Very interesting, I read the Fox news article earlier. It’s a captivating story either way, even the she is still not giving any credence to the rumors.

At least we can stop pretending. No need for Chevron to lobby in DC; they ARE DC!

I don't think Rice will be the V choice. McCain called her a "Great American" and went on and on about her....I think that was a tell tale sign....it won't be CR. Just my guess.

Why not Condi? What better way to carry out W's policies after he is gone than to enlist his top ball-washer. I know someone who used to work with her at Stanford and he told me she would never do it. She is a Bushie to the bone. McCain does not inspire Condi, the republicans or this nation. My only problem with Condi is that she operates on blind devotion to W. In the face of a fraudulent war, she keeps marching on. Even good soldier, Colin Powell, had enough self-respect to walk away (AFTER he was put out there to sell this this bogus endeavor in Iraq).

I'm not sure Condi has the stamina to do what it takes to be VP without her beloved Georgie as her boss/guru/mentor.

Rice as VP candidate? A failed foreign policy is Rice's legacy....just what this country needs!

I believe McCain needs a battleground state VP choice.There is a lot of blather about the red state/blue state not being the same as 2000 and 2004.Nonsense.Being from Indiana I have been amused by some talking heads who have picked the state being 'in play' by Dems.Well,here are some interesting statistics: 92 of 94 counties voted for W in 2004.The county I live in voted 17,000 to 8,000 for Georgie.That is a HUGE margin.Not much has changed and a few states will again decide it. Ohio,Michigan,Pennsylvania come to mind.

Simon! What's with the name calling man! You just criticized UC for calling Obama a punk. Rice Bush's top ball-washer?! In my opinion I'd say "ball-washer" is a little more offensive than "punk"

Is it name calling when it's true? Maybe I should have used caddy instead. Caddies wash the balls for their golfers. It is an appropriate analogy in the Bush/Condi dynamic but nice try.

Bleh, it's still pandering and not a merit-based decision. Condi is talented but there are better people like Romney. He has an excellent history of solving public problems.

http://www.mehglobal.com/gore

simonesdad2008,

Coming from another direction, I'd think that the remark, "I'm not sure Condi has the stamina to do what it takes to be VP without her beloved Georgie as her boss/guru/mentor," was either sexist or racist, or maybe both.

As it is, I assume that it is a statement of belief, regarding Condoleezza Rice as an individual.

I'm moderately surprised that no one else noticed, or, rather, commented on, this lapse in proper speech.

In reference to the "ball washer" references, let's remember the presidential tone set by the previous Clinton administrations.

Under the circumstances, I'd say that it's quite natural to assume that subsequent presidents would get services below and between the call of duty, by members of their staff.

As for the actual topic of this post:

I've thought that C. Rice would be a not-surprising candidate, from a marketing point of view. A cynic would observe that she's a 'twofer:' a (1) black (2) woman.

I think, however, that another candidate for VP will be chosen. For one thing, Condoleezza Rice may have career goals that do not include being the presidential backup.

Lack of extreme liberal credentials, and association with the loathed and hated B-word administration aside, she has shown considerable diplomatic skills. The closest historical parallel that comes to mind is Henry Kissinger, although she isn't the media personality he was.

Norski.....liked that last comment:
".......................I'd say that it's quite natural to assume that subsequent presidents would get services below and between the call of duty, by members of their staff."
But seriously, don't you think Condi is totally discredited as far as judgment and leadership is concerned.....especially when she may assume the role as top?

davidwwalters,

C.R. discredited? I suppose it depends on where one is.

Any place where President Bush is recognized as a sort of secular Satan incarnate, or at least one of his close disciples, Rice is toast. She's been too closely connected with the Bush administration.

I see no problem with her adhering to the current administration's policies. But then, I believe that a subordinate is supposed to carry out a superior's instructions. Or, if that is not possible, withdraw from the association.

I would be more concerned with her character and potential as a leader if she had not demonstrated the ability to follow the administration's lead.

In a not-entirely-irrelevant vein, I'd be concerned about a police officer who decided that a city's littering laws were too lenient, and began frisking people for items that might later be discarded. The officer would have demonstrated a fine concern for the urban environment. On the other hand, such behavior would raise questions as to what else the officer might do.

Norski.....
You don't think for a moment that Rice wouldn't be interested in a slot as maybe the successor to a perhaps victorious McCain?
And really, do you believe a subordinate's role is only to agree with the boss? The whole purpose of advisers is to present facts for a judgement to be made. In the end, Rice has told Bush/Cheney what they wanted to hear.
i really wanted this thing in iraq to go better than it has. It is obvious to me that our policy has failed miserably, mostly because tough questions weren't asked. No, i am not proud of this administration......and i wish it weren't so.

davidwalters,

"And really, do you believe a subordinate's role is only to agree with the boss? The whole purpose of advisers is to present facts for a judgement to be made. In the end, Rice has told Bush/Cheney what they wanted to hear."

I said that the role of a subordinate is to carry out the policies of 'the boss.'

I am not privy to conversations between White House staff and the president, and so cannont say whether or not "Rice has told Bush/Cheney what they wanted to hear."

However, once advice has been given, I do believe that the duty of a subordinate is to carry out the superior's instructions. Or, if that is not possible, resign.

It's an old-fashioned way of looking at duty, but I see no reason to change it. Quite the contrary.

As to Rice's career goals? I don't know what her preferences would be. I do know that she's relatively young (54 this year), and so may have plans well beyond the relatively short-term vice-presidential job.

And, if she intends to become President Rice, I believe that she'd be well-advised to avoid the vice-presidency, and run in the 2012 or 2016 elections.

.......can't carry out the boss's policy if you don't agree with it, huh?
Reminds me of Col H. Moore in "We were Soldiers......"
He says he should have resigned instead of going ahead with a flawed plan. But he co-authored the book, that helped make up for his first mistake.......
Why is it we Americans so insistent on pleasing the boss?

Norski,

You conservatives will only let Condi get so far. It's not a race or sex thing. It's a family thing. The party of "family values" will not be able to reconcile an unmarried, never been married, no child(ren) candidate. We got a taste of that during the Harriet Meyers debacle. If Hillary were a 54 year old childless, unmarried woman I can just imagine what you guys would be doing with inuendo or just straight out accusations. In this day and age of politics it is a major consideration and fair game unfortunately. It would be revolutionary if you guys even put her up. I'm not saying she is or isn't. Quite frankly it is not a concern of mine but you guys run entire anti-gay campaigns. It's a pillar of conservatism. How will you guys address this?

davidwalters,

"Why is it we Americans so insistent on pleasing the boss?"

In my case, because the boss signs the paycheck. it's his money.

Also, I have a duty to do the best job I can.

There are times when a subordinate has sworn to follow the will of a superior.

These are matters of honor and duty which I suppose you do not, and perhaps can not, understand.

simonesdad2008,

"It's not a race or sex thing."

Yes, I thought I'd hit a nerve there.

Of course, it's not. Conservatives are racist, sexist pigs. Liberals, by definition, cannot err in that way.

All,

Sorry. I may not be back for a while.

I'll be stopping in occasionally, but probably won't comment.

Frankly, I've decided that dealing with congnito-emotionally challenged ideologues is not sufficiently rewarding, considering the time and effort it takes.

And, although this comment is not very polite, I do not regard its message as name-calling. In my opinion, based on what I have seen written here over the last few weeks, it is a relatively straightforward statement of fact.

.......Honor&Duty? are you kidding? i served 7 years as a paratrooper.......
As a subordinate, i ALWAYS voiced my opinion, especially when lives were on the line.
The difference w/ being in service is you have to follow orders. But that doesn't negate positive input. Just as Hal Moore did in 1964. No, we need leaders who listen to subordinates, and take wise counsel.
I guess i was good enough at what i did to get away with having a big mouth. But i have always backed up my words with action.

Dr. Rice is a fine person and deserves a lot more respect than she is getting. She is smart as a whip and a GREAT role model for African American girls, for all girls.

Some of her accomplishments (let's see you match them):
-Bachelor's degree in political science, cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver

-Master's from the University of Notre Dame in 1975

-Ph.D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981.

-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.

-A professor of political science, 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.

-A six year tenure as Stanford University 's Provost

-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

Let's see, BA from Columbia University, after attending Harvard Law School Obama became a lawyer and a community organizer in Chicago, served as an Illinois state senator for eight years then a US senator. Oh yea, he published a book in 1995.... wow, what a resume. He's book smart but has very little practical experience if you compair him to MOST politicians....
Even Condi would make a better president than Obama....if DW says that practical experience is more important than smarts.....

petunia,

Can you answer how the "family values" party will reconcile Ms. Rice's absence of family? Will it be a don't ask, don't tell policy? Will you drop her like a hot rock if the questions go unanswered or worse (for conservatives), answered? It will be an issue rightly or not. It is the nature of today's political climate and exactly why she won't be put up by you guys. Too bad too because she certainly has an impressive resume but ask Bill Richardson, who has one of the most impressive resumes out there and has actually been elected to something in his life, if that is enough. Washington is knee deep in highly credentialed professional people.

I thought as a liberal you didn't look at personal family matters - for crying out loud, Clinton had affairs his whole marriage and Hillary's sleeping with the gals too.... "absence of family"?
Is it that strange that a person has never been married? She sounds like she is married to her career and takes it very seriously. Nothing wrong with that, sounds more healthy than the Clintons.

We don't care. You guys do though. That's what I was saying. I also said I could personally care less. I also said you would bring it up in the form of innuendo or straight out accusation with Hillary. To take one of your standard responses, petunia, you are proving my point. This is presidential politics. Everything is in play. It's not strange that she has never been married. The questions will persist though. Name one modern national candidate or incumbent past or present who is not gay that has never been married and has no kids? I think Americans can relate to infidelity or divorce (Clinton, Guiliani) but people are going to say she has never raised a family or had to balance home and work or ever cared for a sick child or had to save for college. She can't relate to the common struggles of families. You can't tell me that if the shoe were on the other foot you wouldn't be banging the "family values", anti-gay conservative drums. I know you would and deep down you know it too. It's page one of the conservative play book. Condi knows it too and it will be interesting to watch you guys talk all around it. It's poetic justice really and the irony is delicious.

Actually, I have friends who are not married and not gay so I cannot say it even crossed my mind. I think anyone can relate to family struggles coming from the background she had to endure.....so your point is mute. And I know a few people in the Arkansas government and a few that were "security" at their mansion that knows Hillary is interested in the other gender.....The marriage was perfect for them. He ran around, she ran around and they both had political aspirations. They helped each other to the top (so to speak). "family values" does matter but not when they are single, married to their work....come on....you don't have to be married or gay.....I hope most people aren't that shallow and stupid.

The term is moot not "mute." I don't recall asking about your friends. Again, name one national candidate or incumbent that is "married to their work?" It can be as shallow and stupid as you want it to be. That doesn't make it any less real. Candidates do whole political ads featuring their families. Spouses are big parts of the campaign these days. Quick quiz: Who is Elizabeth Dole married to? Who was Ronald Reagan married to before Nancy? What was Jackie Kennedy's maiden name? We all know the answers to these questions because it is part of the candidate's narrative. Society casts a suspicious eye at childless, unmarried adults over a certain age. It's unfair but it's even more pronounced for a woman. Plus do we want someone with a one dementional life? Being a mom/dad or being a wife/husband or being in love is as basic a human experience as there is. I can't believe I'm arguing the benefits and value of family life with a conservative. Just say outright that family life should not be a factor in considering a national candidate. I want to actually see the words from you, petunia. Because that's going to put you in this weird corner as a conservative. That's the dilemma all conservatives face eventually. How do square the self righteous, holier than thou, hard line, black and white stances typical conservatives take with life and all it's twists and turns. Who knew that a black, possible gay, woman would be looked to to save the conservatives. It's a great "liberal" story.

petunia,
again, you are missing the point......."if DW says that practical experience is more important than smarts....."
What exactly does a "provost" do? Do you have to be smart, or just a good ass kisser? Does it provide insight into the plight of working Americans? Or is it silly resume filler?
I don't know, but the problem MOST politicians have is their remoteness from the day to day lives of working Americans. I may be wrong, but working on grass roots organization as Obama has may give him some insight to the problem's of modern Americans.
We have had enough of "Chairman of the Board" experience,we've had friends of business extolling the virtues of "Trickle Down" economics .........CEO's are rich enough, but wage earners now need a friend in the White house.

Rice won't be the VP pick. Other than attempting to "obama-ize" the ticket (the new slang I'm hearing in the beltway about that choice)... it does nothing for McCain.

Although I have heard Condi is making some inquiries.

In the end - I'm putting my money on Crist, Barbour, or Pawlenty.... it's going to be likely one of those three.

Uncle Sam
http://rightcommentary.com

Bot SD - you are a total butthead... I know it's moot - i'm typing and playing with a two year old - excuse my mispselling. You are just wrong here...you think whatever you want. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a non-married person who life is full without a spouse - boy you are shallow and I guess insecure. All I have to say is poor simon!

okay DW - what so you do now - genius? (other than the drugs)
I like that you can all sit back and type about how these people are not smart and are all butt kissers....I'm only guessing....but none of you are doing anything but writing on blogs....
I will say it again....these people are NOT where they are because they kiss butts - these are smart people who have a lot of experience and know a little more than we do. Arm chair opinions do not count as practical experience. (and DW, i'm not taking away from your serving- I'm commenting about how none of you are even involved in politics)

petunia,
So the question becomes:
How do you rate experience? What does one need to know to effectively command this nation? You seem captivated by Rice's experience, where i tend to think a good measure of common sense needs to be exhibited as well. Someone needs to ask questions.......questions that may be uncomfortable........but they need to be asked. If the #1 threat is from rag-tag groups of lightly armed insurgents.......why do we send B-2 bombers around the globe to drop a few bombs on 'em(Is it cost effective?)
HELL NO! And i've already bitched about the cost of Virginia Class subs. We need a force structure that is suited toward the threat. B-2 Bombers&Virginia Class subs are NOT a part of that force structure. It becomes welfare for defense contractors at some point, and that point was reached a long time ago.
We need more Special Forces, Rangers, Seals, and other light infantry .........we could increase the number of effective combat troops if we cut back on the costly weapons programs.
petunia, don't sell yourself short, anybody can figure these things out.......you gotta ask questions........and watch out for no-bid contracts for goods and services sold to the government.

oh,ssssssssst,aaaaaaah!

I know you know the difference between mute and moot because you repubs are sooo smart. I bet you were 3 for 3 on my little spouse quiz too, right? You still have not answered the question because you know the answer is none. Zero. There are no modern national candidates or incumbents with no immediate family to speak of. Sometimes a resume is as much about what's on it as what's NOT on it. You can call me all sorts of names. That's when I know I got you....and BTW it's Simone.

lol - you guys crack me up.

Petunia - first of all, I know OhHolyKnight. He's a friend of mine. Me and him have decently similar views, but we disagree on a LOT of stuff. But thats not what i am here to do. I am here to ask you to actually tackle to the questions me and the valiant knight posted on the Obama article. Otherwise, you admit defeat, and admit yourself as a dolt.

π

Dr. Rice is foreign-policy oriented, McCain desperately needs domestic policy expertise--particularly economics. Thus, Condi seems like a long shot at best.

I am not bullied easily. I'm to the point of being disgusted with you all. You don't want to hear what we are saying and you have these nutty views that no one is going to change. I've spent already too much of my time on this one thing and I have a family to play with. The weather is great here and I can't waste it. Deciding not to beat a dead horse is not admitting defeat...you are all just on an attack....and I'm done playing. I said how I feel, I read all you had to say and I disagree....enough....thanks for the lesson in what the crazy side is like. :) Keep on thinking the way you want to --- that's why DW and his dad and every one else fought......
God Bless America!!!

petunia,

Don't go away. I enjoy kicking your butt on here too much. What's really interesting though is that this is a conservative blog and none of your con friends have stuck up for you. They haven't really chimed in at all. The fact that you are playing with a two year old all day sheds some light on some of your comments though.

Seriously, I really do enjoy the debate and all of your views are right in line with every con I have ever met. Take solace in the fact that you hung in there for a little while anyway. I know you will be back. I know Norski will be back too.

Don't go petunia!

Dear simple simon. I did not say I was playing all day with a 2 year old. In fact, I have a Master's degree and have a great job- that's why when I am at home I like spending my time with my child instead of arguing with grown children. If people play nice it's fun - But I do not play games and I don't take goading...
I don't care if people disagree with me but when they get ugly I'm out. Life's too short.....

Who is getting ugly? You've called me simple and a butthead. Butthead? Did they teach you that word in graduate school? You've called me shallow and stupid and insecure. It is all here in this string for everyone to see. What have I called you? I've challenged you at every turn but it has not been personal. YOU brought your two year old into it. You are a fun and easy target. I may not have a Master's but I know most of the things you are going to say before you say them. It is typical con cult garbage except you can't back it up with debate. I painted you into a corner with Condi and now you want to quit. That's no fun. I'm here on this blog to refute you and rest of the con kool aid drinkers. Maybe my liberal way of thinking can't help but lead me to believe that there is inherent value in the debate itself. It doesn't have to be about converting someone. The exchange of ideas is the key. You went out of your way to find Condi's resume and put it up. Good for you but now defend it or expand on it or explain it's shortcomings or strengths. Nobody submits a resume, no matter how impressive, for anything and is hired before the candidate is given the opportunity to come in and expand on it. You put it up there now stand by your woman. This string is just a microcosm of what the wider debate would be. If you have run out of steam imagine what the rest of the cons will do.

Watch out for Joe Lieberman, John McCains old Liberal buddy. John McCains campaign is trying to fix it so Lieberman can speak in support of McCain at the GOP National Convention.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/lieberman-w...

I think Condi scares the BAJEBBERS out of McCain and I don't think he will pick her as a running mate!

SD, I guess implying things is okay?
"The fact that you are playing with a two year old all day sheds some light on some of your comments though."...
As far as backing me up against a wall with Condi - I don't think you did. I disagree with you and thing it's far-fetched that she is gay....extremely far fetched.
I guess the dems are hard up for something....

As I said before, petunia, YOU brought your two year old into this debate. I commented on it, that's all. And I'm still waiting for you to answer the one and only question I asked you repeatedly about Condi: Name one modern national candidate or incumbent who has no immediate family to speak of (and is not gay). A Representative, a Senator, a Governor, a Mayor of a major city, a President or Vice President. Just one. Until you can, I consider you cornered. Whether she is or isn't is not the point. People will ask the question and they will keep asking until there is an adequate answer. Think about the minutia of the current campaign. Middle names, born in Panama, personal recipes, the word "bitter" and on and on. If you or anyone thinks this wouldn't be an issue if the shoe were on the other foot, you don't understand how politics works. Especially in this day and age. Are you really telling me that if Hillary were a single, never married, childless woman in her 50's or 60's you cons would not be running the gay flag up the flag pole? That's what I call far fetched.

MikeS.....
"Liberals will not vote for her because she is a product of the Bush Administration. Ideology trumps race"
No, common sense trumps all with this liberal.......why would we want one of the authors of a failed policy to have a second shot at it? No, time for a change!

Yeah...It is Time for a change.....DUMP MCCAIN! I'm voting for Ron Paul, the only Conservative choice and He will bring the GOP back to its Conservative Platform.
North Carolina's primary is May 6th and Ron Paul has made a good showing so far in the election of delegates in the GOP District Conventions........YES! It is Time for a Change......to Restore the Republic!

Jim,
i respect your choice, i could live with a Ron Paul presidency before a McBush re-enactment.

Mc Cain better name is mc war. He feels he needs to earn the respect of his grandfathers so he will bomb bomb Iran. What a way to earn respect and bet he calls himself a Christian.

Israel will love him for that. Look at all the votes Hillary got in Penn state for saying what she would do to Iran if they attacked Israel. Americans love to kick butts.

Rice. Professors should not try to do something. That is the reason they are professors. Those that cannot do: teach. Rice go back to Stanford and be on a think tank with rummy.

Anyone ever think deeply about a nation that calls its soldiers war heroes for fighting in illegal wars is a nation of imperialists? Bet the Germans had their war heroes after invading Poland.

Or a so-called Christian nation with economic policies that reflect more of Darwinism than the teachings of Jesus. Go figure.

Please don’t call me a liberal a good example of liberal is Nancy and Reid. Liberal economic policies are as ignorant and ill conceived as conservative policies.

Mc same has flipped flopped more than Kerry on this wind sail. Mc bush literally sold his soul to be president. The want of power corrupts just look at Hillary. Now that is corrupt.

Please God, NO! First a RINO coupled with a Islamic apologist...ugh...

I'm worried about this Rush Limbaugh "Operation Chaos" -
With Bush's administration not that popular right now -
What if a Vote for Hillary is.... a Vote for Hillary? HELP!!!!

No difference in McCain and Obama......a vote for Hitllery would be less damaging than the other two! No...I'm not a liberal, just a paleocon tired of the GOP flushing candidates down the GOP pipe line and expecting us to support their liberalist cause!

THANK YOU HILLARY and the other DemocRATS !!!!!!

I am an Alabama football fan, and we lost to Aurburn the last six years. Now, thanks to Hillary and the Democrats, I learn that we can rectify the situation by simply changing the rules today, after the games have been played. We just alter the scoring system so that Alabama will be the winner of those six games.
Only Hillary and the other Democrats could have thought of this.

anybody home

http://www.urbanconservative.com/2008/07/31/the...
try this one Jack