Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Condi for Veep? Not So Fast

UPDATE, 2:15 pm: The Post's Glenn Kessler, who covers the State Department for the paper and has authored "The Confidante: Condoleezza Rice and and the Creation of the Bush Legacy", sets The Fix straight about Rice's past interest in elected office. Kessler notes that Rice considered a bid for Congress from California in the mid 1980s and also weighed a bid for a Senate seat from Colorado.

ORIGINAL POST

As Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) begins his vice presidential search in earnest, there is no potential candidate with more buzz surrounding her than Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

That buzz is the result of a loyal group of Condistas who believe she is the answer to all of Republicans' current brand problems; it is the same core group that touted Rice for president in 2008 before bowing to the reality that she was not interested in the race. (The evidence of Rice's following among some in the party is clear in a recent Gallup poll where she was the third choice for VP. behind only former governors Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney.)

But, the chatter surrounding Rice has grown considerably louder in the last 24 hours in the wake of a comment by former Bush Administration official Dan Senor, who said that Rice is "actively" campaigning for the post, citing as evidence her recent attendance at a weekly luncheon held by anti-tax activists Grover Norquist.

Those comments -- and the subsequent Drudge Report link -- led the New York Times to write a story about the speculation and the Post's own Eugene Robinson to offer an op-ed entitled "Run Condi Run!."

The hubbub also drove McCain to respond, calling Rice a "great American" but adding that he "missed those signals" about her interest in the vice presidency.

So, given all of the interest the very mention of her name creates, is there a chance that Rice will end up on the ticket this November? We are very skeptical about that possibility (and were so even before our colleague Glenn Kessler penned this denial from a Rice spokesman).

First, and most importantly, Rice has NEVER expressed even a passing interest in elected office. Before serving as National Security Adviser and then Secretary of State, Rice was the provost of Stanford University -- a far cry from the positions in the House, Senate and governors office that many of her Cabinet colleagues held. Her oft-stated dream job is not to serve as president but rather as commissioner of the National Football League.

Given her background and past public statements, it's hard to see Rice with even a passing interest in elected office. While she has spent the last eight years in government, she is one of the least political figures within the Administration -- rarely issuing thoughts on political matters outside of her purview as the country's leading diplomat. To go from policy wonk to political hack in the space of a decade seems very unlikely.

The second reason Rice as vice president seems so far-fetched at the moment is her close practical and symbolic ties to the war in Iraq. The war is deeply unpopular in the country despite a lessening of violence in recent months, and, in the majority of public opinion polls, a large majority of Americans believe the war was not worth fighting.

McCain is already closely tied with support for the war in many voters' minds given his early support for the surge of troops that President Bush eventually put into place. While McCain insists he would rather lose an election than lose a war, he and his political team are well aware of the unpopularity of the war among the independent and unaffiliated voters he will need in order to beat either Sen. Barack Obamaa (Ill.) or Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) in the fall.

Putting Rice on the ticket would remind all of those voters about the war -- and McCain's stance on it. It would also provide a tangible link between the Bush administration and McCain's campaign. With Bush's approval numbers as low as they are (and have been for several years), being portrayed as seeking a third Bush term is a stone-cold loser for McCain.

For those who advocate a "doubling down" on the war by McCain in picking Rice, we ask you: Do you often double down in blackjack when you have eight showing and the dealer has an ace?

While Rice is, without doubt, the most intriguing of potential picks for McCain, she is also one of the least likely. McCain is far more likely to opt for a big-state governor with chief executive experience rather than another candidates with strong ties to Washington and a long record of advocacy for an unpopular war.

By Chris Cillizza  |  April 8, 2008; 10:51 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama Prepares for Fight With McCain
Next: Fix Pick: Who is Michelle Obama?

Comments

Before "Condi" can reject the possibility of a V.P. slot, let me reject it for her. Or rather let me reject her emphatically. With this chant of change being sung on both sides, I find it hard to stomach even the suggestion of this Bush lackey becoming a part of our new government. She's never distinguished herself as being anything other than Bush's puppet and yes (wo)man. Her tenure has been a failure and disgrace for women and minorities. Why the pretense?

Posted by: Maria | April 9, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Mitts as Gov. of Mass "the fewest job creation in the nation during his term". The problem is some not all Rebublicans believe in the Neutron Bomb of business model; That's when the company and the board remains intact but all the workers disappear. You need to be more then a just a successful businessman to govern you need to have a balance and be able to freely decide whats best for the working Americans and not just corporate America you really need the balance to make sure both strive and Mitt has proven he did not have that balance.

Posted by: Harvey B | April 9, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

With all Condi's education she still believes like Pres Bush that a Democracy is "JUST THE RIGHT TO VOTE" opposed to people educated enough to make a thoughtful choice. As a side point now that the war lover Mitt is no longer running for office; I'm wondering when his sons are going to Iraq and how come our American children who were 15 five years ago are able to be trained to fight in Iraq now, but the great democracy of Iraq in five years and over FIVE BILLION DOLLARS for training isn't able to fight yet our children are.

Posted by: Harvey B | April 9, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

"Mushroom cloud Condi"? She has been nothing but an enabler for Bush and would continue to be an enabler for McCain.

Posted by: Utahreb | April 9, 2008 10:21 AM | Report abuse

CC -- stay away from the gambling tables. "Do you often double down in blackjack when you have eight showing and the dealer has an ace?" No, you don't double down on an eight, period. But you would split eights against an ace. Because if the dealer doesn't have a ten under, and blackjack, the dealers got an OK hand, nothing more. The point is, it's more about your cards (eight showing? What do tyou have in your hand, period?) than what the dealer is showing. And ultimately, it's about what you end up with, vs. what the dealer ends up with.

Posted by: gbooksdc | April 9, 2008 10:01 AM | Report abuse

Proud, do you just make stuff up man? Seriously, Pawlenty has been true to McCain's candidacy and would be one of 2 best choices for the VP slot. B/c of all the reasons I mentioned. Sanford being the other great pick. Pawlenty never helped Romney, and if he did I'd like to see your source on that. It never happened, and you just made this stuff up. Just b/c you have saw Romney more than Pawlenty doesn't mean Romney has an up on the VP slot. Pawlenty or Sanford are the best VP candidates.

Posted by: reason | April 8, 2008 11:34 PM | Report abuse

Shouldn't basic competence be a consideration? From swimming freestyle:

"Prior to her tenure as Secretary of State, Ms. Rice served as National Security Advisor to President Bush from his inauguration until Colin Powell resigned in 2005. In other words, Ms. Rice was responsible to be the chief advisor to the President on all national security issues prior and subsequent to September 11, 2001. (Has anyone seen that "Al Qaeda Determined to Attack United States" memo?) If I were her, I might consider leaving this job off my resume."

http://swimmingfreestyle.typepad.com

Posted by: Jay McDonough | April 8, 2008 8:57 PM | Report abuse

"I guess we just have to agree to disagree and move on."


Fair enough.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 8, 2008 6:51 PM | Report abuse

I am quite sure you can agree this question is ridiculous, unless asked of EVERY candidate who PROMOTES THE WAR.

I guess we just have to agree to disagree and move on.

Leichtman

Posted by: Leichtman | April 8, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Mike Wallace:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHUSQwZ6gWo


This is what I thought you were referring to.

Just as I can agree that Romney's answer was less than stellar, I am quite sure you can agree this question is rediculous, unless asked of EVERY candidate.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 8, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

"Only if we assume the liberal media treats GOP candidates unfairly.

Oh, wait..."

Oh yes, the liberal media. Like Fox and the WSJ. Boohoo, liberals are so mean to us, we are victims.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 8, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

"Our good President said he wishes he could be serving right alongside them."

Don't we all.. except that wouldn't be fair to the troops.

Posted by: drindl | April 8, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

I wasn't tryin' to be funny Mr. USMC Mike.

jes' sayin' that it ain't the rich folk doin' the dyin' in Iraq, that's all.

Posted by: gladtobeGOP | April 8, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Mil/families would be an interesting study, I think.

I suspect there are many families that do not have a "military tradition", but who have never been averse to uniformed service, like mine. The extended families may have had members serve in WW1, WW2, Korea,'Nam, and later, but also number among them no careerists.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | April 8, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

first of all the question came at a Repub Iowa forum; was that the fault of the liberal media? and secondly you win this silly game. It was a brilliant answer that every McCain supporter should hope is repeated in the general. Not.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 8, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

glad, you're nowhere near as funny as proud.

Stop trying.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 8, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

gubonor Romney's kid's do not need to join the army. they gots lots a money.

mostly only kids with no money -- and no prospects -- they the ones that join the army.

we all know this is true.

our good President George W. Bush can then send these poor folk to fight in Iraq because of WMD. and oil is over $100 a barrell.

Posted by: gladtobeGOP | April 8, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

"My point is that he... should have anticipated that question since he promotes the war and has 5 kids who could serve."

He should have anticipated that question?

"You have 5 sons. Why didn't they serve?"

Only if we assume the liberal media treats GOP candidates unfairly.

Oh, wait...

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 8, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

leichtman's standby whenever he has been busted - drop or change the subject.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 8, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

"You're either suggesting that only the parents of veterans are "allowed" to support a war, or that Romney should have taken away the free will of his sons and forced them to join, for his own political gain. [I suspect you would take great exception with that move.]"

No I am absolutely no promoting either that is a false choice. My point is that he is a lousy politician and should have anticipated that question since he promotes the war and has 5 kids who could serve. His answer was just dumb. he simply could have said 1. Its none of your business 2. I don't tell my kids what to do or 3. That is a judgment for my kid's to make, I don't play politics with those kinds of important personal decisions. Sorry saying they served in his campaign was just plain dumb. I am sure that even he wishes he could have taken that answer back.I truly douby you would want to hear that kind of anser in a general election. but I truly DON'T CARE mike., so let please drop it.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 8, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Mark - I learned a new word today - invidious. That's a very nice word.

Leichtman - "is its hypocritical for the parents to promote a war that they want other families to fight in."

You're either suggesting that only the parents of veterans are "allowed" to support a war, or that Romney should have taken away the free will of his sons and forced them to join, for his own political gain. [I suspect you would take great exception with that move.]

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 8, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

mark Mormons do a lot of good service through their missions. My argument which is only p.o., which I don't care to do, is its hypocritical for the parents to promote a war that they want other families to fight in. Mitt's comments seemed to rationalize that; its has zero to do with the kids but with the politicians who feel that way. In '72 my friends at UT, UT lawschool and medschool were being equally yanked out of college under the draft which was equally wrong but at least was consistant. I am finished discussing Mitt did you hear biden earlier mark, I just like his intelligence.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 8, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

The volunteer army works just fine. A draft that closed the deferment loopholes for wealthy folk would be just downright un-American.

peeples that join the army now are mostly the poor folk with no other prospect for opportunity. they can serve and do 2 or 3 or even 4 tours in Iraq and they get what they deserved because the joined. now that's the American way.

remember even our good President George W. Bush said he was jealous of the poor folk serving in Afghanistan. Our good President said he wishes he could be serving right alongside them.

Posted by: gladtobeGOP | April 8, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

One thing is for certain: Either Clinton or Obama would be the next president.
John McCain's advanced age and his future health problems will be dragging along and setting a drawback for him.
Last week he was interviewed by David Letterman and asked about his choice for Vips.
It was amusing to watch thse two Old Timers
complimenting each other.
But it doesn't matter who interviews McCain, since he's not such a great personality.
" Some are born great, some achieve greatness, but, John McCain hires P.R. officers."
At 71, his joints are more accurate than the National Weather Service.
According with Letterman's comments, John confided him that Condoleezza wasn't his choice, instead, he'd finally made up his mind and has chosen Queen Latifah as his running mate on advice of his look-alike friend Steve Martin in order to inject new blood to his decadent popularity and ailing campaign.
Can you imagine Queen Latifah messing up everything in the White House and thumbing her nose at John everytime she gets repriminded for her mischievous pranks ?
He would cry: I can get no respect !
If you vote for this living dinosaur, he will continue with the present administration's policies.

Posted by: infinitus | April 8, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

"The inverse may be true as well, in that in families where there is not a military service tradition, the military option might not even occur to the kids when they're deciding what to do with their lives."

This seems true.

I've met kids whose parent's reaction to their joining the service was "what? why?". These are typically first-generation Marines.

As an aside, it is quite difficult to serve without the loving support of your family, especially when making such a decision at the age of 18-20.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 8, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

"I think it is because children who are brought up in a military family often learn to respect that form of service."

The inverse may be true as well, in that in families where there is not a military service tradition, the military option might not even occur to the kids when they're deciding what to do with their lives.

Posted by: bsimon | April 8, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

"McCain has an age problem in the elction, why would he also want to have a religion problem?"

I see what you're getting at.

In broad terms, you're probably right.

As someone noted above, each of the VP candidates has his weakness(es).

I personally don't think he should pick Romney, but most likely for different reasons than you.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 8, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

"usmc the question was asked at a Republican Iowa forum"

I'm thinking of the same question, but from NBC Dateline (or it could have been 60 Minutes).

It went something like this... "So, you have 5 sons. That's a big family! *Romney Chuckles*. Why didn't any of them serve?"
----------------------------------------------

Mark, I agree that any productive work is laudable.

[I hope to some day (God-willing) lead an extremely productive private life.]

That's why I resent learned helplessness - the evil result of entitlement.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 8, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

sorry mike I was not going nuts over that episode we were talking about Mitt it was a minor argument why Mitt is the wrong guy. How about this: McCain has an age problem in the elction, why would he also want to have a religion problem? Mitt is patrician and an elitist, how in the world would that help him in Youngstown and Scranton. I am trying to be objective and just think there are real conservatives, folks I generally don't agree with like Barbour and Graham who would create far fewer problems for McCain.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 8, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman, Mike said he did not think it was an apt answer. Are you seriously trying to argue that the children with free will are supposed to volunteer for the military for the greater political good of their daddies?

In fact, voluntarism seems to run in families with regard to military service and I think it is because children who are brought up in a military family often learn to respect that form of service.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | April 8, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

"And I reject the reasoning that 'the children of those who support the war have a greater obligation to serve in the military than critics of the war'.

bullsh*t. those who cheerleaded and pushed the country into a discretionary war have a far greater obligation than those who tried to prevent it.

Posted by: | April 8, 2008 4:38 PM


Your logic extends to their sons? How Old Testament.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 8, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, thanks for the correction. My apologies to the McCain campaign chairman, Pawlenty. :)

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 8, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

usmc the question was asked at a Republican Iowa forum. You may not like the question usmc but it was received very poorly by a Republican audience.

"A woman at an Ask Mitt Anything forum earlier today in Iowa raised the question again, asking whether any of Mr. Romney's five sons are serving in the military, adding pointedly, "If none of them are, how do they plan to support this war on terrorism by enlisting in our U.S. military?"
Although his campaign said his remarks were taken out of context, Mr.Romney's response is drawing criticism, because he said, in part, "one of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping to get me elected"

again if you as what is likely is a Repub was happy with that response then he is your man. In a Presidential campaign the candidate will certainly be having to answer these questions, again whether you agree or not with the question and it was the answer that was remembered.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 8, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Mike, I take your word for it. I did not know there had been a question asked - I just remember one news cycle stupidly devoted to it. In general, I agree with you that we should honor voluntary service but we should honor any productive work, and the comparison of those who serve in the military with those who do not is invidious, no matter which way you cut it, absent a draft.

Because so much is asked of the military, generally underpaid government employees who are often called to risk greatly, vets do deserve consideration that others might not. I do not consider that comparison unfair.

But no blame attaches to persons who do not volunteer.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | April 8, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

"I'm not your son, cubicle-douche."

By the way, that's office-douche, to you.

-----------------------------------------------

AdrickHenry: McCain might choose Romney despite differences.

Office-Douche: Romney is a flip-flopper!

Mike: Romney might be a good economic fit.

Office-Douche: I don't agree with Romney's economics.

Mike: But no one asked you to.

Office-Douche: Stop projecting onto me.


*sigh*...

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 8, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

"And I reject the reasoning that 'the children of those who support the war have a greater obligation to serve in the military than critics of the war'.

bullsh*t. those who cheerleaded and pushed the country into a discretionary war have a far greater obligation than those who tried to prevent it.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 8, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

peeples, can't we jes' get along?

Posted by: gladtobeGOP | April 8, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

"I'm not your son, cubicle-douche."

By the way, that's office-douche, to you.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 8, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman -- the two descriptions I have given of Mitt's comment have been "stupid" and "tasteless".

How far would you like me to go? What would appease you?

And I reject the reasoning that 'the children of those who support the war have a greater obligation to serve in the military than critics of the war'.

Everyone has an equal calling to serve. Too few hear it.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 8, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Mark -- I remember the question, and the answer.

I thought the question was more tasteless than the answer.

Yet, we only focus on the answer.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 8, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

there is a clear distinction that I am sure you can appreciate usmc. Neither HC nor Chelsea have been going around the country promoting how great the war in Iraq has been. McCain has and so did Mitt.McCain's kids served honorably Mitt bragged that his kids have worked on his campaign. Seriously, you were OK with that response? The better response would have been its irrelevant or none of your business. I could care less if the priviliged Romney kids serve but I do care that Mitt promotes the war but then says his kids' service is through his campaign? Yikes what would you have said if HC or Obama had said nything like that. There is a simple word for that, its called hypocrisy.

There are plenty of conservatives like Haily Barbour and Linsey Graham who would be much better received then Romney. If you want Romney that is great I just don't think even with all of the millions he spent that he was well received by voters. And are you saying Mitt is McCain's key to bluecollar Scranton and Youngstown voters. that is really doubtful.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 8, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

I am no longer working. I am watching the SFRC hearing on CSPAN. Actually this is much better than the previous hearings, I think.

More light than heat, so far, IMO.
---------------------------
AggieMike, I think the remark WMR made about his sons' service to the country by campaigning - phrasing campaigning as national service - was the catalyst of the criticism, but I no longer have a "quotable" recollection and the words may have come from someone else.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | April 8, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

"It's a common liberal argument to hate/attack the rich, punish them with higher taxes, and reward and teach failure."

Your first mistake is to assume my motivations are liberal in nature. Try responding to what I write, rather than to what you think liberals think.

Posted by: bsimon | April 8, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

"It's a common liberal argument to hate/attack the rich, punish them with higher taxes, and reward and teach failure."

no actually most of us highly respect the super rich Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and what they have chosen to generously do with their billions without whining about paying taxes.

It is a canard usmc to presume that millions of progressives are not part of the investor class and closely watch their investments and want the exact same American propserity that so called conservatives like W tout. We not only want American prosperity we want a fair progressive tax system that not only encourages the accumulation of wealth but encourages an expanding and strengthened middle class that builds the America that the wealthy so much cherish.

inciddentally I was curious your thought about the Romney kids' military service by working on dad's political campaign. thought that was rather tasteless.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 8, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP writes
"I believe Pawlenty campaigned for and helped get Mitt the win in the MN primary."

No. Romney did win MN caucuses, but Pawlenty has been a national McCain co-chairman from the outset. Pawlenty did not help Romney here.

Posted by: bsimon | April 8, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

"I'm not your son, cubicle-d**che."

Snap! Hey - what makes you think someone who sits in a cubicle is an "elite?" Just how bad are your circumstances, USMC_Mike?

Posted by: bondjedi | April 8, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

"It's a common liberal argument to hate/attack the rich, punish them with higher taxes, and reward and teach failure."

Aren't you the one who always complains about Democrats being latte-sipping elites who don't care about the working class?

Posted by: Blarg | April 8, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman -- If the topic of this post was "Romney's MA Record", or if even that was the logical direction of the conversation, Bsimon's comments might have made sense.

Unfortunately, no one actually claimed that Romney was a good economic governor, yet simple Simon couldn't resist chiming in.

Regarding his kids, what the f*** kind of question is that anyway?

Who's asking Hillary Clinton why Chelsea didn't serve? After all, don't liberals support women in the military?

To ask a candidate why his children *DIDNT* serve in a non-draft era is stupid. (Not that his answer was great).

Agree?

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 8, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

reason writes "Pawlenty did stick with McCain through the way ups & down lows of this campaign."

Um, I believe Pawlenty campaigned for and helped get Mitt the win in the MN primary. Pawlenty's way down the list, imo.

I think Romney would be an o.k. choice for veep, and that he would make a great VP. The fact that he ran to the right in the primary won't hurt him as much as a VP nominee as it would've if he'd gotten the nomination himself.

His record is actually pretty moderate, although the right wing did cozy up to him after a while...it took too long, but that's water under the bridge now.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 8, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Rob Portman will make an excellent VP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Portman

Posted by: JonJon Buckeye | April 8, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

"If you say so. It is amusing that you agree with my negative opinion of borrow-and-spend economics, yet apparently wish to defend Romney's record on the matter."

Find where I defended it.

I'll save you the time: I didn't.

No one made a judgement about how effective his economics in MA were, but he ran as an econonic candidate (just like McCain ran as a national security candidate). You and I both know most of this is marketing, and many politicians don't understand many issues they make themselves out to be experts in. The point was, Mitt Romney might satisfy a hole McCain has, NOT that Mitt Romney was the best thing to happen to MA since the tea party.

"It is likewise amusing how personally offended you seem to get about my characterizing - not inaccurately - his business career as one where he made boatloads of money. What's your argument, that he didn't? Or does it just piss you off that I didn't press my forehead to the floor in respect for his business aptitude?"

It's a common liberal argument to hate/attack the rich, punish them with higher taxes, and reward and teach failure.

My argument isn't that he didn't make a lot of money, but that that specific characterization of his accomplishment missed the point (and sounds a lot like a typical liberal anti-capitalist snyde remark).


"Of course, what is most entertaining is your assessment of my reaction to criticism of Obama, in the face of your own sensitivity over any perceived slight to Romney. That is called projection, son."

I'm not your son, cubicle-douche.

I know you enlightened liberals think highly of yourselves and sneer down your noses at common folks.

I'm only defending Romney because you attacked him. No one said he was a great governor, yet you chimed in. I'm just trying to bring some balance.

Explain to me why every time I mention Hussein Obama you foam at the mouth?

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 8, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

sorry USMC I agree with bismon. Romney was a lousy candidate and unless his dad's connections are enough to bring in Michigan which is doubtful, Romney would demean McCain. I especially remember Romney being asked why his priviliged kids were not serving in Iraq. I would think that you of all people would have been thoroughly disgusted with his response which I will let you post if you honestly believe he is the right match for McCain's honorable service to this country, but hey we had 5 deferment Cheney as VP.(presuming you were supporting Romney which hopefully you are not).

and what is all this talk about enablers today in the hearings. That word sounds appropriate for Republican lawmakers and Iraq.

biden is absolutely shining in these hearings today. Another policy wonk that unfortunately turns off some Democratic voters. Don't understand why.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 8, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

"This is a fairly simplistic understanding of what he actually did, which included saving sruggling businesses and creating unknowable numbers of jobs, wealth, and, your favorite, *tax-payers*."

What he did was help foreigners buy american businesses and then fire everyone and bring in foreign labor.

Sure he created jobs and wealth -- but unfortunately, not for Americans.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 8, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

USMC_Mike alleges
"bsimon is...incapable of having a conversation about who McCain might choose and why."

If you say so. It is amusing that you agree with my negative opinion of borrow-and-spend economics, yet apparently wish to defend Romney's record on the matter. It is likewise amusing how personally offended you seem to get about my characterizing - not inaccurately - his business career as one where he made boatloads of money. What's your argument, that he didn't? Or does it just piss you off that I didn't press my forehead to the floor in respect for his business aptitude? Of course, what is most entertaining is your assessment of my reaction to criticism of Obama, in the face of your own sensitivity over any perceived slight to Romney. That is called projection, son.

Posted by: bsimon | April 8, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

"The aunt of a young pregnant woman who died after a hospital told her she needed to pay $100 up front for care said in an interview on Monday that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has been telling the story accurately on the campaign trail -- following claims by a different Ohio hospital that it did not turn the patient away."

On the one hand we have the word of the hospital that provided the treatment and has the patient's medical and insurance records, and on the other hand we've got an aunt who cared so much about her niece that she couldn't front her a hundred bucks.

Hooray for Hillary! Let's believe the aunt. She believed Bubba when he said he wasn't cheating on her.

In other Hillary news, the Clinton believes that OJ was innocent.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 8, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

AdrickHenry: McCain is likely to choose Romney, despite their personal differences.

Bsimone: Romney is a flip-flopper!

USMC_Mike: Romney would probably help balance McCain's ticket by adding economic experience.

Bsimon: Romney made boat-loads of cash and drove MA into the ground!

OK, we have learned that not only are we not allowed to attack Bsimon's dream-boy, but that he is incapable of having a conversation about who McCain might choose and why.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 8, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Condi would not be a great pick because her forte is on national security & foreign affairs. That is also McCain's speciality. Rice has no experience as a CEO and McCain has admitted the economy isn't his strong suite. McCain needs a governor who has strong experience & a proven tract record in balancing a budge & containing spending. This is why Mark Sanford (SC gov.) or Tim Pawlenty (Minn. gov.) would be great VP picks. They are both young, successful & well liked governor's in their state. They are both pretty socially conservative, Sanford more than Pawlenty. Sanford is also a southerner, would excite the conservative base more & has a big backing from the Club for Growth (both are McCain shortfalls), which often puts it's money where it's mouth is and serves as a built in fundraising mechanism. Pawlenty, on the other hand, is a great fundraiser himself, has a surplus going there in Minn. without raising taxes, is very popular with independents (also a McCain positive already), is from a "purple" state in Minn. and puts Minn. into play if he runs on the VP ticket. I thought from the beginning that McCain's best pick would be Pawlenty. Now, though, I think Mark Sanford would be just as good if not better. He would excite the R base to come out, something McCain needs. Pawlenty did stick with McCain through the way ups & down lows of this campaign. That does show loyalty. Either way, Pawlenty of Sanford, would make great running mates for McCain and they would best be able to complement one another for the sakes of the nation.

Posted by: reason | April 8, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

"I know liberals hate successful people, but the obvious disdain you have for hard work is hard to hide."

Huh? Where do you come up with this stuff? How is characterizing his success as 'making boatloads of cash' a negative / disdainful observation? You haven't the foggiest idea of what you're talking about.

Posted by: bsimon | April 8, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

"borrow-and-spend party"

BTW, I agree - this is a bad way to do business, and a major failure of the party, accounting for the '06 defeats.

I am very disappointed in Bush from this standpoint; he had ample opportunity to veto excessive spending, and chose to draw the line in the sand on VCHIP (which strikes me as a comically dumb line in the sand).

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 8, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

That WAS my original point. The swing voters are the ones that will be unimpressed by the flip-flopping. Since its swing voters that decide elections, losing that voting block hurts the ticket.


Well, this makes more sense. Although, I can't help but think there are many better reasons than a VP flip-flopping to turn off the so-called all-powerful enlightened moderates. That's my point, which has yet to be answered.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 8, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Bsimon summarizes Romney's economic experience:

"He made boatloads of cash in private industry"

I know liberals hate successful people, but the obvious disdain you have for hard work is hard to hide.

This is a fairly simplistic understanding of what he actually did, which included saving sruggling businesses and creating unknowable numbers of jobs, wealth, and, your favorite, *tax-payers*.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 8, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

"That wasn't your original point, which was that a "flip-flopper" hurts the ticket."

That WAS my original point. The swing voters are the ones that will be unimpressed by the flip-flopping. Since its swing voters that decide elections, losing that voting block hurts the ticket.

Posted by: bsimon | April 8, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

"WARNING: This person has likely
been shell shocked whilst serving
in Afganistan or/& Iraq. Serious
brain-damage is the likely prognosis."

Man_in_Black: Unfortunately, attacking the person doesn't make his message any less true.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 8, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

USMC_Mike says, of Romney
"He's strong on economic issues, as has been pointed out."

He made boatloads of cash in private industry, but ran MA into debt, which shouldn't be a surprise from a member of the borrow-and-spend party. The problem is that voters have caught on to the fraud of borrow-and-spend accounting. Therefore, Romney's economic creds are a bit more dubious than they might at first seem.

Posted by: bsimon | April 8, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

"What does Romney add to a McCain candidacy that will draw swing voters from the Dems? The answer is nothing."

That wasn't your original point, which was that a "flip-flopper" hurts the ticket.

I'll answer it anyway.

McCain doesn't need any help drawing swing voters - he wants to limit CEO pay, cut carbon emissions, legalize illegals, and close Guantanimo.

If anything, he needs help with the conservatives (who supposedly don't elect anyone).

Maybe Romney can help him there. Maybe not. Who knows.

The original point, a "flip-flopping" VP pick doesn't seem to obviously hurt the overall ticket in a meaningful way, IMO.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 8, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

I see we are now getting the ignorant coward contingent -- some can't be bothered to make up a name and others are using fake names.

Posted by: Spectator2 | April 8, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

"Anyone else notice that The Fix doesn't require the log-in anymore, that you can post your own handle at will?"

Yesterday the site froze up in the late morning. My guess is that they reverted to free-for-all mode until whatever bug cropped up in the other version is repaired.

Posted by: bsimon | April 8, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

USMC_Mike writes
"Bsimon, who resents obvious attacks on an inexperienced Obama, makes the obvious attack on Romney that he's a "flip-flopper". I fail to see how a once-moderate, now conservative flip-flop hurts a GOP VP nominee in the general --- in any meaningful way."

Because the conservative base doesn't elect the President, the swing voters do. McCain has to pick someone who doesn't alienate the base (ideally (s)he would inspire them) and draws swing voters (or at least doesn't alienate them). What does Romney add to a McCain candidacy that will draw swing voters from the Dems? The answer is nothing.

Posted by: bsimon | April 8, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

WARNING: This person has likely
been shell shocked whilst serving
in Afganistan or/& Iraq. Serious
brain-damage is the likely prognosis.
________________________________
________________________________
Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 8, 2008 2:47 PM


"Rice is the classic "looks good on paper" type. She has the fancy degrees, titles, etc."

Couldn't this also be said of Obama, except possibly with less in the "experience" portion of the resume?
________________________________
________________________________

Posted by: Anonymous | April 8, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

personally, I'd rather see Condi as President...but VP would be fine with me.

Posted by: Brenda | April 8, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

If you are attempting to draw
heat from Eugene's piece that
suggested that she'd be a great
running-mate for McCain - it's
not going to work. Mr. Robinson
has burnt that bridge.

He's toast in our opinion, now!

Posted by: man_in_black | April 8, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

how does McCain present it to the public?

Good Question.

Maybe, most voters won't notice?

Or maybe, if he presents it as a "for-the-good-of-the-party" move, not unlike Romney's campaign resignation?

I'm with you - it'll be hard for the straight talk express to not detour from the truth were he to choose Mitt.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 8, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

You are all idiots. And i am not. I am smart.

Posted by: LOUD and DUMB | April 8, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

"Rice is the classic "looks good on paper" type. She has the fancy degrees, titles, etc."

Couldn't this also be said of Obama, except possibly with less in the "experience" portion of the resume?

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 8, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

sorry to repost this story but I am once again asking why it isn't being told.

"Clinton Told True Tale of Woe, Says Kin
By Anne E. Kornblut
The aunt of a young pregnant woman who died after a hospital told her she needed to pay $100 up front for care said in an interview on Monday that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has been telling the story accurately on the campaign trail -- following claims by a different Ohio hospital that it did not turn the patient away."
someone posting as Logan repeatedly slammed HC yesterday aout this Ohio woman and that misinformation needed correcting.


Posted by: Leichtman | April 8, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

John McCain's only chance of winning this November is if H. Clinton is the Democratic nominee, and Ronald Reagan is his VP. Since the former seems highly doubtful, and the later is impossible, there isn't much hope. Thus, I hope he does choose Rice as his VP. Hopfully they'd schedule numerous VP debates. Condi might not win any of them. But since the Republicans aren't going to win in November anyway, it doesn't matter. Both parties would remember that a black woman ran a good campaign and held her own. That would be good for the future.

If McCain chooses a white male, in 10 years, the Republican ticket will be the answer on a Trivial Pursuit question noone ever gets right.

Posted by: MDLaxer | April 8, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

I think you're right, Mike; I think there is a pretty darn good chance McCain goes with Romney.

But how does he present it? I mean, without looking like a hypocrite. His disdain for the man was obvious to all. Especially that exchange they had on waterboarding in one of the debates.

McCain, is usually, really, a straight-talker. It surely seems politically expedient to go with Mitt; how does McCain present it to the public?

Posted by: AdrickHenry | April 8, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

"So should you, you crazy peeples! And i you don't you are unpatriotic and unamerican."

As predicted, the moveon crowd is out in force today, along with it's shills like truthhunter. "General Betray-Us" ads and ranting won't win you the next election, but keep it up anyway.

Obama falls in line nicely with you clowns.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 8, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

No comments about Mittens?

Doesn't he seem to be the most logical choice?

Posted by: AdrickHenry | April 8, 2008 1:25 PM

What about Newt?

Posted by: AdrickHenry | April 8, 2008 1:27 PM

I think there's a good chance he picks Romney. He's strong on economic issues, as has been pointed out.

Bsimon, who resents obvious attacks on an inexperienced Obama, makes the obvious attack on Romney that he's a "flip-flopper". I fail to see how a once-moderate, now conservative flip-flop hurts a GOP VP nominee in the general --- in any meaningful way.

Newt will probably run in 2012, after the R party is wrecked (either by McCain, or by Barack "Jimmy Carter" Hussein). {This is of course my non-objective opinion}

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 8, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

And those bevy of racists in the GOP would never allow it.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: mpp | April 8, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

and now our good President, George W. Bush tells us that the Sunni peeples and Shia peeples are going to be friends and run their government to gether.

And I believes Preident George W. Bush!

So should you, you crazy peeples! And i you don't you are unpatriotic and unamerican.

Posted by: gladtobeGOP | April 8, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Condoleeza Rice is amazing. I would totally vote for a McCain/Rice ticket!

Posted by: Kathleen | April 8, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

You peeples ia all crazy! I believes our good President, President George W. Bush.

He told us -- I saw him on TV -- that Iraq has wepaons of mass destruction. And I believes him

He told us -- I saw him on TV -- that Saddam Hussein was connected to 9/11. And I believes him.

His right-hand man, Dick Cheney told us -- I saw him on TV -- that the Iraqis would welcome us as Liberators. And I believes him.

What's wrong with you peeples anyways!?

Posted by: gladtobeGOP | April 8, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else notice that The Fix doesn't require the log-in anymore, that you can post your own handle at will?

I guess CC figures it's been long enough since we've seen the whackjobs, Mssrs Che and Rufus.

Posted by: JD | April 8, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Raisa: Rice is the classic "looks good on paper" type. She has the fancy degrees, titles, etc.

Posted by: Spectator2 | April 8, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Truthhunter writes " in today's hearing [McCain] again referred to al Qaeda as a "sect of Shiites."
Heard it myself."

Truthhunter, You are so full of it. Check your hearing aid lady. here's the transcript:


MCCAIN: What do you make of Sadr's declaration of a, quote, "cease-fire"?

PETRAEUS: Well, as with the cease-fire that was proclaimed in the wake of the militia violence in Karbala in August of last year, it is both to avoid further damage to the image of the Sadr movement -- which, of course, is supposed to care for the downtrodden and has a heavy -- obviously, is a religiously inspired movement but which has been hijacked in some cases by militias, and, in fact, other elements have used it to cloak their activities as well.

If I could, Senator, also point out that along with the operations in Basra, there were operations in a number of other provinces in southern Iraq, all precipitated by this outbreak in militia violence.

In Karbala, Najaf, Qadisiyah, Hillah, Wasit, Dhi Qar and Muthanna, the Iraqi security forces actually did well; in some cases did very well and maintained security. The same is true in Baghdad, although, again, even there, the performance was uneven in some cases.

MCCAIN: There are numerous threats to security in Iraq and the future of Iraq. Do you still view Al Qaeda in Iraq as a major threat?

PETRAEUS: It is still a major threat, though it is certainly not as major a threat as it was, say, 15 months ago.

MCCAIN: Certainly not an obscure sect of the Shiites overall...

PETRAEUS: No.

MCCAIN: ... or Sunnis or anybody else.

Al Qaeda continues to try to assert themselves in Mosul, is that correct?

PETRAEUS: It is, Senator. As you saw on the chart, the area of operation of Al Qaeda has been greatly reduced in terms of controlling areas that it controlled as little as a year and half ago.

But, clearly, Mosul and Nineveh province are areas that Al Qaeda is very much trying to hold onto. All roads lead through the traditional capital of the north.

MCCAIN: They continue to be a significant threat?

PETRAEUS: They do. Yes, sir.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 8, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

What has she DONE?

Name ONE accomplishment.

And if you want to know of her ability, ask any line officer at the State Deprment.
When he quits laughing...
Dumb, cluelss manager, gulliable to the point of clay.

She couldn't handle the NSA, everyone ran all over her. She should be V...to and
fragile old coot? Please.

Posted by: Raisa | April 8, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

truth hunter:

NY times picked up on McCain's latest (today's) gaffe, again confusing Sunni and Shia and their respective roles in Iraq and in the broader Muslim world:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/mccain-on-al-qaeda-in-iraq/#comment-861204

This is just getting downright scary. It's hard to tell whether he just doesn't know the players, or whether instead it's senile dementia setting in. Either way, not good.

Posted by: Brad K | April 8, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

I feel like most people make the connection that out of everyone in the White House no one was as incompetent as Condi. Dr. Rice is the last person McCain would want. Dems would not see her as being viable in place of both Obama or Hillary because she is not black by any standards culturally and why would women vote for a woman who makes women look like they're in over their head in govt.

Posted by: Jay | April 8, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

OK. So, Mitt is out. What about Newt?

Posted by: AdrickHenry | April 8, 2008 1:55 PM
--------------------
While that would please many conservatives it would be a turn off to any dem leaning moderates or those turned off by his affairs when he was married. He served his wife divorce papers when she was in the hospital so he could marry a member of his staff. Class act.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | April 8, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Newt is very strong with Conservatives. Hannity wants to have his love child. Newt also has very strong opinions on the economy. Many (right-wing) voters would be comfortable with Newt being only a heartbeat away...

Posted by: AdrickHenry | April 8, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Condi? She is a slave girl to G Waterboarding B. If McCain were running a cotton plantation, yeah Condi would fit in very well.

Posted by: | April 8, 2008 1:51 PM
------------------------
You don't have to be racist to make a joke you idiot.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | April 8, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

OK. So, Mitt is out. What about Newt?

Posted by: AdrickHenry | April 8, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Anyone have any thoughts about Hagel - for either Obama or McCain?

Posted by: CC | April 8, 2008 1:46 PM
--------------------
I like him but wouldn't he be considered a weak choice with conservatives? Maybe good for Obama.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 8, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

McCain's Veep ?

George H. W. Bush, of course.

Posted by: Reaganlover | April 8, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Chris, your analysis is correct and balanced.

There is no reason for McCain to join with the most popular Bush cabinet officer in his quest to distance himself from the Bush unpopular regime. It would look like an endorsement of the Dubya eight year run, therefore, four more years of the same old same.

The only smart choice is Romney. He is some sort of financial expert and the U.S economy is headed for a bumpy ride. What better for a candidate to have a proven financial rainmaker on your team when he is needed the most.

Posted by: piktor | April 8, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Condi? She is a slave girl to G Waterboarding B. If McCain were running a cotton plantation, yeah Condi would fit in very well.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 8, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

This post reminds me of Gary Hart momentarily thinking about running for president in 2000. When asked what gave him that idea, Hart said, "Well, I figured that if I could eat Rice, I could also lick Bush."

Posted by: Sen. Larry "Wide Stance" Craig, R-Uranus | April 8, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

I don't see Romney, the Morman issue. McCain needs the conservative Christians, who like many see them as a cult, rightfully so.

Huckabee is out as well, he would turn off many middle of the roads with his Bible view that the world is 5000 years old.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | April 8, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Anyone have any thoughts about Hagel - for either Obama or McCain?

Posted by: CC | April 8, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Does Mitt help to solidify the Conservative base?

He does help, I believe, with McCain's self-admitted shortage of economic savvy.

Plus, Mitt did a following, right?

Don't get me wrong -- I think Mitt is dangerous -- I'm just trying to look at this from an objective viewpoint.

Posted by: AdrickHenry | April 8, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

USMC Mike. Your comparison way earlier of Sarkozy elected as a successor Gaullist and the possibility of Mc Cain being elected as a Republican is not a good one. Sarkozy campaigned as an the anti-Chirac. In fact after a short tenure over at the Home Affairs or Finance Ministry (memory fails at this moment) he was uncermoniously kicked out. The Sarkozy comparison would be if Mc Cain of 2000 had been elected instead, when he was a true maverick. Although he maintains a bit of the maverick image, in the major foreign policy issues, he is closely associated with the Bush Administration.

Unfortunately Ms. Rice will not be a good VP choice. While the position is a whole lot of nothing, McCain's age would make it possible for Ms. Rice to actually become President, should Mr. McCain pass away. Therefore, his choice will be more closely scrutinized than most as it will be more of a possibility that McCain's VP might actually succeed him. Second, Ms. Rice is associated with a controversial policy, that although McCain actually espouses, the last thing is to give the other side free ammo on the matter. Third, she has little domestic policy knowledge, hence would not help the ticket where the head guy is known as a foreign policy heavyweight with someone, who for better or worse is also heavy on the foreign policy side. At best she could probably remain as Sec State, if McCain actually wises some continuity from Bush and is actually elected.

Posted by: Kruhn | April 8, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

AdrickHenry asks
"Doesn't [Gov Romney] seem to be the most logical choice?"

Not if McCain wants to win.

Flip retort aside, what does Romney bring to the table? I'm specifically wondering whether he draws swing voters (I think he doesn't). He's also wide-open to charges of flip-floppery.

Posted by: bsimon | April 8, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

CC - "That buzz is the result of a loyal group of Condistas who believe she is the answer to all of Republicans' current brand problems"

So would that make some of the bloggers here Fixista Condistas? I think Condi would be a demographically great choice but an otherwise mediocre selection. The big problem is that she does tend to focus the arguement against McCain on Bush. The R's can't afford to be throwing firewood on that fire. MarkInAustin almost has me reconsidering my qualms about Sarah Palin. In thinking about it, it seems like there is going to be an issue that can be exploited no matter who McCain picks from the list. She at least has a pretty big upside and has little if any baggage. I guess the question is where McCain wants to pick his poison? Is the easier argument perceived VP inexperience and name recognition or ties to Bush and Bush policy?

Posted by: Dave! | April 8, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Nothing would scream "4 more years" of Bushism than Condie Rice as McCain's VP. Okay... maybe Dick "So?" Cheney as a repeat offending VP.

So I agree with Eugene Robinson... Run Condi, run!!

287 days till the end of the Bush administration.

Posted by: CardFan | April 8, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

"I'd like some mushroom clouds with my Rice, please."

Sounds like a fusion take on risotto. Do a mushroom risotto, with a small bit of extremely finely diced habanero. That could blow yer head off.

Posted by: bsimon | April 8, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

John McCain. I hope you are reading this. IF you are stupid enough to chose Rice as your VP candidate, there will be millions on people who would have voted for you choosing to just stay home and vote for NO ONE. Since we won't vote for Obama or Hillery if you chose Rice we would have no positive alternative. You could be a combination of George Washington, Lincoln and Ronald Reagan and we still wouldnt vote for you if it meant putting an imbecile like Condi Rice who has never been elected to ANYTHING in her life, one heartbeat away from the Oval Office. She may be smart, but she is nothing but a political yes-woMan who has been appointed ahead of her betters to every job she has ever had. Please DO NOT pick Condi!

Posted by: Mike in Reston | April 8, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

What McCain needs, as he has said himself, is an economist or a business person. Carly Fiorina -- who already chairs McCain's "Victory Committee" -- would be a much saner choice. An academic like Rice is precisely what McCain does NOT need.

Posted by: bodo | April 8, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

What about Newt?

Posted by: AdrickHenry | April 8, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

No comments about Mittens?

Doesn't he seem to be the most logical choice?

Posted by: AdrickHenry | April 8, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

The image that remains in my mind of the perpetually lying Ms. Condi is telling us the american people that no one could have imagined what happened during 9/11 about six weeks after she handed her dim-witted boss a presidential daily brief entitle Bin Laden determined to attack the US using airplanes. Never in our history have people less qualified occupied the most important and sensitive positions in our government.

Posted by: anybodybutbush | April 8, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Hate to be the bearer of bad news for those of you who tout McCain as the best war president.... in today's hearing he again referred to al Qaeda as a "sect of Shiites."

Heard it myself. I'm sure it'll appear in the news, perhaps on Olberman. Old propaganda-mindsets are hard to break....

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | April 8, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

The only way Rice or Obama will be on a general election ticket is if Jesus Christ returns.

Posted by: Waterboard | April 8, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

The hubbub also drove McCain to respond, calling Rice a "great American" but adding that he "missed those signals" about her interest in the vice presidency.

You don't hear very well, do you, old man?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 8, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

I'd like some mushroom clouds with my Rice, please.

Posted by: Rick P. | April 8, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

The only reasons people are mentioning her are her race and her gender. She will definitely get some votes because of those. But she will also give away a lot of votes because of those too. Regardless, she will always be remembered as one of the first two major black political powerhouses (the other being Colin Powell) to have emerged, who unfortunately both tanked big time. A ticket of McCain and Rice would hand over to the Democrats an easy win in November.

Posted by: KT11 | April 8, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Um, McCain has done nothing to put the war in the background. Indeed, you can say his support for the war and the surge has been the focus of his campaign; it is the one unifying theme, and his main point of contention with the prospective opposition. Saying he doesn't want to highlight his support of the war is just plain false. He does and he is. At least for this reason, picking Condi actually makes sense. As Frontline has adequately shown, it is her strategy that is finally showing some positive results in Iraq. And as for the analogy with blackjack, I think saying McCain is sitting there with an 8 and the Dems have an ace should almost be reversed. To continue the poor analogy in this vein, McCain's choice of Condi could be the Queen he needs. That being said, I also doubt it happens. A few months ago I would have said it would be the only way for him to win. Now I say, though it would be difficult, the Democratic race has certainly improved McCain's chances, with or without Condi.

Posted by: Contrian Rice | April 8, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

From "Head of State
"http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/04/gamechanger-its-about-war.html

"Sunday, April 6, 2008

Gamechanger: It's About the War

From ABC News' Political Radar:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is actively courting the Vice Presidential nomination, according to Republican Strategist Dan Senor. "Condi Rice has been actively, actually in recent weeks, campaigning for this," Senor said this morning on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."


If true, while unsurprising, given her recent statements of late, which clearly pointed towards such a move, nonetheless a potential gamechanger. Independents and moderate Republicans inspired by Obama will now be fair game for inspirational rhetoric about Rice. and her personal story as an African American woman who has risen to her current position from humble origins, against the odds. Democrats will parry that it's about the man--not the position--and a fractious debate will begin.

To cut through it, Dems will need to refocus the debate upon the war, and Rice's role in decision-making as National Security Adviser, where she was generally regarded as unable to act effectively in the face of Rumsfeld's and Cheney's demands, and was only able to survive by attaching herself directly to Bush--as a surrogate rather than an adviser. She attached herself to Bush then--and should be attached to Bush now.

If she was rolled over by her colleagues, the argument should go, how will she be able to lead in the face of today's conflicts and demands?

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/04/gamechanger-its-about-war.html

Posted by: Robert Hewson | April 8, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

McCain's selection b/c of his age problem has to be viewed as a heavy weight someone with gravitas who very likely would succed McCain if something were to happen.His selection is substantially more imptthan what either Sen Obama or HC might do. Portman, a little known governor from Minn or Ark would look too little political and effectively end the McCain Presidential campaign. I would also strike every candidate who has ever been close to being pro choice which would include Condi and Guiliani. That doesn't leave much beyond the Keith Richards suggestion.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 8, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

At a dinner party while Rice was National Security Advisor, she referred to President George W. Bush as "my husband" before abruptly correcting herself.

-----------------------------------------------------

Now that's comedy.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 8, 2008 12:54 PM
----------------
LOL
I wonder if Laura thought so?

Posted by: Patrick NYC | April 8, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Condi is the only one of the lot with any brains and will do what's in the best interest of America.

If Condi were to run for president ,Benedict McCain wouldn't have a prayer and neither would Obama with the garbage he brings to the table.

Forget Hillary, she's done, her continuance is just damaging the party and causing a racial divide which ultimately may doom the DEM party for years to come.

Posted by: Chevy | April 8, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

At a dinner party while Rice was National Security Advisor, she referred to President George W. Bush as "my husband" before abruptly correcting herself.

-----------------------------------------------------

Now that's comedy.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 8, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Cillizza,

I agree with your conclusion if not your reasoning. The reason Senator McCain would shy away from Secretary Rice as a VEEP is not because she reminds voters that Senator McCain supports the war. There is no doubt in the mind of the voters on where he stands on the war, not to mention the fact that either democrat will beat voters over the head with that information until November.

The reason she will not be on the ticket is two fold. 1) For a Senator who is weak on the economy in a time of economic fear, the last thing he should be doing is adding a VEEP who's area of expertise is the same as his own. She does not fill any information gap in Senator McCain's presidency. 2) For a Senator who likes to be viewed as a maverick, and more importantly as a distinct entity from the Bush administration, adding a VEEP who is so deeply embedded in the establishment of the current regime would damage those claims.

Adding Secretary Rice would fuel two major narratives for the Democrats -- that Senator McCain knows nothing of nor cares little for economic policy and that Senator McCain represents nothing more or less than a third Bush term. The chances of either of those narratives resonating soundly with voters far exceedes the image benefits of adding an African-American woman to the ticket.

Posted by: jslotterback | April 8, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Whatever happened to Guillani as a potential veep?

Posted by: JNoel002 | April 8, 2008 12:42 PM
------------------
Mayor 9/11's chances went down the toilet with FL. The more people heard the truth about his performance and personal life the less they liked.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | April 8, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

MOR = Middle Of the Road

Posted by: Spectator2 | April 8, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

this has to be a non-starter for McCain. Dems would love to re-hash Ms. Rice's inexplicable ignorance regarding the pre- 9/11 intelligence report that terrorists might attack us by using airplanes. Talk about a gift VP choice to the Democrats; it goes right to the heart of one of McCain's alleged strong points - protecting us from terrorist attacks.

Posted by: roscoejr | April 8, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Although his record is pretty conservative, McCain still is not trusted by the conservative base of the Republican party. Condi has described herself as "moderately pro-choice". Not a good way to sure up the base. He can't pick her.

Posted by: patrick94114 | April 8, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Mike, Condi made the "husband" comment at a DC cocktail party and it was reported I believe in the Newsweek section that has cartoons and short comments.

She started to say husband and got as far as "husb..." before correcting herself when referring to W.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | April 8, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

McCain's viable veep candidates list seems to be pretty small--It would seem he is either looking for someone who can help him with conservatives or crossovers, but he probably can't get both.

Whatever happened to Guillani as a potential veep?

Posted by: JNoel002 | April 8, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

The best running mate for John McCain would be Keith Richards. He's about the only person that McCain can stand next to and appear young and vital.

Posted by: The Watcher | April 8, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Mike here is one post but there are man on google.

http://www.nndb.com/people/205/000024133/

At a dinner party while Rice was National Security Advisor, she referred to President George W. Bush as "my husband" before abruptly correcting herself.


Posted by: Patrick NYC | April 8, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

MOR?

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 8, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

I hope Condi runs, for she is held in just as much contempt as Cheney. Both are America's biggest lyiers, and both couldn't find their A@@ with two hands.. Yeah run Condi run!

Posted by: nallcando | April 8, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

MarkInAustin - thanks for the name, I'll have to check her out.

I miss your underscores ("_"), even though you didn't always have them.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 8, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

For McCain: Rob Portman would not be a bad choice.

For Obama, he just has to pick some older, MOR guy.

Posted by: Spectator2 | April 8, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

"hey USMC, welcome back to the zoo.

Condoleeza Rice would be a terrible choice, and she's probably already been crossed off the list [for reasons listed below]. "

Thanks. My stay will be short-lived, but I just can't help visiting the fix when I can.

I think you sum it up. If bsimon, spec, proud, can all agree on something, the marketplace of ideas may have found 'truth'.

The speculation continues...

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 8, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Lots of people sacrifice higher pay for a political position, just for the prestige. Does anyone believe Mitt Romney was making more money as governor, and would have made more as president, than he would have made in the business world? He was doing it to feed his ego, which isn't necessarily a bad thing; it's a normal behavior. The question is, is Condoleezza Rice a person who would turn down the VP, or is she willing to take the position because of the name recognition it would grant her - and the opportunities such name recognition would open up to her.

Not much is known about Rice. What is known is that she's a very driven person. She was raised that way. Given her ambitious demeanor, is it really a stretch to imagine her running as McCain's VP candidate?

Posted by: mahmud010 | April 8, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

The chance of Condi being VEEP candidate is about the same as the likelihood of my ever getting my Fix T-shirt from February.

Posted by: mesondk | April 8, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

AggieMike, Take a look at Sarah Palin, Gov. of AK. She is a huge success as Gov., a reformer, knowledgeable on energy matters, has negotiated some stuff with Canada, and she is both pro-life and a real NRA member.
One possible problem is she is about to spring her 5th kid and may be unable to campaign for a couple of months, but by August she should be in fine fettle.

Dave and Proud both like her but are pretty clear that her apparent youth will contrast negatively with McC's age and Ds will make fun of AK as "experience."

Posted by: MarkInAustin | April 8, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

"Most of the hate for Condi seems to stem from her performance at the 9/11 hearings and the flack over the war. She also got a bit beat up from the comics over her calling Bush her 'husband' and her shopping for shoes here in NYC when Katrina happened."

Regarding the war, hasn't she been relatively opposed to it?

I never heard about the 'husband' comment - it sounds pretty funny though. Do you have any more background/details?

Shoes: What should the secretary of state have been doing? [Don't we have mayors and governors for a reason?]

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 8, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Has Mittens VP chances been hurt by the poligamy dustup in Texas?

Any conspiracy theorists think the raid might have been... uh.... timely, especially since they evidently can't "find" the 16 year old who supposedly started the whole thing.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | April 8, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

hey USMC, welcome back to the zoo.

Condoleeza Rice would be a terrible choice, and she's probably already been crossed off the list.

During the run-up to the war, she failed to be a strong enough voice of opposition. IMO, she has further failed to stand on her own and aggressively promote and facilitate politcal reconciliation in Iraq.

As national security adviser and secretary of state, she has worked hard and diligently, taking on Herculean challenges but with limited results. If the political situation in Iraq were vastly improved on her watch, then one could make the case, but barring a 60% approval rating for the current admin, I think Condi is a non-starter for veep.

Posted by: proutobeGOP | April 8, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

USMC_Mike

Most of the hate for Condi seems to stem from her performance at the 9/11 hearings and the flack over the war. She also got a bit beat up from the comics over her calling Bush her 'husband' and her shopping for shoes here in NYC when Katrina happened.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | April 8, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Rob Portman is going to be McCain's VP choice....Book it.

Posted by: Magnolia | April 8, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

I hate to say this, but doesn't the most logical choice seem to be Mittens?

He has the successful business background. He's relatively young. He had a following. He's got an organization.

How Machiavellian is McCain? Can he put aside his personal distaste for the man to try to win an election?

Posted by: AdrickHenry | April 8, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

It seems that Republicans here are dead-set on a VP pick that has two criteria - good-looking and younger than McCain. How about Charlton Heston - whoops, too late!

Posted by: bondjedi | April 8, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

"In other words, McCain is going to win or lose the election on his own, I think. And that's really how it should be."

That's kind of how I see it too.

Even if he picks a young conservative (like a Bobby Jindal), it won't win him enough love with us (conservatives).

He'll probably settle on an obscure, one-or-two-issue, moderate who won't be the 2012 GOP nominee.

McCain's VP is less important than Obama's.

Curious, do you have thoughts on that?

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 8, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

She is the textbook definition of the Peter Principle.
The facts are clear:
As NSC Advisor Pre 9/11
Ignoring the Hart/Rudman report
No meetings of the terrorism task force.
Ignoring the pre 8/9/01 PDB

With a record like this why is she still in her position.
When she was growing up in Birmingham in the 60's, I wonder what side of the firehoses would she have been on.

Posted by: MRF | April 8, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, that was a bad "ooops" for sure.

Posted by: AdrickHenry | April 8, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

If Sore Loserman (love that) isn't a likely pick, how about McCain's other minder Graham?

While much was made of the Loserman whisper in McSame's ear about his gaffe on Shiite Iran training Sunni al Qaeda, the image that sticks in my mind was the Graham grimmace as he heard his charge once again launch into the al Qaeda fiction.

Graham is from South Carolina (a good demographic) and is smarter on domestic policy than McCain.... a possibility?

If he or Loserman were the VP pick, then the campaign theme song could be.... "Me and My Shadow."

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | April 8, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

"I do not think she'll be on the ticket. McCain has got to get someone with a strong financial or economic background to balance his self-proclaimed ignorance."

When running for President, it's never a good idea to admit you 'don't really understand economics'.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 8, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

I've got a typo in there: it should read: "she did NOT lead Bush by the nose to war like Cheney did."

Posted by: AdrickHenry | April 8, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

This is a ruse. McCain has already been told, by the REAL masters of this country, that Lieberman is going to be on his ticket. They just want you to think that there is some serious deliberation about the position.

Posted by: Mike | April 8, 2008 11:50 AM
--------------------------
Man is it fun to watch this mess. Let's see, which will piss off the conservatives who don't like McCain as it is? A liberal, Jewish Democrat or a closted black lesbian?

I can see the Condi ads now. Her clips at the 9/11 hearings, "Obama said to want to attack US with planes" or her quote of calling her boss W 'her husband'.

Like all three that are still standing in the race now, most of the GOP VP picks mentioned all have their own achillies heel.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | April 8, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

LOL Freemasons. My father was a mason. Somehow we missed out on whatever booty the masons are supposed to amass. I did end up with his secret mason code books, though.

If the "Freemasons" were going to pick the veep nominee, though, I think they'd pick someone who was more popular with the other "Freemasons." As a "Freemason," Sore Loserman does nothing for me.

Back to the issue at hand. Mike, I'm pretty stumped. The list of possible veeps that was floated a week or so ago had no slam dunks on it -- I guess that's why the list is so long.

In other words, McCain is going to win or lose the election on his own, I think. And that's really how it should be.

Posted by: Spectator2 | April 8, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

I like Condi. She plays piano beautifully. She is expert in Russian and Soviet History. Very sharp looking, too.

And if Bob Woodward's books are to be believed (and I think they are) she was not the instigator of the Iraq Fiasco: that historically infamous distinction belongs to Dick Cheney. ...and also, Donald Rumsfeld. Yes, as Secretary of State under Bush, Condi does carry the stench of Iraq on her but she did lead Bush by the nose to war like Cheney did.

I do not think she'll be on the ticket. McCain has got to get someone with a strong financial or economic background to balance his self-proclaimed ignorance.

I'd like to see President Obama make Condi Ambassador to Russia. Perfect job for her.

Posted by: AdrickHenry | April 8, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

A Question to Liberals:

I have not heard very much anti-Condi chatter in my (limited) readings in the 'blogosphere'. Most of the hatred is directed at Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield.

Is this a wide-spread, unspoken thing, or is this just bubbling up because anyone associated with Bush is bad?

Honest question.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 8, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

McCain will pick someone younger than him, to emphasize his gravitas. Robert Byrd would be a good choice. So would Bob Dole.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 8, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Mike speaks, of course, of the Freemasons.

enough said

*heh*

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 8, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

She has more failure and disaster associated with her than even your top pick Tim Pawlenty. Bush may be leaving but apparently "fail upward" will still be the GOP mantra.

Posted by: Greg in LA | April 8, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

"USMC_Mike: Do you think there's a chance McCain would tap Lieberman? I really can't see that either.

Sore Loserman is almost as old as McCain, and he certainly holds no appeal to independents or most Dems, being among the most hawkish members of Congress."

I think you're dead on with the age issue.

Since it seems McCain is going to try to do this without conservatives, he's going to have to mitigate his pro-war stance as much as possible. Putting Joe on doesn't exactly do that, since you're right - he's very hawkish, and won't likely get very many x-overs.

Come to think of it, I am having a hard time thinking of anyone he could pick that would really cement his position. Can you?

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 8, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Mike (just mike) writes
"McCain has already been told, by the REAL masters of this country, that Lieberman is going to be on his ticket."


Mike speaks, of course, of the Freemasons.

enough said

.

Posted by: bsimon | April 8, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who believes in Rice's analytical abilities should read her chapter in "Makers of Modern Strategy." Worst chapter in the book, demonstrating that she is still stuck in the 1960s Cold War. And does ANYONE (other than me) remember her statement before the 2004 election on the possibility of delaying the election due to "security concerns." Her recent statements that she was "surprised" about the tenacity of opposition in Iraq speaks volumes about her analytical "abilities."

Posted by: LTC Ken | April 8, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

USMC_Mike: Do you think there's a chance McCain would tap Lieberman? I really can't see that either.

Sore Loserman is almost as old as McCain, and he certainly holds no appeal to independents or most Dems, being among the most hawkish members of Congress.

Posted by: Spectator2 | April 8, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Until Condi gets a HUSBAND (hint: will not happen), the Republicans will never put her on the ticket.

Posted by: jsmith | April 8, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse


If Rice were willing, McCain would see in her a great deal of election leverage amongst blacks and women and that could be enough to swing the election in his favor. She's relatively young and so if McCain kicks the bucket, she could take over with ease. She carries an indelible stain from her close association with George Waterboard Bush and the phony justification for the Iraq campaign. (That alone will probably ice her).

PBS's recent "Bush's War" characterized her as an initially naive and hamstrung NSA, but ultimately showed her as a shrewd and cunning Darth Vader (photo was fantastic!) in engineering Rumsfeld's ouster as SOS. Rice can now wear her dominatrix boots without anyone commenting other than positively.

Huckabee and Romney are terrible choices for different reasons.

Posted by: Alan Browne | April 8, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Picking Rice as a running mate would confirm all my worries about McCain. I'm glad this article talks some sense on the subject.

Posted by: SamuelBerry08 | April 8, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

"But foreign policy is supposed to be McCain's strong suit. Where he is really weak is domestic issues. His grasp of economic issues appears quite poor. Rice doesn't help at all there."

Spectator, I think this is a good point, and probably the number one reason McCain WONT choose Condi.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 8, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

"As a liberal I hope he does pick Condi. All of those crazy racists in the GOP would really be in a pickle then since given McCain's age and health she could very likely actually end up as president. That should cement things for the Democrats."

You mean like the crazy racists in the Democrat party tearing it apart at the whim of the Clintons?

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 8, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

bondjedi: "Rice would beef up McCain's shaky foreign policy credentials. Who would you rather have whispering in Macko's ear - Condi or Joe Lieberman?"

But foreign policy is supposed to be McCain's strong suit. Where he is really weak is domestic issues. His grasp of economic issues appears quite poor. Rice doesn't help at all there.

And if McCain picks Sore Loserman, that would be just ducky to Democrats too, I'm sure.

Posted by: Spectator2 | April 8, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Rice was made SecState for the same reason

Gonzalez was made Attorney General. Bush clones without thought.

And her performance has been as fine and dandy. And she lied as stupidly in congressional hearings. And accomplished NOTHING.

She has no record...(name one accompishment!) she just dresses up and gets on her airplane.

What a joke. This is the successor to
Colin Powell?

Posted by: sickofit | April 8, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

This is a ruse. McCain has already been told, by the REAL masters of this country, that Lieberman is going to be on his ticket. They just want you to think that there is some serious deliberation about the position.

Posted by: Mike | April 8, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Rice has already twice been promoted beyond her capacity.... NSA and Secretary of State.... making her a VP candidate would indeed stretch the Peter Principle to the twilight zone of overreach.

If McCain puts process over policy then he might consider a black woman as a double wammy, and indeed she would be.... to his campaign.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | April 8, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Rice would beef up McCain's shaky foreign policy credentials. Who would you rather have whispering in Macko's ear - Condi or Joe Lieberman?

Posted by: bondjedi | April 8, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

This is certainly great for keep the blogosphere and the punditocracy abuzz but it would be possibly the dumbest veep pick McCain could make. It won't happen. He's not that dumb.

Posted by: Spectator2 | April 8, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

USMC-Mike,

What has Rice done except shop? What experience does she bring to the table? It's wrong for Black voters to vote for Obama because of his color, but it's okay for Condi because she is a Republican. Please.

Posted by: ARMY_Mike | April 8, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

For the 19% of Americans who still support George W. Bush, having a potent symbol of his failed administration in Condi would be great reminder that McCain is running for Bush's third term.


Posted by: Christian in NYC | April 8, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Didn't the lessening of violence in Iraq "in recent months" end about a month ago? Wasn't March one of the bloodiest months in a year? The Administration would like us all to believe that there is less violence in Iraq, but the evidence seems to say otherwise.

As a liberal I hope he does pick Condi. All of those crazy racists in the GOP would really be in a pickle then since given McCain's age and health she could very likely actually end up as president. That should cement things for the Democrats.

Posted by: Glenn | April 8, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

You wonder how Senor could be either so politically ignorant or dishonest , then you remember , oh yeah that Dan Senor , Viceroy of Bagdad .

Posted by: nat turner | April 8, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

"Condi would be a terrible pick. She would tie McCain to the Bush admin, that he will have to distance himself from if he has any hope of attracting swing voters."

Sarcozy won in France.

I think there are a lot of Bush supporters who are just not as vocal as the haters.

What a mitigating factor against Obama - a black woman who has actually done something besides run for office every 3 years!

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 8, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Great idea. Pick the person who was the President's National Security Advisor during 2 of the greatest intelligence failures in the history of this country: Sept. 11th and the run-up to war in Iraq. What a great resume-builder!

Posted by: TMW | April 8, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Considering that traditionally it is the VPs job to essentially do nothing, she'd be perfect. She has shown that she is more than capable of doing nothing. As a matter of fact she has done nothing better than any secretary of state that I can remember.

Posted by: Hank | April 8, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

McCain has just one chance and only one chance of being elected, that being that there are enough racist/sexist voters who can be motivated to go to the polls to create a plurality in states with 271 electoral votes. Adding Condoleeza to the ticket is a sure way to keep those voters home. Besides, she's just plain dumb (which has nothing to do with either her sex or her race.)

Posted by: Stonecreek | April 8, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

I take issue with labeling Rice as one of the "least political" members of the administration. Surely, one can say she is less extreme, less ideological, what have you, but when sitting across from Russert or Stephanopoulos, she tows the line of administration B.S. like a pro.

Posted by: Paul | April 8, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Picking Condi Rice for McCain's vice presidential running mate would seal his doomed candidacy. She is closely linked to the failed policies of the Bush administration in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Israel and Palestine. She has zero practical experience in domestic issues, and is particularly ill-equiped in questions of economic policy. She is an elitist removed from the concerns and experiences of everyday Americans.

So, yes, I fervently hope that Sen. McCain selects Ms. Rice as his Vice Presidential pick. This would guarantee the victory of Sen. Obama in November, a result that would be a tremendous boon to the entire nation.

Posted by: dee | April 8, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Although it would be an interesting choice, and I have great respect for the abilities and talents of Ms. Rice; it will never happen. She is too closely linked to the current administration and she doesn't bring anything politically to the table.

Posted by: whurley | April 8, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

The only way Rice will ever be VP is if Cheney steps down or dies and she is tagged as his replacement. Otherwise she will retire to a think tank or President of some University to spend out the rest of her days writing about how the Bush administration screwed up the country and the world so bad.

Posted by: Andy R | April 8, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Condi would be a terrible pick. She would tie McCain to the Bush admin, that he will have to distance himself from if he has any hope of attracting swing voters. She was the Nat'l Security Adviser during the worst Nat'l Security disaster in over 60 years. While her SoS career hasn't been bad, her accomplishments are due more to her influence with the President (offsetting Cheney & Rumsfeld, when he was there) than her diplomatic savvy. That is not to say that she's not an intelligent, accomplished person. McCain will find a more suitable running mate.

Posted by: bsimon | April 8, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Condi for VP would be a great thing for the Democrats. Then no one on the Republican Ticket would have any great experience or expertise in domestic policy at a time of recession/housing debacle/anger over health care. Politics is local and Iraq, though important, looks to be a back seat issue to domestic concerns this year.

Posted by: nclwtk | April 8, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Condi would be a very smart choice, obviously counterbalancing the Democratic voters who vote primarily based on gender or race.

But I still think the Republicans will lose in the end because this year, it's not only the economy stupid (Recession) but also the war stupid (Iraq) and also American hegemony stupid (Bush). The Republicans are holding a losing hand.

Posted by: egc52556 | April 8, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company