
BTW: I don't think McCain will pick Rice. Why would he want to tie himself to a symbol of the failed Bush administration? Further, I don't think McCain will choose anyone else closely associated with Bush.
Plus a lot of quick threads tend to be "sucker punch" threads.
I think the citizens of AD have picked up on this.
I think the citizens of AD have picked up on this.
1) Is Ms. Rice McCain's best option for a running mate?
No. McCain's weak area is economic policy. He needs a young, energetic candidate (Rice would fit the bill here) that is strong on economics (not Rice's area).
2) Can Rice negate any female/black advantages either Clinton or Obama will bring to the table?
No. The Democrat side of the electorate are identity policy voters, true. But they are also strongly Democratic. Blacks will not vote Republican because of the erroneous, decades long bashing of Republican policies--the policies that have lifted blacks out of poverty at a higher rate than ever.
3) Does Rice turn the tables on any debate about McCain's age, or was McCain putting his 90-plus year old mother on stage with him enough?
Rice is younger (she's 53) but this isn't a key issue. McCain's advantage is experience and Rice, while seasoned on foreign policy, is not a fully rounded candidate. Plus, we don't know Rice's view on non-foreign policy matters--tax policy, affirmative action, health care-- what does she think about these issues? I have no idea.
4) If McCain goes with Rice, are either Clinton or Obama forced to pick a moderate-to-conservative white male for a running mate?
I don't think the VP choice of McCain will affect the Democratic VP selection by very much. I do think the Democrat nominee will pick a white man as their VP selection, I just haven't sufficiently narrowed the field to figure out who it might be...
No. McCain's weak area is economic policy. He needs a young, energetic candidate (Rice would fit the bill here) that is strong on economics (not Rice's area).
2) Can Rice negate any female/black advantages either Clinton or Obama will bring to the table?
No. The Democrat side of the electorate are identity policy voters, true. But they are also strongly Democratic. Blacks will not vote Republican because of the erroneous, decades long bashing of Republican policies--the policies that have lifted blacks out of poverty at a higher rate than ever.
3) Does Rice turn the tables on any debate about McCain's age, or was McCain putting his 90-plus year old mother on stage with him enough?
Rice is younger (she's 53) but this isn't a key issue. McCain's advantage is experience and Rice, while seasoned on foreign policy, is not a fully rounded candidate. Plus, we don't know Rice's view on non-foreign policy matters--tax policy, affirmative action, health care-- what does she think about these issues? I have no idea.
4) If McCain goes with Rice, are either Clinton or Obama forced to pick a moderate-to-conservative white male for a running mate?
I don't think the VP choice of McCain will affect the Democratic VP selection by very much. I do think the Democrat nominee will pick a white man as their VP selection, I just haven't sufficiently narrowed the field to figure out who it might be...
QUOTE(Amlord @ Mar 6 2008, 12:51 PM)
2) Can Rice negate any female/black advantages either Clinton or Obama will bring to the table?
No. The Democrat side of the electorate are identity policy voters, true. But they are also strongly Democratic. Blacks will not vote Republican because of the erroneous, decades long bashing of Republican policies--the policies that have lifted blacks out of poverty at a higher rate than ever.
No. The Democrat side of the electorate are identity policy voters, true. But they are also strongly Democratic. Blacks will not vote Republican because of the erroneous, decades long bashing of Republican policies--the policies that have lifted blacks out of poverty at a higher rate than ever.
Got any facts to support the claim? Blacks will not vote Republican because the Republican Party is a primarily White, Southern, conservative organization. There's nothing "erroneous" about it. You don't go to parties where you're not invited.
Condoleeza Rice is a Bush sycophant. There's no room in her life to divide her loyalty between more than one White man at a time. Condi is Bush's Butterfly McQueen and she will stand by her man.
Pardon me.
I just threw up a little in my mouth...McCain would have a better chance of pulling Black votes with Jerry Rice than Condi Rice.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Mar 6 2008, 03:40 PM)
Condoleeza Rice is a Bush sycophant. There's no room in her life to divide her loyalty between more than one White man at a time. Condi is Bush's Butterfly McQueen and she will be faithful.
McCain would have a better chance of pulling Black votes with Jerry Rice than Condi Rice.
McCain would have a better chance of pulling Black votes with Jerry Rice than Condi Rice.
As the resident "racist" here, I have a comment about Mr. Nighttimer's comment:
Let me make sure I understand: If you are a "real, authentic" Africa-American, you must agree with the black political party line, correct? If not, you are an "Uncle Tom", I mean sycophant for "one White man at at time."
So, if this is the prevailing view, then true integration of U.S. culture is impossible because all "authentic" blacks must remain radicalized to anything White, and only stupid Whites would integrate into a culture that hates and mocks them.
Doesn't sound very promising, huh, NT?
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Mar 6 2008, 12:40 PM)
McCain would have a better chance of pulling Black votes with Jerry Rice than Condi Rice.
I don't think Jerry Rice would take the job, but one serious contender for it (if he was interested) is another football player named JC Watts. If I was advising the McCain campaign (and I'm not.... yet), I would throw JC's name into the mix and see if he was interested at all. Not because of his race, but rather because he has the resume. He is a conservative, has the track record to prove it and he knows where he stands on things. I think he'd be a good choice as a VP - if he was willing to take the pay-cut.
Aquilla
I thought "sycophant" sounded more respectful than "Aunt Jemima" or "lawn jockey."
Is "house Negro" a bit too much?
Or perhaps this is more appropriate?
Is "house Negro" a bit too much?
Or perhaps this is more appropriate?
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Mar 6 2008, 03:40 PM)
QUOTE(Amlord @ Mar 6 2008, 12:51 PM)
2) Can Rice negate any female/black advantages either Clinton or Obama will bring to the table?
No. The Democrat side of the electorate are identity policy voters, true. But they are also strongly Democratic. Blacks will not vote Republican because of the erroneous, decades long bashing of Republican policies--the policies that have lifted blacks out of poverty at a higher rate than ever.
No. The Democrat side of the electorate are identity policy voters, true. But they are also strongly Democratic. Blacks will not vote Republican because of the erroneous, decades long bashing of Republican policies--the policies that have lifted blacks out of poverty at a higher rate than ever.
Got any facts to support the claim? Blacks will not vote Republican because the Republican Party is a primarily White, Southern, conservative organization. There's nothing "erroneous" about it. You don't go to parties where you're not invited.
Three prominent black Republican nominees were defeated in 2006: Michael Steele, Ken Blackwell and Lynn Swann. Steele lost by 10 points, Blackwell by 24 points, Swann by 21 points. Nationally, 88 percent of black voters cast votes for the Democrat and they have for quite some time. And yet the complain that they aren't getting what they want.
I'm not going to wax poetic about what blacks should want (better representation), but give me a break. Instead of expecting something from the government and listening to Democrats who are promising them things, maybe they should change their expectations of the system.
I find it very disingenuous that blacks continue to disparage the party that has nominated the only Black Secretary of State (two in a row!) and Clarence Thomas the second black Supreme Court justice. Blacks should be angry with the results of LBJ's Great Society programs which have destroyed the black family.
If Blacks are angry at Republicans or conservatives it is because we do not pander to a group based on their skin tone. Unfortunately, we are (erroneously) "judged by the color of <our> skin <not> by the content of <our> character."
Speaking of MLK:
QUOTE
There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. *We cannot be satisfied as long as the negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their self-hood and robbed of their dignity by a sign stating: "For Whites Only."* We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until "justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream."
Mission accomplished.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Mar 6 2008, 04:09 PM)
I thought "sycophant" sounded more respectful than "Aunt Jemima" or "lawn jockey."
Is "house Negro" a bit too much?
Or perhaps this is more appropriate?
Is "house Negro" a bit too much?
Or perhaps this is more appropriate?
Nighttimer, that is seriously over the line of good taste.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Mar 6 2008, 04:09 PM)
I thought "sycophant" sounded more respectful than "Aunt Jemima" or "lawn jockey."
Is "house Negro" a bit too much?
Or perhaps this is more appropriate?
Is "house Negro" a bit too much?
Or perhaps this is more appropriate?
Let's stop with the flame-bait, please.
TOPICS:
1) Is Ms. Rice McCain's best option for a running mate?
2) Can Rice negate any female/black advantages either Clinton or Obama will bring to the table?
3) Does Rice turn the tables on any debate about McCain's age, or was McCain putting his 90-plus year old mother on stage with him enough?
4) If McCain goes with Rice, are either Clinton or Obama forced to pick a moderate-to-conservative white male for a running mate?
4) If your answer to 4) is "yes", then whom would either Clinton or Obama choose? Would this white male be willing to run?
QUOTE(Amlord @ Mar 6 2008, 04:51 PM)
QUOTE(nighttimer)
Got any facts to support the claim? Blacks will not vote Republican because the Republican Party is a primarily White, Southern, conservative organization. There's nothing "erroneous" about it. You don't go to parties where you're not invited.
Three prominent black Republican nominees were defeated in 2006: Michael Steele, Ken Blackwell and Lynn Swann. Steele lost by 10 points, Blackwell by 24 points, Swann by 21 points. Nationally, 88 percent of black voters cast votes for the Democrat and they have for quite some time. And yet the complain that they aren't getting what they want.
I ask for facts and you give me election results. Swann was a complete novice running for governor in a state where the guy who beat him, Ed Rendell, has already said about Barack Obama's chances of winning the Pennsylvania Primary "You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate." link
Ever ask yourself Amlord, how many of those conservative Whites HERE in Ohio aren't ready to vote for an African-American candidate? Notice I did NOT say "Democratic African-American" or "Republican African-American." There are a lot of conservative Whites who will NEVER, EVER vote for a African-American candidate. It doesn't matter if they are as liberal as Obama or as conservative as Blackwell. As long as they're Black, they're automatically disqualified from consideration.
Go ahead and blame Blackwell, Steele and Swann going down in flames on Black voters biased against Black conservatives. There may be some truth to that. I thought Michael Steele in particular would have been a much better Senator than the guy who won, Ben Cardin. However there is more truth to the reluctance of White conservatives to vote for
Blacks at all.
Of course, the fact that there are NO Black Republicans serving in the House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate or as the governor of any of the 50 states must be because 30 million African-Americans won't give them a break. Or could it be that White Americans won't vote for them either?
QUOTE(Amlord)
I find it very disingenuous that blacks continue to disparage the party that has nominated the only Black Secretary of State (two in a row!) and Clarence Thomas the second black Supreme Court justice.
And I find it very laughable that you think Blacks should be happy to have a champion of civil rights like Thurgood Marshall replaced by the incredibly mediocre and self-loathing schizophrenic, Clarence Thomas, the embodiment of everything that is wrong about affirmative action hires.
QUOTE(Amlord)
If Blacks are angry at Republicans or conservatives it is because we do not pander to a group based on their skin tone. Unfortunately, we are (erroneously) "judged by the color of <our> skin <not> by the content of <our> character."
Oh heavens no. Republicans are far too busy pandering to religious evangelicals and corporate America. Pandering based on religious fanaticism and corporate contributors is far more lucrative than pandering to a group of racial malcontents.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Mar 6 2008, 04:09 PM)
I thought "sycophant" sounded more respectful than "Aunt Jemima" or "lawn jockey."
Is "house Negro" a bit too much?
Or perhaps this is more appropriate?
Is "house Negro" a bit too much?
Or perhaps this is more appropriate?
QUOTE(amlord)
Nighttimer, that is seriously over the line of good taste.
I agree that a caricature of Condoleeza Rice "fighting for whitey" may be over your lines of good taste, but on the other hand I found her reaction to Hurricane Katrina to be in far worse taste:
CONDOLEEZZA RICE TAKES IN A BROADWAY SHOW: On Wednesday night, Secretary Rice was booed by some audience members at Spamalot!, the Monty Python musical at the Shubert, when the lights went up after the performance. [New York Post, 9/2/05] CONDOLEEZZA RICE VISITS U.S. OPEN: Rice, [in New York] on three days' vacation to shop and see the U.S. Open, hitting some balls with retired champ Monica Seles at the Indoor Tennis Club at Grand Central. [New York Post]
CONDOLEEZZA RICE GOES SHOE SHOPPING: "Just moments ago at the Ferragamo on 5th Avenue, Condoleeza Rice was seen spending several thousands of dollars on some nice, new shoes (we’ve confirmed this, so her new heels will surely get coverage from the WaPo’s Robin Givhan). A fellow shopper, unable to fathom the absurdity of Rice’s timing, went up to the Secretary and reportedly shouted, 'How dare you shop for shoes while thousands are dying and homeless!'"link
Tell me again, Amlord, why exactly should I be proud of Condoleeza Rice?
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Mar 6 2008, 05:49 PM)
QUOTE(Amlord @ Mar 6 2008, 04:51 PM)
If Blacks are angry at Republicans or conservatives it is because we do not pander to a group based on their skin tone. Unfortunately, we are (erroneously) "judged by the color of <our> skin <not> by the content of <our> character."
Oh heavens no. Republicans are far too busy pandering to religious evangelicals and corporate America. Pandering based on religious fanaticism and corporate contributors is far more lucrative than pandering to a group of racial malcontents.
Amazing! I called Amlord's bluff on this one nearly six months ago.
QUOTE(BoF @ Sep 26 2007, 09:36 AM)
QUOTE(Amlord @ Sep 26 2007, 10:21 AM)
Republicans shy away from pandering to groups. That is a Democratic strategy.
Now that's a real news bulletin Amlord.
What in hell have Republicans been doing with James Dobson and those other religious right clowns for years - the Terry Schiavo affair, faith based initatives, the Bush pandering on the stem cell veto, and fanning the flames of abortion and gay marriage issues.
Would you like to try again?
It's simply mind boggling how some people keep trying to fly the same kite, even after repeatedly getting it entangled in trees and telephone lines. Charles Schulz's character, Charlie Brown, may not be as dead as we thought.
This exchange with Amlord occurred on my birthday and it's apparently a gift that may keep on giving.
QUOTE(BoF @ Mar 6 2008, 07:38 PM)
This exchange with Amlord occurred on my birthday and it's apparently a gift that may keep on giving.
Hardly.
Your response to my response was to point out Mitt Romney, who most people would agree is a panderer. Of course he had his explanation of why he acted as he did as governor of Massachusetts, and we are free to believe him or not.
Show me which groups John McCain has pandered to. Which ones has he promised that are on the scale of tuition assistance, help with home mortgages, using Big Oil's money to create 5 million jobs, government run or subsidized health care, increased unemployment programs, or paid leave programs (replaces the "antiquated" unpaid Family Leave program)?
QUOTE(Amlord @ Mar 6 2008, 07:26 PM)
QUOTE(BoF @ Mar 6 2008, 07:38 PM)
This exchange with Amlord occurred on my birthday and it's apparently a gift that may keep on giving.
Hardly.
Your response to my response was to point out Mitt Romney, who most people would agree is a panderer. Of course he had his explanation of why he acted as he did as governor of Massachusetts, and we are free to believe him or not.
Not hardly.
Bush as well as Romney has pandered to the people I mentioned. You used the term "Republican" as a generic, not McCain or Romney specific, in both cases.
This is thread is about Rice. McCain is not the issue.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Mar 6 2008, 04:51 PM)
If Blacks are angry at Republicans or conservatives it is because we do not pander to a group based on their skin tone. Unfortunately, we are (erroneously) "judged by the color of <our> skin <not> by the content of <our> character."
Your statement from six months ago was also was also generic. McCain wasn’t even the nominee.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Sep 26 2007, 10:21 AM)
Republicans shy away from pandering to groups. That is a Democratic strategy.
Nice attempt to move the goalposts, Amlord.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Mar 6 2008, 06:49 PM)
Tell me again, Amlord, why exactly should I be proud of Condoleeza Rice?
That would be Dr. Rice, to you, NT. I mean, with a resume like this, it pretty much makes its own case, now doesn't it? (Go Cardinal!):
QUOTE
Currently, Secretary of State of the United States, Dr. Condoleezza Rice became the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, commonly referred to as the National Security Advisor, on January 22, 2001.
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.
As professor of political science, Dr. Rice has been on the Stanford faculty since 1981 and has won two of the highest teaching honors -- the 1984 Walter J. Gores Award for Excellence in Teaching and the 1993 School of Humanities and Sciences Dean's Award for Distinguished Teaching.
At Stanford, she was a member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control from 1981-1986 (currently the Center for International Security And Cooperation), a Senior Fellow of the Institute for International Studies, and a Fellow (by courtesy) of the Hoover Institution. Her books include Germany Unified and Europe Transformed (1995) with Philip Zelikow, The Gorbachev Era (1986) with Alexander Dallin, and Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army (1984). She also has written numerous articles on Soviet and East European foreign and defense policy, and has addressed audiences in settings ranging from the U.S. Ambassador's Residence in Moscow to the Commonwealth Club to the 1992 and 2000 Republican National Conventions.
From 1989 through March 1991, the period of German reunification and the final days of the Soviet Union, she served in the Bush Administration as Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. In 1986, while an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, she served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In 1997, she served on the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender -- Integrated Training in the Military.
She was a member of the boards of directors for the Chevron Corporation, the Charles Schwab Corporation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the University of Notre Dame, the International Advisory Council of J.P. Morgan and the San Francisco Symphony Board of Governors. She was a Founding Board member of the Center for a New Generation, an educational support fund for schools in East Palo Alto and East Menlo Park, California and was Vice President of the Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula . In addition, her past board service has encompassed such organizations as Transamerica Corporation, Hewlett Packard, the Carnegie Corporation, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Rand Corporation, the National Council for Soviet and East European Studies, the Mid-Peninsula Urban Coalition and KQED, public broadcasting for San Francisco.
Born November 14, 1954 in Birmingham, Alabama, she earned her bachelor's degree in political science, cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver in 1974; her master's from the University of Notre Dame in 1975; and her Ph.D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981. She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has been awarded honorary doctorates from Morehouse College in 1991, the University of Alabama in 1994, the University of Notre Dame in 1995, the National Defense University in 2002, the Mississippi College School of Law in 2003, the University of Louisville and Michigan State University in 2004. She resides in Washington, D.C.
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.
As professor of political science, Dr. Rice has been on the Stanford faculty since 1981 and has won two of the highest teaching honors -- the 1984 Walter J. Gores Award for Excellence in Teaching and the 1993 School of Humanities and Sciences Dean's Award for Distinguished Teaching.
At Stanford, she was a member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control from 1981-1986 (currently the Center for International Security And Cooperation), a Senior Fellow of the Institute for International Studies, and a Fellow (by courtesy) of the Hoover Institution. Her books include Germany Unified and Europe Transformed (1995) with Philip Zelikow, The Gorbachev Era (1986) with Alexander Dallin, and Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army (1984). She also has written numerous articles on Soviet and East European foreign and defense policy, and has addressed audiences in settings ranging from the U.S. Ambassador's Residence in Moscow to the Commonwealth Club to the 1992 and 2000 Republican National Conventions.
From 1989 through March 1991, the period of German reunification and the final days of the Soviet Union, she served in the Bush Administration as Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. In 1986, while an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, she served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In 1997, she served on the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender -- Integrated Training in the Military.
She was a member of the boards of directors for the Chevron Corporation, the Charles Schwab Corporation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the University of Notre Dame, the International Advisory Council of J.P. Morgan and the San Francisco Symphony Board of Governors. She was a Founding Board member of the Center for a New Generation, an educational support fund for schools in East Palo Alto and East Menlo Park, California and was Vice President of the Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula . In addition, her past board service has encompassed such organizations as Transamerica Corporation, Hewlett Packard, the Carnegie Corporation, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Rand Corporation, the National Council for Soviet and East European Studies, the Mid-Peninsula Urban Coalition and KQED, public broadcasting for San Francisco.
Born November 14, 1954 in Birmingham, Alabama, she earned her bachelor's degree in political science, cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver in 1974; her master's from the University of Notre Dame in 1975; and her Ph.D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981. She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has been awarded honorary doctorates from Morehouse College in 1991, the University of Alabama in 1994, the University of Notre Dame in 1995, the National Defense University in 2002, the Mississippi College School of Law in 2003, the University of Louisville and Michigan State University in 2004. She resides in Washington, D.C.
QUOTE(quick @ Mar 6 2008, 08:17 PM)
That would be Dr. Rice, to you, NT. I mean, with a resume like this, it pretty much makes its own case, now doesn't it? (Go Cardinal!):
Aw, c'mon quick. Bush refers to his military personnel, like Petraeus as General, but often publicly calls his Secretary of State as "Condi."
If Bush is so informal about his Secretary of State, why should NT be obligated to put the title "Dr." in front of her name.
I call you on bogus argument, quick.
QUOTE
1) Is Ms. Rice McCain's best option for a running mate?
One of the best. But imo there is nothing sexist or rasist about the last administration or the Republican party.
QUOTE
2) Can Rice negate any female/black advantages either Clinton or Obama will bring to the table?
Its possible but not certain. She is no liberal and many Clinton/Obama voters will be voting for that quality.
QUOTE
3) Does Rice turn the tables on any debate about McCain's age, or was McCain putting his 90-plus year old mother on stage with him enough?
Age should not be a factor imo
QUOTE(BoF @ Mar 6 2008, 09:29 PM)
QUOTE(quick @ Mar 6 2008, 08:17 PM)
That would be Dr. Rice, to you, NT. I mean, with a resume like this, it pretty much makes its own case, now doesn't it? (Go Cardinal!):
Aw, c'mon quick. Bush refers to his military personnel, like Petraeus as General, but often publicly calls his secretary of state as 'Condi."
If Bush is so informal about his Secretary of State, why should NT be obligated to put the title "Dr." in front of her name.
I call you on bogus argument, quick.
Why? Because Bush as President can address his cabinet in any way he and they deem fit; NT hasn't earned the privilege to call her anything but Dr. Rice. NT clearly believes, regardless of her academic achievement, her public service, her postions held (being about 4 spots in succession from the Presidency), or any similar accomplishment, because she isn't monolithically committed to a black nationalist agenda, well, she is just an ol' Uncle Tom, or as NT said, a "sycophant for a White man."
With such shortsighted views, is it any wonder this nation is having such difficulty getting black children to abandon the culture of victimization that so hampers development of their potential? I mean, if they have to read white man's history or learn white man's math, it just destroys the unity of the Black Nation.
I guess to NT Colin Powell is just an ol' Tom, too. Sad.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Mar 6 2008, 06:49 PM)
I agree that a caricature of Condoleeza Rice "fighting for whitey" may be over your lines of good taste, but on the other hand I found her reaction to Hurricane Katrina to be in far worse taste:
"Yes. Katrina-the great tragedy of the Black Nation."
"Oh, wait-I thought Katrina hit the Gulf Coast. I thought lots of white folks, like those friends of mine who live at Pass Christian, lost everything they owned."
"But they were white; they don't count. This was a Black Nation tragedy, and any black who didn't robotically hit up whitey for more money were traitors to the cause."
"Oh, I see."
Drop the race-baiting and focus on the topics or we will close this.
1) Is Ms. Rice McCain's best option for a running mate?
2) Can Rice negate any female/black advantages either Clinton or Obama will bring to the table?
3) Does Rice turn the tables on any debate about McCain's age, or was McCain putting his 90-plus year old mother on stage with him enough?
4) If McCain goes with Rice, are either Clinton or Obama forced to pick a moderate-to-conservative white male for a running mate?
4) If your answer to 4) is "yes", then whom would either Clinton or Obama choose? Would this white male be willing to run?
1) Is Ms. Rice McCain's best option for a running mate?
2) Can Rice negate any female/black advantages either Clinton or Obama will bring to the table?
3) Does Rice turn the tables on any debate about McCain's age, or was McCain putting his 90-plus year old mother on stage with him enough?
4) If McCain goes with Rice, are either Clinton or Obama forced to pick a moderate-to-conservative white male for a running mate?
4) If your answer to 4) is "yes", then whom would either Clinton or Obama choose? Would this white male be willing to run?
1) Is Ms. Rice McCain's best option for a running mate? No. I was really thinking a good amount about this today. As much as I disliked the guy during the primary, Mitt Romney is the best choice for VP for McCain. Romney's concession speech at CPAC was fantastic and won over a lot of people. Plus Romney helps McCain in 3 battlegound states: Michigan, New Hampshire, and Nevada.
2) Can Rice negate any female/black advantages either Clinton or Obama will bring to the table? This is not the way for a man of ideas and vision to win the Presidency.
3) Does Rice turn the tables on any debate about McCain's age, or was McCain putting his 90-plus year old mother on stage with him enough? This is not the way for a man of ideas and vision to lose the Presidency.
4) If McCain goes with Rice, are either Clinton or Obama forced to pick a moderate-to-conservative white male for a running mate? No. Evan Bayh for Clinton or Chris Dodd for Obama would be good picks though.
2) Can Rice negate any female/black advantages either Clinton or Obama will bring to the table? This is not the way for a man of ideas and vision to win the Presidency.
3) Does Rice turn the tables on any debate about McCain's age, or was McCain putting his 90-plus year old mother on stage with him enough? This is not the way for a man of ideas and vision to lose the Presidency.
4) If McCain goes with Rice, are either Clinton or Obama forced to pick a moderate-to-conservative white male for a running mate? No. Evan Bayh for Clinton or Chris Dodd for Obama would be good picks though.
So, questions for debate:
2) Can Rice negate any female/black advantages either Clinton or Obama will bring to the table?
I hope to God I have never, on this board or elsewhere, positioned myself as a Black Person Expert, some white guy with secret insider information on how black voters think. Lord knows we have enough of those writing major columns for newspapers and magazines like, oh, I don't know, The Nation.
But it sure doesn't take a Black Person Expert to know that Condoleeza Rice is about as warmly received in the black community as a block of dry ice.
Nas wrote that about the Vote Or Die movement that spurred up the fluttered away around 2004. I don't know how well Nas represents the african-american voting block; for one, he's from new york, when so many african-americans live down south. But words like those above are a pretty strong indication that any attempt to split the black votes by giving the secretary of state the nod will be seen as what it probably would be: a cynical and machevellian ploy to obscure the real issues facing the black community by dropping a black face on the ticket.
If John McCain wants to put Dr. Rice on his ticket because he belives in her capacity to preside over the senate, and he admires the work she's done as secretary of state, then great. That's one more black person in a position of power, and america, black and white can congratulate itself on that.
But if you want to win over the black vote, at some point, you have to say "this is what I'm doing or want to do about issues that face the black community." And Condoleeza Rice, for eight years, has been the most powerful black woman in the history of the world, yet has done nothing of the sort.
4) If McCain goes with Rice, are either Clinton or Obama forced to pick a moderate-to-conservative white male for a running mate?
Newsflash: the white male, myself included, is no longer the end all be all of American politics. Democrats could win Texas by winning Latinos. We could lose the white vote in CA (highly unlikely) and make it up by winning the black and latino vote. Forget Obama or Clinton. If either of them put Bill Richardson on the ticket, there's a good chance George Bush could be going back home to a blue state, surrounded by blue states. (NM, AK, LA).
Aside from representing some historical stride away from the past, this is a good development for American politics. I strongly believe that ethnic pluralities are, in general, good for democracy, whereas majorities are counter-productive. You go to a country like, I dunno, Kenya or Nigeria (or Iraq) where one ethnic group is able to dominate politics on numbers alone, and you see a lot of partisanship, which in turn makes room for corruption and misgovernance... sound familiar?
Our politics will work better, be more flexible, and more responsive to new problems when the power of Nixon's Silent Majority -- which, to me, always seemed code for the suburban white parental unit -- is diffused. I'd like to see an America where voting blocks are smaller, and in flux.
I'd like to see an America where the GOP can't take the "Angry White Male" for granted. I'd like to see an America where the democratic party can't take the "Angry Black Male" for granted. That would be great for angry men of all shapes and colors.
2) Can Rice negate any female/black advantages either Clinton or Obama will bring to the table?
I hope to God I have never, on this board or elsewhere, positioned myself as a Black Person Expert, some white guy with secret insider information on how black voters think. Lord knows we have enough of those writing major columns for newspapers and magazines like, oh, I don't know, The Nation.
But it sure doesn't take a Black Person Expert to know that Condoleeza Rice is about as warmly received in the black community as a block of dry ice.
QUOTE
The black vote mean [nothing], who you gonna elect
Satan or Satan? In the hood nothin is changin,
We ain't got no choices who to choose
Ten-years ago they were tryin to stop our voices
And end Hip-Hop, they some hypocrites
Condoleeza Rice - I don't really get this chick
Tell her if she ever really cared about poor schools
About poor children, then she gotta prove that she
ain't just another coon Uncle Tom fool
Like these MC's, gotta give 'em the rules
Lie to the youth, Uncle Tom you confused
Might as well give the Hip-Hop community a noose
Need a truce with the gangs and some food for the hungry
On [John] Kerry's [explitive], he look at you like a monkey
You MC's on that old slavery path
The Bushs'll look at yo' [expletive] and laugh
See, it's all about community, let's help ourselves
Cops brutalize us get dealt with with shells
It's our turn, it's 'bout time we win
Satan or Satan? In the hood nothin is changin,
We ain't got no choices who to choose
Ten-years ago they were tryin to stop our voices
And end Hip-Hop, they some hypocrites
Condoleeza Rice - I don't really get this chick
Tell her if she ever really cared about poor schools
About poor children, then she gotta prove that she
ain't just another coon Uncle Tom fool
Like these MC's, gotta give 'em the rules
Lie to the youth, Uncle Tom you confused
Might as well give the Hip-Hop community a noose
Need a truce with the gangs and some food for the hungry
On [John] Kerry's [explitive], he look at you like a monkey
You MC's on that old slavery path
The Bushs'll look at yo' [expletive] and laugh
See, it's all about community, let's help ourselves
Cops brutalize us get dealt with with shells
It's our turn, it's 'bout time we win
Nas wrote that about the Vote Or Die movement that spurred up the fluttered away around 2004. I don't know how well Nas represents the african-american voting block; for one, he's from new york, when so many african-americans live down south. But words like those above are a pretty strong indication that any attempt to split the black votes by giving the secretary of state the nod will be seen as what it probably would be: a cynical and machevellian ploy to obscure the real issues facing the black community by dropping a black face on the ticket.
If John McCain wants to put Dr. Rice on his ticket because he belives in her capacity to preside over the senate, and he admires the work she's done as secretary of state, then great. That's one more black person in a position of power, and america, black and white can congratulate itself on that.
But if you want to win over the black vote, at some point, you have to say "this is what I'm doing or want to do about issues that face the black community." And Condoleeza Rice, for eight years, has been the most powerful black woman in the history of the world, yet has done nothing of the sort.
4) If McCain goes with Rice, are either Clinton or Obama forced to pick a moderate-to-conservative white male for a running mate?
Newsflash: the white male, myself included, is no longer the end all be all of American politics. Democrats could win Texas by winning Latinos. We could lose the white vote in CA (highly unlikely) and make it up by winning the black and latino vote. Forget Obama or Clinton. If either of them put Bill Richardson on the ticket, there's a good chance George Bush could be going back home to a blue state, surrounded by blue states. (NM, AK, LA).
Aside from representing some historical stride away from the past, this is a good development for American politics. I strongly believe that ethnic pluralities are, in general, good for democracy, whereas majorities are counter-productive. You go to a country like, I dunno, Kenya or Nigeria (or Iraq) where one ethnic group is able to dominate politics on numbers alone, and you see a lot of partisanship, which in turn makes room for corruption and misgovernance... sound familiar?
Our politics will work better, be more flexible, and more responsive to new problems when the power of Nixon's Silent Majority -- which, to me, always seemed code for the suburban white parental unit -- is diffused. I'd like to see an America where voting blocks are smaller, and in flux.
I'd like to see an America where the GOP can't take the "Angry White Male" for granted. I'd like to see an America where the democratic party can't take the "Angry Black Male" for granted. That would be great for angry men of all shapes and colors.
QUOTE(quick @ Mar 5 2008, 10:25 AM)
1) Is Ms. Rice McCain's best option for a running mate?
2) Can Rice negate any female/black advantages either Clinton or Obama will bring to the table?
3) Does Rice turn the tables on any debate about McCain's age, or was McCain putting his 90-plus year old mother on stage with him enough?
4) If McCain goes with Rice, are either Clinton or Obama forced to pick a moderate-to-conservative white male for a running mate?
4) If your answer to 4) is "yes", then whom would either Clinton or Obama choose? Would this white male be willing to run?[/b]
2) Can Rice negate any female/black advantages either Clinton or Obama will bring to the table?
3) Does Rice turn the tables on any debate about McCain's age, or was McCain putting his 90-plus year old mother on stage with him enough?
4) If McCain goes with Rice, are either Clinton or Obama forced to pick a moderate-to-conservative white male for a running mate?
4) If your answer to 4) is "yes", then whom would either Clinton or Obama choose? Would this white male be willing to run?[/b]
1.) I actually hadn't thought of it like this, but I have to now say she is.
2.) I believe so. She's been black her whole life [see Obama] and a woman her whole life [see Clinton]. Those two stipulations give the campaign a lot of power over accusations that McCain is just stuck with the old white guy approach.
3.) She's in her fifties, I believe, so she's older than Obama but younger than Clinton, very much younger than McCain. I think it wouldn't hurt, at the least.
4.) I think either would be quick to pick Joe Biden, Kathleen Sebelius [who I have a crush on
] or Bill Richardson.QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ Mar 7 2008, 08:09 AM)
QUOTE(quick @ Mar 5 2008, 10:25 AM)
1) Is Ms. Rice McCain's best option for a running mate?
2) Can Rice negate any female/black advantages either Clinton or Obama will bring to the table?
3) Does Rice turn the tables on any debate about McCain's age, or was McCain putting his 90-plus year old mother on stage with him enough?
4) If McCain goes with Rice, are either Clinton or Obama forced to pick a moderate-to-conservative white male for a running mate?
4) If your answer to 4) is "yes", then whom would either Clinton or Obama choose? Would this white male be willing to run?[/b]
2) Can Rice negate any female/black advantages either Clinton or Obama will bring to the table?
3) Does Rice turn the tables on any debate about McCain's age, or was McCain putting his 90-plus year old mother on stage with him enough?
4) If McCain goes with Rice, are either Clinton or Obama forced to pick a moderate-to-conservative white male for a running mate?
4) If your answer to 4) is "yes", then whom would either Clinton or Obama choose? Would this white male be willing to run?[/b]
1.) I actually hadn't thought of it like this, but I have to now say she is.
2.) I believe so. She's been black her whole life [see Obama] and a woman her whole life [see Clinton]. Those two stipulations give the campaign a lot of power over accusations that McCain is just stuck with the old white guy approach.
3.) She's in her fifties, I believe, so she's older than Obama but younger than Clinton, very much younger than McCain. I think it wouldn't hurt, at the least.
VD you are overlooking the main reason Rice will not be McCain's pick. More than anything else, she's at the center of Bush's failed foreign policy. McCain already has the core Republican vote. Why would he want to further saddle himself to the legacy of Bush? If he does the cry "McSame" will resonate with far more meaning. I think McCain will look to the Northeast for a moderate conservative with some banking and monetary expertise.
QUOTE(BoF @ Mar 7 2008, 09:52 AM)
VD you are overlooking the main reason Rice will not be McCain's pick. More than anything else, she's at the center of Bush's failed foreign policy. McCain already has the core Republican vote. Why would he want to further saddle himself to the legacy of Bush? If he does the cry "McSame" will resonate with far more meaning. I think McCain will look to the Northeast for a moderate conservative with some banking and monetary expertise.
However that presumes a few things:
1) People besides wonks and wonk groupies connect Condi to Bushco.
2) People aren't so enamored with Condi that they don't care about her Bushco connection.
3) People are informed about Condi enough to know anything more about her than "Hey I know her."
4) People who are right leaning who looked to Hillary or Barack as someone who would look after their best interests won't look to Condi in the same light and thus vote McCain with a cleared conscience.
BTW this is by far the most despicable thread on AD due to some posts and I honestly think the entire thing should be deleted.
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Mar 7 2008, 09:21 AM)
BTW this is by far the most despicable thread on AD due to some posts and I honestly think the entire thing should be deleted.
I don't entirely disagree, but your post merely bumped the thread back to the top.
Let me put it another way. Rice will not be the vice presidential nominee. McCain will probably already get most of the vote she could help him with.
Republican women, like Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins, who are not associated with the Bush administration, would be far more help, especially in the northeast.
QUOTE(BoF @ Mar 7 2008, 08:31 AM)
Republican women, like Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins, who are not associated with the Bush administration, would be far more help, especially in the northeast.
Ahhhh.... I don't think so. Both Snowe and Collins evoke the same reactions in the conservative part of the GOP that McCain does. They wouldn't help him at all. I think McCain needs to look out of the box. In addition to J. C. Watts another African-American (since that's kinda what we're talking about here) that should be on the short list would be Michael Steele. I think he'd make a terrific VP and would most definitely galvanize the conservative wing of the party behind McCain.
Aquilla
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Mar 7 2008, 11:45 AM)
Ahhhh.... I don't think so. Both Snowe and Collins evoke the same reactions in the conservative part of the GOP that McCain does. They wouldn't help him at all. I think McCain needs to look out of the box. In addition to J. C. Watts another African-American (since that's kinda what we're talking about here) that should be on the short list would be Michael Steele. I think he'd make a terrific VP and would most definitely galvanize the conservative wing of the party behind McCain.
I agree that Watts would be a great candidate (I'm not as familiar with Steele). Condoleezza has the Neo-con, GOP, (add pejorative of choice) "stink" on her. I think that's a shame, she is a gifted person. But the fact is, wherever she is Bush will be there by association and that will hinder her success like running a race with a nail in her shoe.
Is Ms. Rice McCain's best option for a running mate?
No, see above.
Can Rice negate any female/black advantages either Clinton or Obama will bring to the table?
No. And I don't think her advantages as a female candidate would outweigh the disadvantages as a female candidate, even though she is much nicer to look at than Hillary.
If McCain goes with Rice, are either Clinton or Obama forced to pick a moderate-to-conservative white male for a running mate?
No. I don't see why. No one who would be voting for Clinton would wish for a moderate or conservative white male running mate...and those who would vote for Obama are pretty much bargaining on him living for the next four years. I own Apple stock even though I know it will be worth much less tomorrow if Steve Jobs dies this evening. I wouldn't say that Obama's running mate is irrelevant, of course it matters, but it isn't nearly as important as the geriatric McCain's running mate will be.
*************
Edited to add: McCain does have one feather in his cap (that he hasn't brought out and likely won't) that the other candidates don't. His son is serving in the military, and has just finished his first tour in Iraq.
QUOTE
Jimmy McCain is about to end his first rotation to Iraq. In more than a year of campaigning, McCain has publicly mentioned Jimmy only twice.... McCain’s reticence is in one sense understandable - he has not wanted to draw attention to Jimmy for fear of making him more of a target in Iraq. 'Frankly, it’s for [Jimmy’s] security and the security of the men and women serving around him.' Some of McCain’s rivals regard him as almost perverse for not trying to gain political advantage from his warrior sons. In a city well known for its presidential draft-dodgers, McCain has long stood out in Washington as an authentic military hero. “I just feel it’s inappropriate for us to mention our children,” the senator said recently. “I wouldn’t want to seem like I’m trying to gain some kind of advantage."
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Mar 7 2008, 10:45 AM)
QUOTE(BoF @ Mar 7 2008, 08:31 AM)
Republican women, like Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins, who are not associated with the Bush administration, would be far more help, especially in the northeast.
Ahhhh.... I don't think so. Both Snowe and Collins evoke the same reactions in the conservative part of the GOP that McCain does. They wouldn't help him at all. I think McCain needs to look out of the box. In addition to J. C. Watts another African-American (since that's kinda what we're talking about here) that should be on the short list would be Michael Steele. I think he'd make a terrific VP and would most definitely galvanize the conservative wing of the party behind McCain.
Aquilla
J. C. Watts has been around too long and has too many negatives going for him.
You might be right about Michael Steele, though.
Rice is damaged goods. She was marginalized by Cheney/Rumsfeld and doesn't really add anything to McCain's policy cred. She is a remarkable story and a credit to the ability of people to rise above their circumstances, but she doesn't really help McCain.
McCain needs a 'real 'conservative (Rush's words, not mine) that the GOP will approve of, preferably strong on economic policy. His greatest risk right now is Republicans sitting this election out, so pandering is exactly what he will likely do with this Veep choice.
And Amlord, if you don't call McCain kissing Jerry Falwell's rings at Liberty University pandering, what do you call it?
McCain needs a 'real 'conservative (Rush's words, not mine) that the GOP will approve of, preferably strong on economic policy. His greatest risk right now is Republicans sitting this election out, so pandering is exactly what he will likely do with this Veep choice.
And Amlord, if you don't call McCain kissing Jerry Falwell's rings at Liberty University pandering, what do you call it?
QUOTE(Doclotus @ Mar 7 2008, 12:13 PM)
And Amlord, if you don't call McCain kissing Jerry Falwell's rings at Liberty University pandering, what do you call it?
Pandering? Meeting with people and discussing issues is not pandering. I have no issue with McCain meeting with Falwell or Bush any more than I have a problem with him working with Leiberman or Kennedy.
Pandering has a whorish sort of intent to it, meaning that you are giving something up - in this case some government handout. What did McCain promise Falwell?
Is Ms. Rice McCain's best option for a running mate?
She may not be the best running mate for McCain if you want to stay the course in the "war on terror", but she would be a shoe in. According to Bush, McCain won't deviate from his foreign policy. Rice shouldn't have a problem promoting more rank incompetence, loyalism over meritocracy, unsubstantiated fear mongering of Armageddon proportions and ridiculous pro-democracy initiatives that have given us wonderful outcomes like a Hamas majority.
Norman Podhoretz or Elliot Abrams would be just as good.
Can Rice negate any female/black advantages either Clinton or Obama will bring to the table?
It's a wash, except Rice's negatives in the media as a black woman would be dampened by her position as veep.
Does Rice turn the tables on any debate about McCain's age, or was McCain putting his 90-plus year old mother on stage with him enough?
I don't think it matters that much. People vote for the president, no matter how young or old he is. Veeps are afterthoughts.
If McCain goes with Rice, are either Clinton or Obama forced to pick a moderate-to-conservative white male for a running mate?
No. I keep saying this. Dems are going to win regardless of who runs on the GOP side.
Pandering? Meeting with people and discussing issues is not pandering.
No, but meeting people you presumably despised for their demagoguery in order to solicit the demagogue votes they represent is pandering, imo. How far McCain has fallen from "agents of hate".
I love that Rice poster just like I love all WhiteHouse.org posters, no matter how controversial, inappropriate, etc. You know, you don't need to single out a kiss @$$ here with historical racial identifiers. I consider just about everyone working directly with Bush a kiss @$$ and a sellout to the country. But your eagerness to embrace racial terms repeatedly here and comments in the Michelle thread make me wish a McCain/Rice ticket would win the same way I want Obama to win every time I read Quick having a panic attack about a radical African overlord handing out giveaways to the race with a hard coded complex.
She may not be the best running mate for McCain if you want to stay the course in the "war on terror", but she would be a shoe in. According to Bush, McCain won't deviate from his foreign policy. Rice shouldn't have a problem promoting more rank incompetence, loyalism over meritocracy, unsubstantiated fear mongering of Armageddon proportions and ridiculous pro-democracy initiatives that have given us wonderful outcomes like a Hamas majority.
Norman Podhoretz or Elliot Abrams would be just as good.
Can Rice negate any female/black advantages either Clinton or Obama will bring to the table?
It's a wash, except Rice's negatives in the media as a black woman would be dampened by her position as veep.
Does Rice turn the tables on any debate about McCain's age, or was McCain putting his 90-plus year old mother on stage with him enough?
I don't think it matters that much. People vote for the president, no matter how young or old he is. Veeps are afterthoughts.
If McCain goes with Rice, are either Clinton or Obama forced to pick a moderate-to-conservative white male for a running mate?
No. I keep saying this. Dems are going to win regardless of who runs on the GOP side.
QUOTE(Just Leave me Alone! @ Mar 7 2008, 12:46 PM)
QUOTE(Doclotus @ Mar 7 2008, 12:13 PM)
And Amlord, if you don't call McCain kissing Jerry Falwell's rings at Liberty University pandering, what do you call it?
Pandering? Meeting with people and discussing issues is not pandering.
No, but meeting people you presumably despised for their demagoguery in order to solicit the demagogue votes they represent is pandering, imo. How far McCain has fallen from "agents of hate".
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Mar 6 2008, 04:09 PM)
I thought "sycophant" sounded more respectful than "Aunt Jemima" or "lawn jockey."
Is "house Negro" a bit too much?
Or perhaps this is more appropriate?
Is "house Negro" a bit too much?
Or perhaps this is more appropriate?
I love that Rice poster just like I love all WhiteHouse.org posters, no matter how controversial, inappropriate, etc. You know, you don't need to single out a kiss @$$ here with historical racial identifiers. I consider just about everyone working directly with Bush a kiss @$$ and a sellout to the country. But your eagerness to embrace racial terms repeatedly here and comments in the Michelle thread make me wish a McCain/Rice ticket would win the same way I want Obama to win every time I read Quick having a panic attack about a radical African overlord handing out giveaways to the race with a hard coded complex.
QUOTE(Lesly @ Mar 7 2008, 01:16 PM)
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Mar 6 2008, 04:09 PM)
I thought "sycophant" sounded more respectful than "Aunt Jemima" or "lawn jockey."
Is "house Negro" a bit too much?
Or perhaps this is more appropriate?
Is "house Negro" a bit too much?
Or perhaps this is more appropriate?
I love that Rice poster just like I love all WhiteHouse.org posters, no matter how controversial, inappropriate, etc. You know, you don't need to single out a kiss @$$ here with historical racial identifiers. I consider just about everyone working directly with Bush a kiss @$$ and a sellout to the country. But your eagerness to embrace racial terms repeatedly here and comments in the Michelle thread make me wish a McCain/Rice ticket would win the same way I want Obama to win every time I read Quick having a panic attack about a radical African overlord handing out giveaways to the race with a hard coded complex.
In my five decades, I have paniced fewer times than I have fingers, and I am surely not panicing now over the slick, well-polished fraud that is Obama and his lovely wife. But, I will do everything I can to inform the uninformed what they will be getting when then punch the tab for him and how this will offend their self-interest.
EDIT
QUOTE(quick @ Mar 6 2008, 09:17 PM)
That would be Dr. Rice, to you, NT. I mean, with a resume like this, it pretty much makes its own case, now doesn't it?
No. It would be "Madame Secretary" if I were interviewing her and "Dr. Rice" only if she indicated that was her preferred title to be addressed by.
In the informal setting of
I prefer to call her "Condoleeza" or "Condi." That's if I'm feeling polite. If I'm not---well, we don't want to go there again, do we?QUOTE(quick @ Mar 6 2008, 10:03 PM)
Why? Because Bush as President can address his cabinet in any way he and they deem fit; NT hasn't earned the privilege to call her anything but Dr. Rice. NT clearly believes, regardless of her academic achievement, her public service, her postions held (being about 4 spots in succession from the Presidency), or any similar accomplishment, because she isn't monolithically committed to a black nationalist agenda, well, she is just an ol' Uncle Tom, or as NT said, a "sycophant for a White man."
With such shortsighted views, is it any wonder this nation is having such difficulty getting black children to abandon the culture of victimization that so hampers development of their potential? I mean, if they have to read white man's history or learn white man's math, it just destroys the unity of the Black Nation.
I guess to NT Colin Powell is just an ol' Tom, too.
With such shortsighted views, is it any wonder this nation is having such difficulty getting black children to abandon the culture of victimization that so hampers development of their potential? I mean, if they have to read white man's history or learn white man's math, it just destroys the unity of the Black Nation.
I guess to NT Colin Powell is just an ol' Tom, too.
First off, I don't need to "earn" any privilege to call Condi anything but what I choose to call her. If George Bush were to walk in the door right now, I'd give him the respect due his position, but I despise false pretentiousness and treating human beings as if they occupy an exalted place of reverence based upon their connections, credentials and other pretentious symbols of status. I'm not impressed by how many degrees you hold or how prominent you are in social services. If you're only about making the world a better place for yourself, then I think you're a waste of perfectly good air.
Secondly, to be accurate a Black female who collaborates with White men of power and privilege for her own self-interest and advancement and at times in direct opposition to the interests and advancement of other Blacks is not a "ol' Uncle Tom." "Uncle Toms" are males. "Aunt Jemimas" are female. If you prefer to keep gender out of it, we can just stick with gender-negative terms such as "sellout."
Third, neither history or math are "White." Nor are they "Black." History and mathematics transcend distinctions such as race. A well-rounded education should include a exposure to both the works of Shakespeare and Zora Neale Hurston as well as the theories of Archimedes or David Blackwell.
History and mathematics are concepts beyond color. 2 + 2 doesn't equal "Black" or "White."
Four: Regards Colin Powell, my reply to you is this: "This argument about him not being black enough, that's just absolute nonsense. He is putting himself forward not as a black man but as an American man who wants to be president of the United States of America. We should see Barack as a candidate for president who happens to be black, and not a black candidate for president." ~ Colin Powell speaking on The Tavis Smiley Show.
General Powell is an authentic American hero and despite my difference of opinion with him over the waging of the second Iraq War, my admiration and respect for him remains undiminished.
Had Powell chosen run in 2000 or 2004, would I have supported him over Al Gore and John Kerry? Quite possibly...
What about you, quick?
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Mar 7 2008, 11:45 AM)
In addition to J. C. Watts another African-American (since that's kinda what we're talking about here) that should be on the short list would be Michael Steele. I think he'd make a terrific VP and would most definitely galvanize the conservative wing of the party behind McCain.
Michael Steele would be a superb choice for McCain, but I think the odds of him being on the ticket are just about nil. While Steele has the conservative credentials, I don't think the Republicans are ready to pull a Black man a heartbeat away from the presidency.
Look at the problems the Democrats are having and it's hard to envision it being any better for the Republicans.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Mar 8 2008, 02:30 AM)
I don't think the Republicans are ready to pull a Black man a heartbeat away from the presidency.
Look at the problems the Democrats are having and it's hard to envision it being any better for the Republicans.
Look at the problems the Democrats are having and it's hard to envision it being any better for the Republicans.
I have to disagree here. The Republicans have shown far more willingness to include minorities in places of power than Democrats - especially in the last ~20 years. I'd venture to guess if Barack Obama is not elected President that the Republicans are far more likely to nominate and elect a black or other minority President than the Democrats. I smell a thread.
QUOTE(Lesly @ Mar 7 2008, 01:16 PM)
QUOTE(Just Leave me Alone! @ Mar 7 2008, 12:46 PM)
QUOTE(Doclotus @ Mar 7 2008, 12:13 PM)
And Amlord, if you don't call McCain kissing Jerry Falwell's rings at Liberty University pandering, what do you call it?
Pandering? Meeting with people and discussing issues is not pandering.
No, but meeting people you presumably despised for their demagoguery in order to solicit the demagogue votes they represent is pandering, imo. How far McCain has fallen from "agents of hate".
So McCain is guilty by association? Do you think that he is as liberal Ted Kennedy? They wrote a bill together. Was he pandering then? To whom? McCain associates with a lot of people because they are all Americans and deserve to have their voices at least heard. This identity politics stuff is so weak.
QUOTE(Just Leave me Alone! @ Mar 9 2008, 12:14 AM)
QUOTE(Lesly @ Mar 7 2008, 01:16 PM)
QUOTE(Just Leave me Alone! @ Mar 7 2008, 12:46 PM)
QUOTE(Doclotus @ Mar 7 2008, 12:13 PM)
And Amlord, if you don't call McCain kissing Jerry Falwell's rings at Liberty University pandering, what do you call it?
Pandering? Meeting with people and discussing issues is not pandering.
No, but meeting people you presumably despised for their demagoguery in order to solicit the demagogue votes they represent is pandering, imo. How far McCain has fallen from "agents of hate".
So McCain is guilty by association? Do you think that he is as liberal Ted Kennedy? They wrote a bill together. Was he pandering then? To whom? McCain associates with a lot of people because they are all Americans and deserve to have their voices at least heard. This identity politics stuff is so weak.
Why the McCain defense, JLmA? Am I suppose to knock it off 'cause he can agree with Kennedy? It sounds like the Ted reubttal for anything related to Iraq, national "security" and Democrats.
The GOP panders to fundamentalist Christians. McCain wasn't down with this but has changed his mind to gain their support. In exchange for his pandering, fundamentalist Christians will feel empowered. Come 2010 Republicans will remember the suckers and throw them a bone in terms of an anti-flag burning amendment, anti-gay marriage bill or similar nonsense just before recess.
Condi rice has as much chance of being nominated for VP as i do- that is to say- none. Only Colin Powell was able to somewhat deflect his "uncle tom" status by resigning early on from the GW regime, and I think most feel sorry for him, since he got his reputation so tarnished by his association with "the regime". Condi, to say the least, comes off as a sycophant- big time.
America is racist- we need to understand that to over come that. Proof is in front of us everyday- people don't get call backs for interviews with black sounding names. A black sounding accent will get you passed over for housing and jobs. Etc etc.
That being said- I do believe there is a woman in line right now for the VP- and the buzz is it is our own Sarah Palin
http://www.adn.com/front/story/339587.html
But there's an undeniable national buzz surrounding the first-term governor, seen by many Republicans both within Alaska and outside the state as a fresh, new face to represent the party's future. The vice presidency may be far-fetched, but the hype has only helped Palin's future political prospects -- and Alaska's reputation.
"This happens almost every cycle, that the great mentioner starts spinning all sorts of names, some of which are more realistic than others," said Joel Goldstein, a law professor at Saint Louis University who has written a book on the vice presidency. "Even for somebody who doesn't end up getting selected, it never hurts to get mentioned as a candidate for national office."
Palin is quick to note that she has not spoken to McCain or other national Republican leaders about the prospect. But it certainly came up when she was in Washington two weeks ago for a meeting of the National Governors Association. There, she rubbed elbows with other governors whose names have been bandied about for VP: Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a Republican, and Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat.
Everyone treated it lightly, Palin said, including a former Texas governor who himself made the transition to the White House.
"We all had a meeting with President Bush and he said, 'Look at all these vice presidents sitting here,' " Palin said in an interview last week. "Because Pawlenty was sitting next to me, and then Janet Napolitano was sitting on my other side."
________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
If McCain selects her- it will be a very hard positive for the repubs- it is hard to argue with her success- similar to Obama's in a way in her crossover appeal as a "common sense conservative" - someone that puts results ahead of ideology, and doesn't mind fighting Oil companies when they offer the state a sour deal.
Someone that understands that being penny wise can end up being pound foolish.
Also- the reason she was elected really- was that she stood up to the former Governer's corruption, in a big, public way, and still does. I think she is probably the most honest governer in the land today- bar none. That would help McCain, big time. She doesn't cozy up to big biz interests that way McCain does, and the keating 5 and letters to the FAA show that McCain is WAY too cozy with big biz interests vs American interests.
America is racist- we need to understand that to over come that. Proof is in front of us everyday- people don't get call backs for interviews with black sounding names. A black sounding accent will get you passed over for housing and jobs. Etc etc.
That being said- I do believe there is a woman in line right now for the VP- and the buzz is it is our own Sarah Palin
http://www.adn.com/front/story/339587.html
But there's an undeniable national buzz surrounding the first-term governor, seen by many Republicans both within Alaska and outside the state as a fresh, new face to represent the party's future. The vice presidency may be far-fetched, but the hype has only helped Palin's future political prospects -- and Alaska's reputation.
"This happens almost every cycle, that the great mentioner starts spinning all sorts of names, some of which are more realistic than others," said Joel Goldstein, a law professor at Saint Louis University who has written a book on the vice presidency. "Even for somebody who doesn't end up getting selected, it never hurts to get mentioned as a candidate for national office."
Palin is quick to note that she has not spoken to McCain or other national Republican leaders about the prospect. But it certainly came up when she was in Washington two weeks ago for a meeting of the National Governors Association. There, she rubbed elbows with other governors whose names have been bandied about for VP: Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a Republican, and Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat.
Everyone treated it lightly, Palin said, including a former Texas governor who himself made the transition to the White House.
"We all had a meeting with President Bush and he said, 'Look at all these vice presidents sitting here,' " Palin said in an interview last week. "Because Pawlenty was sitting next to me, and then Janet Napolitano was sitting on my other side."
________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
If McCain selects her- it will be a very hard positive for the repubs- it is hard to argue with her success- similar to Obama's in a way in her crossover appeal as a "common sense conservative" - someone that puts results ahead of ideology, and doesn't mind fighting Oil companies when they offer the state a sour deal.
Someone that understands that being penny wise can end up being pound foolish.
Also- the reason she was elected really- was that she stood up to the former Governer's corruption, in a big, public way, and still does. I think she is probably the most honest governer in the land today- bar none. That would help McCain, big time. She doesn't cozy up to big biz interests that way McCain does, and the keating 5 and letters to the FAA show that McCain is WAY too cozy with big biz interests vs American interests.
QUOTE(quick @ Mar 5 2008, 11:25 AM)
So, questions for debate:
1) Is Ms. Rice McCain's best option for a running mate?
2) Can Rice negate any female/black advantages either Clinton or Obama will bring to the table?
3) Does Rice turn the tables on any debate about McCain's age, or was McCain putting his 90-plus year old mother on stage with him enough?
4) If McCain goes with Rice, are either Clinton or Obama forced to pick a moderate-to-conservative white male for a running mate?
4) If your answer to 4) is "yes", then whom would either Clinton or Obama choose? Would this white male be willing to run?
1) Is Ms. Rice McCain's best option for a running mate?
2) Can Rice negate any female/black advantages either Clinton or Obama will bring to the table?
3) Does Rice turn the tables on any debate about McCain's age, or was McCain putting his 90-plus year old mother on stage with him enough?
4) If McCain goes with Rice, are either Clinton or Obama forced to pick a moderate-to-conservative white male for a running mate?
4) If your answer to 4) is "yes", then whom would either Clinton or Obama choose? Would this white male be willing to run?
1) Nah, she has too much yes-man Bush baggage. If they packaged her with McCain during this year of all years, it would fly in the face off all that she's said about being treated as an individual by the GOP and not as a representative of her race. It's too late for the GOP to cash in on the media hype surrounding the first female/black president. If they put a minority on the ticket with McCain at this point then it would look an awful lot like the GOP was pandering to minority groups. They're supposed to be the merit party. Plus they've already bussed in a black candidate to run against Obama once before, for the Illinois senate race and that failed miserably.
2) I actually agree that there are some female/black advantages in running for the president right now (mostly publicity and media hype)... but the novelty of a female/black candidate is wearing off pretty fast and by the time November rolls around it will be more of a liability than anything. So, no.
3) The issue about electing a septuagenarian to the presidency is based on whether or not he can stay healthy enough fulfill his term. Packaging the candidate with a (relatively) youthful VP doesn't do anything to specifically address that issue. Folks want the person they voted for as president to be the president, I really don't think VP's matter all that much.
4) They pretty much have to do that anyway regardless of who the GOP goes with. Can you imagine Obama picking a black VP, or Clinton picking a female one? They would get pigeonholed so fast and would scare away so many non-black or non-female voters so quickly that their party would probably hold an emergency recall vote and change their nomination.
4.5) I have no idea.
QUOTE(Lesly @ Mar 9 2008, 01:40 AM)
QUOTE(Just Leave me Alone! @ Mar 9 2008, 12:14 AM)
QUOTE(Lesly @ Mar 7 2008, 01:16 PM)
QUOTE(Just Leave me Alone! @ Mar 7 2008, 12:46 PM)
QUOTE(Doclotus @ Mar 7 2008, 12:13 PM)
And Amlord, if you don't call McCain kissing Jerry Falwell's rings at Liberty University pandering, what do you call it?
Pandering? Meeting with people and discussing issues is not pandering.
No, but meeting people you presumably despised for their demagoguery in order to solicit the demagogue votes they represent is pandering, imo. How far McCain has fallen from "agents of hate".
So McCain is guilty by association? Do you think that he is as liberal Ted Kennedy? They wrote a bill together. Was he pandering then? To whom? McCain associates with a lot of people because they are all Americans and deserve to have their voices at least heard. This identity politics stuff is so weak.
Why the McCain defense, JLmA? Am I suppose to knock it off 'cause he can agree with Kennedy? It sounds like the Ted reubttal for anything related to Iraq, national "security" and Democrats.
The GOP panders to fundamentalist Christians. McCain wasn't down with this but has changed his mind to gain their support. In exchange for his pandering, fundamentalist Christians will feel empowered. Come 2010 Republicans will remember the suckers and throw them a bone in terms of an anti-flag burning amendment, anti-gay marriage bill or similar nonsense just before recess.
McCain can have strong words with someone and then come back to the table for a discussion. What a weakness! I need a POTUS who can hold a grudge! A person who doesn't totally demonize anyone who disagrees with him is a pansy!
Too many people think this way. It's sick. So much for change and unity. You're supposed to knock it off Lesly because John McCain is not Falwell, Bush, or any other person that you want to try and tie him to. He's John McCain- budget hawk, limited government advocate, stand up guy. After this Obama/Rev. Wright fiasco I hope that you can see exactly how unfair what you doing here is.
QUOTE(Just Leave me Alone! @ Mar 16 2008, 01:18 AM)
McCain can have strong words with someone and then come back to the table for a discussion. What a weakness!
I guess we'll agree to disagree. I don't think much more can be said. To you McCain dissing Bush for "pandering" to religious nuts a few years ago and pandering to them now has nothing to do with the votes and political contributions they represent.
QUOTE(Just Leave me Alone! @ Mar 16 2008, 01:18 AM)
I need a POTUS who can hold a grudge! A person who doesn't totally demonize anyone who disagrees with him is a pansy! Too many people think this way. It's sick.
Yeah and they all voted for George Bush.
Twice.
QUOTE(Just Leave me Alone! @ Mar 16 2008, 01:18 AM)
After this Obama/Rev. Wright fiasco I hope that you can see exactly how unfair what you doing here is.
The fiasco? I guess. I wish more black churches were interested in Africa to be honest, and it is in Obama's interest to further distance himself from Wright, but I'm not surprised this is turning up, considering the impression I got at an Obama rally:
I went to Michelle Obama's OSU rally last week and McCain's post-Wisconson rally in The Columbus hotel last night.
I've said before how the GOP doesn't appreciate how conservative African Americans are even though they tend to vote Democratic so I wasn't surprised Michelle's speech carried religious undertones. What struck me was how religious. Bush said God talks to him. Apparently that was Obama dropping a line.
It's cute watching Republicans blow a gasket over religious nuts a presidential Democratic candidate associates with, however. Keep up the indignation and concern for a few more election cycles, don't forget to include members of your own party like McCain, and I may start taking conservatives seriously instead of assuming they're merely despondent Democrats are using their own electoral tricks pandering to crazies.
QUOTE(Lesly @ Mar 16 2008, 01:35 AM)
QUOTE(Just Leave me Alone! @ Mar 16 2008, 01:18 AM)
I need a POTUS who can hold a grudge! A person who doesn't totally demonize anyone who disagrees with him is a pansy! Too many people think this way. It's sick.
Yeah and they all voted for George Bush.
Twice.
Obviously not all of them. You saw what the ones who think this way tried to do to McCain in the Republican primary. Limbaugh et al almost succeeded in completely misrepresenting him. I'm can't believe that you find this sort of attack "cute". Shouldn't surprise me since again you try to pass off McCain as some kind of panderer for meeting with members of his party. Calling McCain a panderer couldn't be more wrong. He campaigned in Iowa against corn subsidies. He then campaigned in Michigan and refused to offer up a Detriot bailout. He then campaigned in Florida and refused to saddle us with another bueracratic mess in the form of National Catastrophy Insurance. McCain tries to do what is best for all America, not just some subgroup. That is why he doesn't slide pork projects into bills and why he has crusaded against the practice in this campaign. Again, McCain is the guy who writes bills with Kennedy, Leiberman, Feingold, and other Democrats. Is he pandering to the left then? Can John McCain meet with anyone without being a panderer?
A little more smoke, but will it catch fire?
WASHINGTON, April 6 (UPI) -- U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has exhibited interest in becoming John McCain's vice presidential running mate, a Republican strategist says.
Dan Senor revealed during Sunday's edition of ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" that Rice has been seeking support to be considered for the No. 2 spot on the Republican ticket this fall.
"Condi Rice has been actively, actually in recent weeks, campaigning for this," Senor said.
The party strategist said Rice could represent an ideal vice presidential candidate when paired with the Arizona senator, who is the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.
"What the McCain campaign has to consider is whether or not they want to pick a total outsider, a fresh face, someone a lot younger than him, a governor who people aren't that familiar with," Senor said. "The challenge they're realizing is that they'll have to have to spend 30-45 days, which they won't have at that point, educating the American public about who this person is.
"The other category is someone who people instantly say, the second they see that announcement, I get it, that person could be president tomorrow. Condi Rice is an option."
link
WASHINGTON, April 6 (UPI) -- U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has exhibited interest in becoming John McCain's vice presidential running mate, a Republican strategist says.
Dan Senor revealed during Sunday's edition of ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" that Rice has been seeking support to be considered for the No. 2 spot on the Republican ticket this fall.
"Condi Rice has been actively, actually in recent weeks, campaigning for this," Senor said.
The party strategist said Rice could represent an ideal vice presidential candidate when paired with the Arizona senator, who is the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.
"What the McCain campaign has to consider is whether or not they want to pick a total outsider, a fresh face, someone a lot younger than him, a governor who people aren't that familiar with," Senor said. "The challenge they're realizing is that they'll have to have to spend 30-45 days, which they won't have at that point, educating the American public about who this person is.
"The other category is someone who people instantly say, the second they see that announcement, I get it, that person could be president tomorrow. Condi Rice is an option."
link
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.