<p>What does everyone think of this? </p>
<p><a href=“http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/dan-senor-condo.html[/url]”>http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/dan-senor-condo.html</a></p>
<p>She may be better qualified, but it does not do an iota of good to McCain. She won’t bring in any black votes or evangelical or sexist or redneck votes.</p>
<p>On the contrary. I think Rice brings a lot of things to the table. First and foremost her experience. Secretary of State; National Security Advisor; Polysci Prof at Stanford; Soviet and East European Affairs Advisor during the dissolution of the Soviet Union and German reunification under G.H.W. Bush; Millennium Challenge Corporation’s board of director; speaks Russian, German, French, Spanish; the list goes totally on and on and on.</p>
<p>What Rice brings mostly to the table is the voter’s inability to vote a protest vote. In other words, people won’t be able to HIDE behind voting for Obama just because he’s black or Hillary just because she’s a woman. There are those that support those two specifically because they AREN’T a White Male. Having Rice on the ticket would force voters to claim WHY they support Obama or Clinton.</p>
<p>Personally; Rice has more experience and a better resume to be PRESIDENT than Obama or Clinton does. They couldn’t touch her resume. She also has lived the experience on her own and not in the shadow of Bill Clinton. Rice lived through segregation and the civil rights period. Obama can only go on what his White mother and grandparents told him. Not that I think Obama was somehow privileged; he wasn’t. Just that as Reverend Wright said Hillary would never know what it was like to be Black; well Obama will never know what it was like to go through the civil rights period. </p>
<p>That’s why he was smart to not directly attend the tribute to Dr. Martin Luther King, this weekend. Obama was 7 years old when Dr. King was killed. I actually give Obama a pass on this one. I actually respect him for not going. It doesn’t make him appear to be a hypocrite like Clinton and McCain were. Paying tribute is one thing; but I wonder if either of them would have paid tribute had they NOT been running for president. Obama needs to separate himself and I respect that. 1st; He was too young. It was not his fight. He recognizes that and isn’t trying to be something he’s not. So far, with all the complaints I’ve had about Obama, I give a big kudo for this one. 2nd; Everyone already accepts him for being black. He doesn’t have to prove to anyone that he’s “Black enough”. I respect that also. 3rd; Most importantly, this is a day not only to remember and respect Dr. King, but a day when the vultures come out. Obama needs to stay away from these people. Dr. Kind was a visionary. He was the epitome of a Christian. He was the epitome of a man of god preaching the bible and the word of Christ. He had a dream for all black Americans as well as white Americans. Dr. King was truly one of the greatest inspirations for our country and for Blacks all over the country. Unfortunately; people like Rev. Jeremiah Wright are a DISGRACE to Christians and Dr. Kings message. The Rev., James Manning is a Disgrace to Christians and the hope that Dr. King tried to give Black Americans. Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton are a disgrace to the memory of Dr. King and what he expected out of both Black and White Americans. Because of this; Obama needs to distance himself from these hypocrites. He has to choose, just like with Wright. If you associate with them, then you condone their beliefs. Obama has to decide whether he wants to risk being associated with the likes of Jackson, Sharpton, etc…</p>
<p>If McCain was smart, he would choose his VP very soon. BEFORE the democrats have made their choice for who will be running. Condi Rice is an excellent choice. She has all the experience anyone could ever ask for; even more than both Obama and Clinton. She negates both the Black and Female vote; so the voters are now held accountable for the issues. She is the perfect choice. And if McCain was to choose he NOW; it could almost crush the rest of the democratic primary race.</p>
<p>I can’t imagine why McCain would consider her. The last thing he needs is a close link to GWB.</p>
<p>was anybody else surprised when that wasn’t a link to The Onion because damn</p>
<p>Jack; ???</p>
<p>Sorry; but I don’t understand your post in the least. Can you explain what it is you’re trying to say?</p>
<p>Christcorp, I would be happy to see Condi Rice as McCain’s running mate because it would send me a strong pro-choice signal. Condi is pro-choice for the record. McCain’s is anti-choice for the record but has in the past made some statements that suggest he may be secretly pro-choice. </p>
<p>Personally, I don’t think it is going to happen. McCain would be smart to name a woman VP but the political calculus suggests that it won’t be Condi.</p>
<p>“There are those that support those two specifically because they AREN’T a White Male.”</p>
<p>I think that the number of people this would apply to is vanishingly small–you mean people who would otherwise vote for a Republican? Come on!
I think it is highly unlikely that McCain will choose Rice, for a number of reasons. First, she is even more closely linked to the Iraq war than he is, and that is not going to be an asset. Second, she is closely linked to GWB, whose ratings are subterranean at this point. Third, she is pro-choice, at a time when McCain needs to pander to the conservative base to get anywhere. Finally, choosing her would make it harder for the conservative slime machine to whisper that America isn’t “ready” for a black/female President.</p>
<p>Christcorp – The Onion is a parody site. They are extremely funny people but the problem is that reality is so close to parody already it’s tough to tell the difference between what they’ve written and what is really going on.</p>
<p>I can’t see Sec. Rice as VP. There are too many questions re: the run-up to Iraq, the PDB of August 2001, her unswerving loyality to GWB, and how anybody so smart could get so much so wrong. Plus her long connection to oil companies. Also, is kissing babies, eating ‘state’ food at State Fairs, or connecting with crowds really her thing? Try to image her shaking hands in a crowd of people. She’s not a politician…she’s a policy wonk. </p>
<p>The Democrats wouldn’t have to work very hard to make her unelectable. She only looks good (poll-number-wise) in comparison with the abyssmal ratings of the POTUS and VPOTUS. There are 8 years worth of blunders and boo-boos that she would have to answer for every dang day, not to mention debates…plus I doubt John McSame would want anybody who is this much of a insider at the Bush Administration. It’s the same reason he won’t be naming John Ellis Bush to his slate. I don’t know if the Republican brand will survive but the Bush Brand is as finished as Lydia Pinkham’s.</p>
<p>No Hunt; I did NOT mean that these people would vote republican. I said EXACTLY what I meant. I always do. If the shoe were on the other foot and it was John Edwards as the Dem candidate and Collin Powell as the Rep candidate, there would be a certain number of people who would vote for Powell solely for the fact that he was Black. That is the same for some who are voting for Hillary because they believe it’s time that a woman be elected.</p>
<p>By having Rice as the VP under McCain, that FORCES certain voters to decide why they are going to vote for Obama or Hillary. There are currently many who will rationalize that these two are the BEST choice and they’d vote for them even if they were a white man, but I don’t believe it. Many, and probably MOST people will vote for who they think is the best qualified. There are however some that don’t. Those are the ones I was referring to.</p>
<p>As far as Rice being linked to bush, I don’t think that this would be an issue. Most Americans don’t have a problem with the war on terror or our presence in Iraq. The problem is; most Americans have the patience and attention span of a gnat. If it isn’t done in their “30 minute Sitcom” lifestyle, they get frustrated. Add to that a lot of media bias saying how bad things are over there, and the typical American gets frustrated. McCain has made it clear that we need to continue to help the Iraqi people. I agree. With that philosophy, it won’t matter if Rice is the VP. This is something McCain has to win with. It is a point that he is standing by. Have a VP with a different philosophy wouldn’t be a good idea.</p>
<p>I would love to see Madame Mendaciousness as the VEEP nominee. It would make for good TV.</p>
<p>Stay the course.</p>
<p>But Christcorp, you seem to be saying that there are people who would vote for Obama because he’s black (or because he’s not a white male, which was how you put it), who wouldn’t do so if the Republicans nominate a black woman for VP? I just can’t imagine that there are very many such people. I’m sorry, but this is just wishful thinking–McCain will not help his cause by choosing her. He might help his cause by choosing somebody who wasn’t part of the Iraq debacle at all–a governor, I guess.</p>
<p>Hunt; Yes, there are people who are going to vote for Obama for the only reason being that he is black. If Rice were the VP nominee for McCain, it would force some of these people to readdress why they are voting for someone. It would force them to look possibly as issues. If they still voted for Obama, then that’s cool. If they believed that McCain/Rice had what they were looking for; then fine that way also. It’s a mistake to believe that all blacks only vote democrat. There are plenty that vote republican. However, you will have the NAACP and others have you think that they speak for all black people. They don’t. I would just like to see American voters become educated on the issues and the candidates. They don’t have to vote the way I vote. Just vote for a reason based on the issues and the candidate’s position on those issues.</p>
<p>Hasn’t it been said over and over by political strategists that your VP choice makes almost no difference. You can’t “win” with a VP only “lose” if you pick a really bad one? I find it hard that any VP is going to either bring in votes or alienate them. We vote for P’s</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>the notion of McCain choosing Rice as a running mate is so completely ridiculous that I assumed it was going to be a link to The Onion, a satirical newspaper.</p>
<p>LAXAttack – But when the President is over seventy, not in the best of health, and is already saying things that don’t make much sense, the Veep becomes a more important focus. </p>
<p>Christcorp – Most Americans don’t have a problem with the GWOT or our presence in Iraq? What polls are you reading? 81% of the polled think the country is on the wrong track. A majority think our going into Iraq wasn’t worth the butcher’s bill. For heaven’s sake, stop watching Fox.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Almost nobody who was going to vote for McCain will change their mind just because he picks a VP that isn’t young or ideal. Look at Reagan. </p>
<p>As for the comment I think he meant this: <a href=“http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9016.html[/url]”>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9016.html</a></p>
<p>"According to late February polling conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 53 percent of Americans — a slim majority — now believe “the U.S. will ultimately succeed in achieving its goals” in Iraq. That figure is up from 42 percent in September 2007. "</p>
<p>The percentage of those who believe the war in Iraq is going “very well” or “fairly well” is also up, from 30 percent in February 2007 to 48 percent today. </p>
<p>In addition, CBS found that a clear majority of Americans were “confident” that McCain could “handle an international crisis” — 56 percent said so for McCain, 47 percent for Obama and only 39 percent for Clinton. </p>
<p>The majority of Americans may have a problem with the war in Iraq, but most also think things are going well and a majority think we will acheive our goals. Public opinion is not in line with Olbermann and his buddies. Stop watching MSNBC</p>