Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Parsing The Polls: Condoleezza Rice

Since most people (The Fix included) spent the holiday weekend tuned out from politics, you might have missed a few important stories that ran in the Post over the last few days.

The most intriguing was a piece in Monday's paper by Glenn Kessler that focused on the sterling reputation of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The story cited Post polling that showed that in spite of the ongoing struggles of the Bush Administration, Rice remains largely above the fray and would be a major force in the 2008 campaign should she decide to run -- a very unlikely prospect, we say.

(And what about that other woman mentioned as a candidate in 2008? Make sure to read the op-ed on why New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton can win -- penned by two top strategists for her husband -- as well as Post national politics editor John Harris's review of John Podhoretz's book on how to beat Hillary in 2008.)

But, back to Secretary Rice. Since discussions of her (and her political future) seem to pop up regularly on The Fix -- thanks, wethinks, to a very devoted web following -- let's spend this week's "Parsing the Polls" examining her appeal and the chances of her changing her mind about a presidential bid.

The Post poll shows that voters have separated Rice from the problems they have with President Bush. More than half (52 percent) of those tested had a favorable impression of Rice as compared to 27 percent who felt unfavorably about her. The Post has not asked voters to rate Bush's personal favorability since early March but at that time 46 percent felt favorably and 54 percent felt unfavorably about the chief executive. Polls conducted by other organizations in the interim have shown Bush's personal favorability numbers faltering. In an NBC/Wall Street Journal survey, conducted almost concurrently with the Post poll that produced the Rice numbers, just 39 percent had either very (18 percent) or somewhat (21 percent) positive feelings about Bush while 52 percent had either somewhat negative (15 percent) or very negative (27 percent) feelings. (Remember that most pollsters view job approval, not personal favorability, as the best indicator of how Americans view their elected officials. The Harris poll, in the field in early June, showed 52 percent of the sample said Rice was doing an excellent or good job while 43 percent said she was performing fairly or poorly.)

More interesting is why people seem to like Rice. Just one in five voters who view her favorably said that impression was from the policies she supports while a whopping 58 percent said their "view of her professional abilities" was responsible for the positive feelings. It is Rice's perceived competence that appeals to these voters. Rice's appealing life story likely has something to do with that appeal as does the careful managing of her public image -- Kessler reports that Rice now makes it a point to be greeted in foreign countries by celebrities, not dignitaries. (She's also drawn kudos for her keen fashion sense on official trips.)

Among the 27 percent of voters in the Post poll who saw Rice in an unfavorable light, the main reason (55 percent of that unfavorable bloc) were the policies she backed as a member of the Bush Administration. Twenty one percent cited her "professional abilities" as the prime factor for their negative feelings toward Rice.

Other pollls conducted prior to the Post survey back up the strong positive feelings about Rice. An April CNN poll pegged Rice's favorability at 57 percent and her unfavorability at 22 percent. A Pew poll also in the field in April produced remarkably similar results; fifty-nine percent had a very or mostly favorable impression of Rice while 27 percent had a very or mostly unfavorable view of her.

While we can repeat often enough that WE DO NOT BELIEVE that Rice is at all interested in a presidential bid in 2008, the Post poll shows that should she change her mind, which WE DO NOT BELIEVE she will do, it would totally reshape the political landscape.

The poll shows that Rice enjoys across the board support for a potential presidential bid that even Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain would envy. Seventy-one percent of Republicans said they would definitely (14 percent) or consider (57 percent) voting for Rice. Among Democrats, nine percent said they would definitely back Rice in 2008 while 36 percent said they would consider it -- an amazing number given the partisanship prevalent in today's political climate. Rice's numbers were also quite impressive among independents with 49 percent saying they would definitely (8 percent) or consider (41 percent) supporting her in the next national election.

A slew of state and national polls that include Rice in 2008 Republican primary matchups also show her running regularly in the top three along with McCain and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

But, as we've written many times in this space before, polls conducted this far in advance of the next national election can be very deceiving. Giuliani carries near universal name identification thanks to his role following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks but his path to the nomination as a pro-abortion rights, pro-gay marriage Republican is extremely complicated. Rice would be in for a similar treatment in the heat of a campaign as her opponents worked to take some of the shine off of her currently sterling reputation. One huge stumbling block for Rice? Her "mildly pro-choice" position on abortion, a stance that is generally seen as a non-starter when it comes to Republican nominating politics.

Rice has not gone as far as fast as she has without a dependable political ear. Undoubtedly she is aware that a race for elected office would remove her from the pedestal on which she has been placed by the American public, reducing her to nothing more than a politician. Maybe some day she will want to take that leap but it seems the longest of long shots to think she will begin a political career with a run for president in 2008.

By Chris Cillizza  |  July 5, 2006; 10:25 AM ET
Categories:  Parsing the Polls  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: CT Senate: Lieberman May Run as Independent
Next: Lieberman: Iraq and a Hard Place


It has been my dedicated daily interest to study Dr. Rice for over three years now. This is a woman who's phenominal genius would be hard to comprehend even by the best of us.

It is a sad epidemic Americans have these days. Jumping to conclusions without an ounce of proof. Example; Earlier in this string someone very uninformed blamed Dr. Rice for the North Korean 'adventure'. (I'm assuming they meant the missle test). As we all know 'Kim Bubba' launched his missles inspite of warnings against it. A six nation committee was formed and took 'Kim Bubba' to task for it. They promised Kim that if he tried that again there would be immediate sanctions. These sanctions would have devistated N. Koreas economy. Kim Bubba's Nation would have been literally starved to death and defeated without a single shot being fired. There has not been one missle fired since!

While we're on the subject of N. Korea, You can lay the aquisition of nuclear warheads over there squarly at Bill Clintons feet. He dropped the ball big time on that one! (It's a long story but I'm fixing to tell you how to find proof via a good book).

Someone else said Dr. Rice is a failer. NEWS FLASH! Dr. Rice has failed at nothing! Example; The recent Mideast crises.When Dr. Rice was called in to the Mideast, she flew in, walked in, looked around and said, (I paraphrase) "Ooooh Wee! What a mess! This is going to take a lot of work and a lot of time". She knew to stick around would have been useless at that time so she planted a few seeds and flew off to aforementioned N. Korea. When she returned back the rabid and vicious fighting dogs were finally running out of steam and were ready to listen. Condi rolled up her sleeves and went to work. It took a month to get some kind of negotiations out of these people but she finally did it.

Everything went the way she said it would and it took as much time as she said it would. Dr. Condoleezza Rice was vindicated! AND there was a lot of liberal media eating humble pie for a week afterwards!

Dr. Rice has eleven Ph.D.s
As provost at Stanford University she saved the University from an almost guarnteed bankruptcy at 20 million in debt and turned it into a 14 million dollar surplus.
She speaks five languages fluently.
She turned down a chance to be the Commsioner of the NFL (her dream job) to continue doing her job as Secretary of State. (Folks, THAT'S patriotic devotion!)
She is an accomplished classical pianist and figure skater.
Forbes magazine called her 'World's Most Powerful Woman' in '04 and '05 and she is expected to get that title again this year.
Just recently the American Legeon Womans Auxillery named her 'Woman Of The Year'

There is a whole lot more where this came from!

This brings us back to the top of this post. Don't take my word for it. Prove it to yourselves. Go to your library and check out the book by Dick Morris called 'Condi vs. Hillary'. It doesn't take long to read and it'll make your jaw hit the ground!

Mr. Thomas D. Watts
Arkansas / Oklahoma Chairman for 'Americans for Dr. Rice'

Posted by: Mr. Thomas D. Watts CP, AFR | September 1, 2006 5:13 AM | Report abuse

I found this site doing a google search and it is August 29th after Condi gave a speech at the American Legion Convention. People are talking about her as president, and the Utah newspapers are buzzing about her as a contender. So I am glad to come to the Washington Post site and see this good poll data showing strong support for Condi in 2008.

Posted by: Utah Condi supporter | August 29, 2006 11:07 PM | Report abuse

Condi will never even consider a run. This is only A Game being played by the Far Right, who want to distract the middle roaders.

Posted by: Don | July 13, 2006 11:33 PM | Report abuse

Condi appears to rattle the cage of the liberals and Democrats. Over 60 comments are in here, and by far, it is mostly nasty stuff from Condi haters. Wow, and they seem to think Republicans would not favor an African-American for any White House office like President or VP. Sounds racist to me from the Democrats side.

Look at this post from July 5
That's the press, not the rnc bringing up Ms. Rice's name as a possible candidate
for the presidency. She doesnt have a
chance. If youre not a WASP male, then your chances at becoming president/v.p nomimee for the Republican Party are slim and none. the republican "base" would never stand for it.

Posted by: Cassini | July 5, 2006 03:23 PM

Cassini thinks it is the PRESS feeding the Condi in 2008 hub bub. Cassini might be interested in the past work by thousands of volunteers who support Condi and how they started back in early 2005 to lay the groundwork for petition drives, spent money on radio and TV ads, and overall have built a strong ARMY of warriors to get Condi on the ballot in 2008. It is the job of the media to report on this and I found it amazing that it took so long for the media to catch up. Most media ignore the Condi for President efforts, pooh pooh it, (like most of the Washington Post writers) and write with regret when forced to report the news about Condi for president.

The Cowboy Diplomacy change is all Condi. Any change in tone for the US foreign policy has her fingerprints on it. Sadly, the media have failed again to give her any credit on helping President Bush step back and take some time to work the diplomatic route instead of charging in with all barrels blasting. Come on, give Condi the credit she deserved. It won't hurt you all to do your job and tell the truth.

Posted by: Slim Girl in Pearls | July 11, 2006 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Rice may very well be a viable candidate in the general elction, but there is absolutely no way Republicans would ever nominate, first, a woman, and second, an African American, to their ticket. Spin it all you want, the fact is it ain't gonna happen.

Posted by: Rusty Austin | July 10, 2006 7:55 PM | Report abuse

"BUT, in the end, the evidence that suggested that Saddam was a threat to the peace, stability, and safety of the international community outweighed the evidence that suggested that Saddam was not."

What evidence was this? I mean the kind they didn't make up.

Posted by: KAS | July 10, 2006 1:05 PM | Report abuse


How do you know Dr. Rice ignored intel that suggested Saddam was not an imminent threat? Were you there during all of the long, complex discussions that took place in the administration before the decision to invade Iraq was made? Were you present in all of those detailed meetings where, according to you, Dr. Rice never mentioned anything that might cast the slightest bit of doubt upon the idea that Saddam was a threat to the US? Come on--be realistic. Of course Dr. Rice looked at the evidence to the contrary, and we can be sure she presented that to the President as well.

BUT, in the end, the evidence that suggested that Saddam was a threat to the peace, stability, and safety of the international community outweighed the evidence that suggested that Saddam was not. As a result, Saddam was given an ultimatum, which he decided to ignore, and was thus ousted. Besides, the decision to invade Iraq was not made by Dr. Rice. It was made by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Wolfowitz, Bush, a Congress that declared war on Iraq, three quarters of the American public, and the detailed intel of the international community that all pointed to the fact that Saddam had to be removed.

Whether or not the post-war operations in Iraq have been handled well under Rumsfeld and other military/DoD leaders is an entirely other issue--one that does not involve Dr. Rice. However, Dr. Rice's statements about the available intel regarding Iraq were perfectly legitimate.

To the contrary, it's ignorant, left wing propaganda-spouting, liberal trend-following, fickle people like yourself who conveniently pick and choose a few details as long as it fits within your viewpoint. You, like all the other hypocritical Senators who turned on the war effort the moment it became unpopular with the consistuency, scrounge up a few quotes that you can distort and blow way out of context to tarnish the reputations of honest, well-meaning people for partisan gain.

If anyone should be held responsible for their ignorant words, it's people like you.

Dr. Rice's statements remain legitimate. The fact that the mil/gov has made some mistakes in the post-war operations is none of her business. History WILL and already HAS begun vindicating Dr. Rice. Case closed.

Posted by: Marcus Antonio | July 7, 2006 11:54 PM | Report abuse

She managed to IGNORE and DISMISS intelligence that did not back up the Administration's case that Saddam was an IMMINENT threat. She will not be vindicated by historians for anything. You must be blind and deaf to not see what a hideous blunder this invasion was from the beginning. Nearly 2600 dead soldiers sacrificed to get rid of a toothless dictator that our own government once supported. We got rid of a secular thug disdained by Al Qaeda and we now have what amounts to a Shiite Theocracy in Iraq. WELL DONE! Our "Noble Cause" is resulting in massacres and a future full of burka-wearing Iraqi women living with no water or electricity. A new "Afganistan post-Soviet occupation" perhaps? Bush only cares about "Freedom" when it involves an "easy" target and oil. This man did not even know who the Taliban was before 2001! You don't invade a country based on the assertions of unstable alchoholic informants like "Curveball", criminals like Chalabi or forged documents regarding "uranium from Africa". Responsible leaders don't play on the fears of their people in the wake of 9/11 to pursue an agenda that they had been cooking up long before September 2001.

Rice failed to present "all" the opinions to the President. She joined the chorus of ideologues that drove this disasterous policy forward, smearing anyone along the way that dared speak out. She joined the pre-war press blitz that went on even after the administration had already made up it's mind about what it was going to do. She distorted the threat and she has blood on her hands- case closed.

Posted by: Maria | July 7, 2006 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Amazing, if true, that Ms. Rice has an IQ of 185. Where is the proof? And the poster of that value must also know the IQ of GWB? What is it?

Posted by: Entrepreneur | July 7, 2006 5:56 PM | Report abuse


If you take Dr. Rice's statements in context, and don't just pick and choose an interesting phrase and blow it way out of proportion like the MSM did, you'll see that they sound a lot more realistic.

The way the MSM has portrayed Dr. Rice's statement is her saying that if we didn't invade Iraq, there would BE a "mushroom cloud". In fact, that's quite the opposite of what she said. Her actual quote on the issue is as follows:

"[T]here will always be some uncertainty about how quickly [Saddam Hussein] can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Sept. 8, 2002

First, note that Dr. Rice states that there is currently uncertainty about "how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons". This indicates that she never thought Saddam really had a functioning nuclear weapons program at the time. The goal was to PREVENT Saddam from establishing such a program. Then she simply says, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." In other words, years down the road, we don't want to have to find out that Saddam actually had been trying to engineer/acquire nuclear weapons because he used one of them on Israel or Iran or Kuwait. Now, just look at this logically. She was not saying there would be a "mushroom cloud" if we did not invade Iraq. She's simply stating that there is uncertainty over whether Saddam could acquire a nuclear warhead in the future, but we don't want to find out AFTER he actually gets one. This was never like a regular crime where you can wait until it's committed and then punish. When it comes to terrorist networks like Al Qaeda and rogue dictators like Saddam Hussein, you have to be preventative, not punitive.

It is a fact of history that Saddam had had WMDs before, because he used them on his own people. The mass graves are proof of that. Also, over 500 leftover WMDs have been found in Iraq since 2003 that had been hidden after the Gulf War. Granted, they were corroded, useless, and buried before the US invaded Iraq, but it shows that Saddam did not keep his end of the agreement post-Gulf War to destroy all of his WMDs. He hid them, and though they did go unused, it does show something about the nature of his thinking and his character. No one doubts Hussein was a crazy, volatile, unpredictable, sadistic tyrant. He had been booting out UN weapons inspectors up until the invasion, all the international intelligence at the time suggested Saddam had intentions of trying to acquire WMDs, we definitely know that his infrastructure before the '03 invasion had the capability and available nuclear scientists to restore a WMD program, and the last time we went to war with Iraq in 1991 weapons inspectors found that he was within 6 months of a nuclear weapon (MUCH closer than anyone had ever anticipated). Yes, I'm sure that after the Gulf War, Hussein completely sobered up and never had a second thought about restarting a weapons program or acquiring more WMDs--I'm sure he did a 180 and just became the perfect, peace-loving little democratically-elected ruler of the Middle East and never wanted to hurt anyone again. RIGHT...

Dr. Rice's so-called "mushroom cloud" statement was perfectly rational, reasonable, and right.

As for the statement Dr. Rice made stating that the 60,000 aluminum tubes Iraq had purchased seemed to really only be suited for a nuclear weapons program, she had every right to say that. The tubes had extra-fine specifications and coatings that were completely unnecessary for regular rocket launchers. France's intelligence agency had commandeered some of the tubes and tested them at high RPMs, and confirmed that they were without-a-doubt strong enought to be used in centrifuges to enrich uranium. What was the international intelligence community SUPPOSED to think when Iraq had tried to COVERTLY purchase mass quantities of these super-strong tubes that could easily be used in production of centrifuges on a dozen different occasions? What was the US SUPPOSED to think when Iraq was buying these in spite of the fact that such materials were BANNED from Iraq? And even though we haven't found any functioning WMDs in Iraq as of yet, they had four inspector-free years to hide them and plenty of time to move them to other countries. The issue is STILL not resolved as to whether the aluminum tubes were really for centrifuges or rocket launchers. Either way, Iraq was NOT supposed to have them in the first place, and their acquiring of them was a provocative act that raised serious legitimate concerns over Saddam's intentions to restore a weapons program. Saddam Hussein should have been brought to justice in 1991 anyway for his horrible crimes against humanity.

Dr. Rice did not "manipulate" or "mislead" anyone with her statements. She's been the one whose statements have been manipulated by an MSM and a fickle American public that so conveniently forgets ALL of the issues that lead up to the Iraq War. The Iraq War was not simply a result of shaky intel over aluminum tubes. There were thousands of serious issues that went into our decision to enter Iraq, and Dr. Rice's statements in the run-up to Iraq were completely valid and she will be vindicated by historians years from now.

Finally, like I said before, Dr. Rice's job description as NSA was NOT to change minds. It was to simply compile the opinions of all the major officials combined with the intel available at the time and present them in a clear and organized manner. That's it--case closed.

Posted by: Marcus Antonio | July 7, 2006 4:04 PM | Report abuse

It's gonna be really hard to make those "mushroom clouds" and "aluminum tubes" just fade away.....

Posted by: maria | July 7, 2006 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Marcus, Please keep posting great stuff about Condi, your comments were remarkable and could help get more people to understand that Condi has the skills to be an excellent president.

Thanks for expressing your opinion so well.

Posted by: Tina | July 7, 2006 8:17 AM | Report abuse

A). Dr. Rice had very, very little to do with the decision the administration made to go to war with Iraq. Most astute observers realize that those plans were drafted up by the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Powell/Wolfowitz team, not by Condi. Dr. Rice's role as National Security Adviser was NOT to change anyone's mind--her job description was to compile the opinions of other major officials, put them all together, and present them to the President in an organized manner. Condi has taken a lot of flack over the Iraq issue and she has held her peace with a real dignity and humility. I'm sure if you were to stick her into a debate and tell her to defend her 9/11 and Iraq-related statements, she would easily rip apart her opponents and wow her audience, just as she did during her Senate confirmation hearings where she tore Boxer, Kerry, and Kennedy limb from limb and exposed them for the cheap partisan sheep they are.

B). I don't know why people are ignoring all of the huge accomplishments Sec. Rice has made during her tenure as head of the State Dept. Right off the top of my head, to name a few, over the past several months, she has successfully wrested our foreign policy away from Cheney/Rumsfeld and has succeeded in replacing all of the neo-cons in top Dept positions with smart, seasoned diplomats. She has effectively junked the unilateralist, go-it-alone policy of the first term of the Bush administration and has implemented a foreign policy that is actually based on diplomacy, partnerships, and multilateralism. She has, quite creatively, reformed the entire State Department with her Transformational Diplomacy program that puts diplomats where they're needed most and puts our diplomats through a most rigorous training that requires them all to serve in "hardship locations" for a certain amount of time so they can learn the vital skills they need to be emissaries of the world's sole superpower (I guarantee we'll start seeing the fruit being born from this within the next few years). A few months ago, she was put in charge of a new organization to oversee Iraq's reconstruction--if anyone's been paying attention to the absolutely incredible progress she's been making in repairing and restoring Iraq's infrastructure, her skills speak for themselves. In November of 2005, she put Kissinger to shame by her amazing feat at negotiating a deal to reopen Gaza's border crossings; she stuck to her guns and would not allow any of the involved parties to go to sleep until the issue had been resolved--within a mere 48 hours, she successfully solved a problem that had plagued Israel/Palestine for YEARS. It was her leadership on the UN Security Council Resolution 1559 that drove Syria out of its occupation of Lebanon, which had lasted for 30 YEARS, enabling Lebanon to hold its first free elections in decades and advance democratic reform. Does anyone remember how much Europe hated us during Bush's first term...? Condi has, despite all odds, successfully smoothed out our relationship with Europe. Her barrage of European tours early on during her tenure as Sec State has put us back in a positive light amongst the Europeans. They and the UN have been with us by our side on every issue from Iran to North Korea to Sudan. We now actually have some semblance of a real coalition of nations in the struggle against terrorism under Condi's guidance and leadership. The list goes on and on.

C). And how about amazing her pre-2000 record? As Provost of Stanford University, she took the lead in turning the college's long-standing and threatening $20 million debt into a record $14.5 million surplus. She's been a renowned member on the boards of such organizations as RAND, Hewlett Packard, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Charles Schwab, etc. where she's learned valuable policy-making skills from some of the most prestigious think-tanks influencing domestic policy ranging from finances to health care to education to military technology, etc. She was top East-European/Soviet affairs adviser during Bush Sr's administration, where she helped write foreign policy that aided in the downfall of the Soviet Union and the reunification of Germany. She has an absolutely incredible record.

D). Her views on domestic policies ARE recorded and are quite easy to locate if you take just a couple minutes and look for them yourself. and both have long lists of Rice's quotes and publicly recorded stances on a variety of things. Pick your issue.

E). Dr. Rice is NOT pro-choice. She once stated that she might be classified as "reluctantly pro-choice" because she believes that a constitutional amendment banning all abortion is not a feasible political option at this point in time, and since she doesn't support that political option she says might be classified as "reluctantly" pro-choice. She is, however, morally opposed to abortion and has stated that she has the exact same view on the issue as does President Bush.

F). Condi is NOT just a parrot of Bush and his administration. She has taken a stand and stood up for what she believes in plenty of times, and every time, Bush and his admin politely back off and accept her opinion. When Bush spoke about getting rid of all affirmative action in every situation, Rice stood opposed to him and said that, while she believed race-neutral means were our #1 preference, affirmative action should still be able to be used when race-neutral means fail. Her disagreement with Bush over the feasibility of a constitutional amendment banning abortion at this point in history is also a good example. And if the way she has completely junked Bush's neo-con foreign policy of his first term and replaced it with real diplomacy is any indication of how she stands her ground in the administration, then she's got nothing to worry about, because the whole time she's done this, Bush has quietly acquiesed and never ceases to praise her abilities and tell how whenever there's a major crisis, the first thing he says is "Get me Condi." Bush admires and respects Sec. Rice, even when they disagree (even on big heated issues), and that is also evidence of the genuine sensitivity, tact, and diplomatic skill that Rice possesses (and would be invaluable in a Commander in Chief dealing with other world leaders).

G). Sec. Rice is the BEST candidate we could possibly elect into office, because NO ONE will have the kind of in-depth, personal, first-hand knowledge of international issues that will affect the US for years to come that Condi does. NO ONE has the kind of natural charm and diploamtic skill and ability to handle crises that Condi has acquired over the years. NO ONE has the respect, attentiveness, trust, and personal relationships with world leaders that Condi has--this will prove incredibly invaluable when she becomes President. Sec. Rice is a one-in-a-million that only comes along every so often and we cannot let someone like her go to waste. Regardless of what she says about her own personal ambitions (going to Stanford or the NFL), we must draft her because she is a gold-mine of experience, character, and knowledge that cannot just go to waste by returning to obscurity. As has been said before, Dr. Rice is a first and foremost a patriot, and heeds the call of her country over her own personal ambitions. No one doubts that the moment she chooses to enter the race, she will instantly have access to all the finest political minds and all the top endorsements. She is one of only a couple candidates who could feasibly jump into the presidential race very late and overtake everyone else to become the frontrunner. Her personal popularity and fantastic record guarantee her success at anything she attempts to do from here on out. There would be no problem getting her voted into office--we just need to convince her to run.

Posted by: Marcus Antonio | July 6, 2006 11:17 PM | Report abuse

What amazes me about Rice is that no matter how awful United States foreign policy continues to be and the more messes we seem to be getting in to, Rice gets very little critical press from legitimate sources. She is eitther involved in almost any decision (I beleive this) or she is so outside the decision process. Either way she does not look good. Yet. She flies above the radar and people seem to think she is super smart, competent, with great knowledge of how the world works.

From my perspective she is the worst Secretary of State we have had in recent memory and has lead the United States into more crisis without real solutions. Now, this is on top of her support for the war and her position as National Security Advisor.

My advise to Ms. Rice from a poltical persepctive is to go for it. People seem to like her no matter how incompetent she may be. I have never ever seen anything quite like it!

Posted by: Joseph Turtle | July 6, 2006 7:51 PM | Report abuse

Condi is strong on foreign policy and has built strong relationships for our nation. She is a fiscal conservative, as shown by her success in managing the Stanford University debt.

This is from letter to the editor in The Hill,( a DC political newspaper) and I have noticed other blog posters come in with a copy of stuff printed, so here goes:
Domain names aid 'draft Condi' movement

Regarding the June 21 article by Kelly McCormack about 2008 domain names ("2008 domain names going, going, gone"), please allow me to explain about one of the websites that is promoting one of the possible contenders for the next race for the White House, Condoleezza Rice.

Americans for Dr. Rice started as a 527 to gather funds needed in building a "draft Condi" political movement. As stated by McCormack, "Web addresses to post endorsements or bash presidential hopefuls" was also on the minds of the people who organized this website. There are other websites ( and that bring viewers to the current site, There are other promotional sites supporting Rice:,,,

Our website is a tool to get out the message about why we support Secretary of State Rice for president. Thousands of volunteers are linked by the site to communicate with each other, to plan for appearances at state conventions, like in California and Texas, and to post the address of our national chairwoman, Jessie Jane Duff.

It has been the energy of the volunteers to seek donated funds that placed ads on the radio and television stations in the past year. It has been that message that is reaching around the world about the possible race for the 2008 election by Condi Rice.

Yes, she says she is not running. But we are using the same methods used to draft Eisenhower in 1952 as the blueprint to draft Condi Rice for 2008. With the computer connecting thousands of Condi supporters around the nation, we have at least one more year to prepare the foundation to put her name on the ballots by petition drives and by paying the costs to put the name of Condi Rice on state ballots for 2008.
by Debbie Watson Tampa, Fla.

Posted by: Debbie Watson | July 6, 2006 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Interesting comments about Condi's potential. Speaking as a Westerner (as opposed to "Southerner", "Northeasterner", "Easterner", or "Heartlander")I see her candidacy as unlikely. In the long run her liabilities (as outlined in these comments so far) far outweigh her assets. Actually, the same goes for Sen. Clinton. I think the only people pushing her (i.e., Sen. Clinton) are in New York, the Beltway, and possibly some in California. I think an intelligent voter (if one exists) would not vote for either one.

So far, I have not seen in any of these comments why one would vote for Condi. There is much talk about her being a Black woman, she may or may not be a lesbian (who really cares except the "born agains") and that is about it. What positive things has she accomplished. So far I don't see much. And even if you liked her role as Sec of State and Sec advisor, what and where does she stand on domestic issues--nothing, nada so far.

Of course that being said, since when does accomplishment and intelligence mean anything within the Beltway?

Posted by: Red Rat | July 6, 2006 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Take another look at this comment by Cillizza and his buddies at the Wa Po:
, the Post poll shows that should she change her mind, which WE DO NOT BELIEVE she will do, it would totally reshape the political landscape.

I bet the Wa Po reporters will sabotage Condi on her efforts to run for president rather than admit they made the wrong forecast of the political future. Remember this, the people who buy ink by the barrel and own the machine to post the message also will control the message. So I am skeptical of the Wa Po making such a biased statement about whether Condi will run for president at sometime in 2007.

You can also bet the Wa Po boys will part of the MOB seeking for Condi to resign from her post since she can't use it for political purposes. (Did Taft have to resign as Secretary of War before he ran for president in 1908?) Wa Po might want to do a bit of research on other members of any President Cabinet who had to resign before running for and winning the post of President.

Now one last question, what do Angela Merkel of Germany and the new lady president of Chile have in common? They were all Cabinet secretaries for the Prime Minister before they won their own leadership office. So being Secretary of State is more of a grooming post than the record of any senator. Condi might not be a governor, but she has the heart and soul of a strong leader, and she is the full political partner of President Bush. She is like a second vice-president and has the complete trust of the president as well.

Posted by: I ADMIRE CONDI | July 6, 2006 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Hey, Section 9, great post. Now the other part of the report by Cillizza includes a past Wash Post article about the Condi folks.

And I have met them in Iowa, nice ladies who speak well about why we should include Condi on the list. This Wendy Rogers is also a mom and taking care of her kids plus trying to organize the Texas convention booth, amazing stuff to admire when we think of so many Republican/conservative women promoting Condi.

Look at this Wash Post article:
Coy Candidates May Be Called Up by the Draft
Grass-Roots Groups Promote Their Favorites for 2008 Presidential Election

By Zachary A. Goldfarb
Special to The Washington Post
Sunday, April 23, 2006

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says she won't run for president in 2008.

Wendy Rogers, mother of three, hopes to change her mind.

"If she realizes we are asking her to serve her country again, she will," said the 37-year-old from Austin.

Rogers has traveled to Tennessee to rally for Rice at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference. She has lobbied for her at local GOP gatherings and wears Rice stickers when she shops.

"I have put my heart into this," Rogers said.

Rogers is a state coordinator for Americans for Dr. Rice, a registered political committee whose goal is to draft Rice into the 2008 presidential contest. "Our focus is essentially showing her that she can do this," said Jessie Jane Duff, a former Marine who heads the group.

Having raised more than $20,000, Americans for Dr. Rice is one of the more mature political draft efforts underway in anticipation of 2008. But there are many others trying to coax their favored politicians into the race, including some who would seem to need no coaxing. Some of the groups actually meet; others exist only online. None seems to be playing a role in influencing any politician's actual plans. But they reflect the early and intense interest in 2008 percolating among the politically active.

Then there is Scott Berry, who was driving on Highway 78 near Atlanta recently when a stranger honked his horn and threw him a thumbs up. The reason: The five stickers on Berry's silver truck with such expressions as "Viva Condi!" and "I'm a Condista."

Spokesmen for potential candidates say only that the efforts are flattering. They do not want to seem affiliated in any way with the drafters, which could violate campaign finance rules that keep draft groups separate from official campaigns.

Drafters can only hope to build the kind of buzz that was generated in 2003 by the Draft Clark movement, which retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark credited with helping to persuade him to enter the Democratic presidential contest.

Posted by: Hank in Iowa | July 6, 2006 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Ah, the WaPo message boards-where the KosKids go to think.

Here's the thing; the closer Rice gets to actually running, and she will, the more filled with panic and actual, cross-burning loathing the Left will become. You haven't seen race-hatred and bigotry until you've seen what the Left has in store for Condi.

Of course, Rice understands this. One of her innate talents is her ability to use her opponent's extremism and showboating against them. Look what happened to that two-bit party hack Richard ben-Veniste!

One of the things about her has been an ability to stay out of the 2008 sweepstakes while Hillary wears out her welcome. Look at the two women: Hillary has already got significant slices of the Democratic Party demographic mad at her by her inane straddling over the war and abortion. Rice, otoh, has remained out of the line of fire while the Democrats give Hillary the Edmund Muskie treatment and Bill cavorts with the Canadian Tire Heiress. Rice's standing among Republican demographics is amazing-the grassroots rank and file troops love the woman.

Take a look at her primary opponents. Rudy is a gun grabber and is far to the Left of Rice on abortion. McCain has huge problems with the base. As a unifying candidate for the Party, Rice answers all the problems. Don't think that the Sith Lord (that's Karl Rove to you liberals) hasn't thought this through.

Oh, and "moderately pro-choice" can easily mean "against Roe v. Wade and for sending the issue back to the states", which would please the Federalist Society crowd no end. You liberals will get buried by this woman while she smiles at you and steals your lunch, and you will have deserved it for underestimating her. You call her an idiot and you call her incompetent. You say this about a woman with an IQ of 185. You do so because she is black and Republican. When she starts running as the Second Coming of Ronald Reagan, don't start coming to me and screaming that all blacks are supposed to be liberals. I'll be the one who told you so.

Posted by: section9 | July 6, 2006 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Being a single woman will be a strong asset for Condi if she decides to run in late 2007.

Now, I wonder if the media will accept the fact the draft effort was successful or will the media try to twist it as some Karl Rove conspiracy all along?

Politics is about people and who they support to represent them and their political views in their state and federal government. So if thousands of Condi supporters succeed in promoting Condi for president; please give them some applause not ridicule. They have donated time and money to make this a success rather than being paid off by some multimillionaire like George Soros to make it appear as if the real people are organized.

Hired political gun slingers have no loyalty to anyone, they are just paid to promote their candidate. Grassroots is the purest form of democracy. But then again, the media will continue to have a difficult time understanding why people would use their own money and time to promote a person for elected office without trying to get a job or some favor in return. The media is so rigid in thinking all politicans are crooked that they can't see the REAL DEAL when it is right in front of their face.

So I am very thankful for Glenn Kessler writing about the Condi movement, her high job approval ratings, and the overall acceptance of her in American society. And I also thank again Cillizza for sharing this valuable story with Fix users.

And with the North Korea crisis, Condi and her diplomats will wrestle Kim Jong El, the dictator, into seeing that he is not going to be tolerated by the international community for his militaristic actions.

Posted by: Tina | July 6, 2006 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Cillizza is to be thanked for bringing the subject of Condi to THE FIX for discussion.

Glenn Kessler's story has facts, poll data, and is reporting about the most active Secretary of State representing our nation in decades. The world knows that she speaks for the president, as if she is his political partner, like another vice-president only on foreign policy.

Now I ask a question to all the others who posted previously, did any of you read the Glenn Kessler story or look at the poll data? Or did you just barge into the FIX and spout off without wasting your time to read?

Across the nation, there are people who are talking about Condi Rice for president. Why? Because the Senators have a long long track record of not getting elected. Kennedy was the last Senator to go directly from Congress to the White House as president. So ask yourselves why not?

On the other hand, Condi has the foreign policy experience which is one of the most valuable assets for any future president. Being a senator on the foreign relations committee is not the same as being the TOP diplomat who makes agreements for our nation and meets with world leaders to settle any difference or form stronger alliances.

So people, bring something to the discussion rather than your own prejudice and Democrat bias. Talk about real issues or else you are just wasting your time.

Posted by: Helen | July 6, 2006 9:52 AM | Report abuse

In respone to vivacalderon06...

>>Trust me, Republicans have the best Black candidates this year, Michael Steele, Lynn Swann, Ken Blackwell.

You're right - because nothing prepares someone to be the governor of a major industrial state than being a sideline reporter for Monday Night Football. Put any of thes guys - or, heck all three of these guys - against Harold Ford and he runs circles around them.

>>The best conservative writers, theorists are all People of Color--John McWorther, Shelby Steele, Thomas Sowell, Star Parker, Linda Chavez, Michelle Malkin, Armstrong Williams, etc.

And this says what? Because another Person of Color is spewing garbage to me I'm more prone to listen?

>>Many Blacks I know are tired of getting nothing but lip service from the Dems. Let's face it, in Ohio as in most levels of the federal government, Blacks aren't getting the jobs, grants, etc. that they used to due to Dem's pervasive lack of power. That's a fact.

While Blacks may be tiring of the lip service from Dems, they are also painfully aware of the no service they get from a Republican administration. They saw what the Republican Big Tent (read: compassionate conservative) means - put on airs for the election and then pander to the base while in office. That's a fact.

Posted by: Sean | July 6, 2006 3:05 AM | Report abuse

AP just gave a huge boost to Condi and her supporters for ran on ABC news, MSNBC, Free Republic website, and on the

Condi for Pres Hits National News and whether she become president or vice-president, she will be a major force on the ticket
'Condistas' Want Rice for President in 2008
By JULIE CARR SMYTH, AP Statehouse Correspondent
11:41 AM PDT, July 3, 2006

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Their names are varied: Team Condi. Rice for America. The Draft Rice movement. Condistas. of Internet gurus, politics junkies and Hillary haters shares a common goal: Elect Republican Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice president in 2008.

Mick Wright, a professional webmaster in Memphis, Tenn., was one of more than a dozen people to register a draft-Rice Web site in the year after President Bush was re-elected. He said he was driven by the "post-election blues."

"Once that was all over, you started thinking what's going to happen in the next election?" said Wright, a co-founder of "The first one to come to mind as a viable candidate was Condoleezza Rice."

Similar Web sites from Seattle to West Sand Lake, N.Y., from Magna, Utah, to Cedarville, Ohio, have cropped up, touting Rice's credentials, marketing T-shirts, bobblehead dolls and "I Like Rice" buttons, and soliciting donations.

The Miami-based Americans for Dr. Rice political action committee has gone further, establishing state-level chapters in key political battleground states, including Ohio and Florida, and putting state chairs in place around the country. A second PAC, Rice for America, emerged in Greensboro, N.C., in July --

These activist groups declare their independence from the Republican Party, and from Rice herself -- who says she has no intention of running.

Yet political experts say there is no question that party leaders have a hand in Rice's rise as a potential candidate, and that power brokers will watch closely this fall to see what happens to Rice's fellow black Republicans in high-profile races in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Maryland.

"Nothing happens by chance in politics. Absolutely zero," said Bruce Newman, a DePaul University professor and expert in political marketing. "Everything is driven by marketing, by polling, by market research, and by very careful analysis of voters' preferences."

Newman, author of "The Marketing of the President: Political Marketing as Campaign Strategy," said the emergence of a grass-roots movement surrounding Rice will allow voters to feel they played a role in her candidacy -- though he believes she is clearly being groomed as the political successor to Bush in light of Vice President Dick Cheney's health problems and unpopularity.

"The people running the Bush administration, and pushing for the geopolitical repositioning we're seeing take place around the world, would be happy to see that kind of person keep political power down the road," he said.

Backers like Rice for her intelligence, poise, self-reliance (she would also be America's first single president), values, and ability to carry on Bush's international agenda.

At the same time, Newman suspects the push for Rice to run "may have as much to do with the popularity of Hillary Clinton as it does to do with her own abilities."

Greg Haas, an Ohio-based Democratic strategist, said Rice's image makeover is a telltale sign that she is being coached.

"The fact of the matter is when you see somebody revolutionize their style, their appearance and their speaking manner, that is not happening all by itself," said Haas, who ran Bill Clinton's successful 1992 presidential campaign in Ohio. "She has clearly begun presenting a different image, moving from a harsh persona to one of a more warm public official."

Haas said that before Republicans would run a black woman for president, however, they will want to see how two black gubernatorial candidates -- Secretary of State Ken Blackwell of Ohio and former NFL star Lynn Swann in Pennsylvania -- fare against Democrats this November. And, in Maryland, Lt. Gov. Michael Steele is seeking to become the Republicans' first black senator since Edward Brooke from Massachusetts served from 1967 to 1979.

"If Lynn Swann and Ken Blackwell would get obliterated in the election, it might raise questions about Condoleezza Rice's viability in '08," Haas said. "That's what makes them perfect stalking horses for her candidacy. If they do run strong, it's going to say a lot about her potential for winning." ..............

Newman is skeptical, however, that Rice is ready for a presidential run so soon. He believes it is more likely Republicans are grooming her as a vice presidential candidate. He said pairing her with Sen. John McCain, for example, could strengthen the GOP ticket against a likely run by Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

"A McCain-Rice ticket is a very strong ticket," he said. "It's very appealing from a demographics standpoint, and it counterbalances the Hillary factor."

Wright, too, has begun to wonder whether a 2008 run is realistic, given Rice's resistance.

"It made some of us realize we really don't know that much about what her domestic policies would be, and we started looking elsewhere," he said. American for Dr. Rice volunteer, said she simply admires Rice's positions and abilities and wants to see her become the next president.

"Most of us are colorblind and gender neutral," she said. "We don't care that she's an African-American. She's just an incredible person."

Posted by: Slim Girl in Pearls | July 5, 2006 9:51 PM | Report abuse

Wow, I go out of town on the weekend to celebrate July 4th with my relatives and the Washington Post gives me and the nation a wonderful gift about Condi in 2008.

It would seem as though the Democrats, leftists, anti-war pacifists and liberals have found a safe haven on the FIX to make attacks against Condi. With various strong women, like Andrea Mitchell, Elizabeth Dole, and others who married late in life or not at all; it would seem to me to be an asset. Imagine what the Democrats would say if Condi had to leave her husband and little children (like Geena Davis in Commander in Chief) in order to take care of terrorist, meet with national leaders in Russia or Japan, and have President Condi out of the country for a week or more. Yes, I can hear it now, what a bad mother/wife she is for abandoning her family/husband.

Being single is a major factor of why Condi is more strong and able to do her job. Also, as an only child, she won't have a Billy Carter or Roger Clinton in her shadow to muck up her ability to do her job.

Now, I want to thank Chris for sharing this news with his audience. But it is a good thing he was not around during the DRAFT EISENHOWER effort in 1952. Naysayers tried to say Senators Robert Taft or Harold Stassen of Minnesota were favored and for IKE to stay in Paris and keep doing his NATO job. Good that thousands of people ignored the naysayers to keep promoting IKE and got him on the ballot plus in the Minnesota primary, IKE was a write-in candidate, coming in a close second against home boy Stassen.

Thanks for showing the national polls make a clear case for Condi to run. The people of the United States admire her and with her WAR HAWK views, she has proven she is tough enough for the job to take care of any hot spot.

Condi is a foreign policy expert, and now as Secretary of State, she has at least one more year to make her mark in the world to handle dictators and threats against the USA.

Today, JULY 5, Condi is on all national news about the North Korea missle crisis. She is showing her toughness, her inner TIGER, ready to use diplomacy to get China, Japan, Russia, and S Korea to push hard on North Korea to behave itself.

Posted by: Tina | July 5, 2006 9:40 PM | Report abuse

Let's take a look at the Democrat coalition from the New Deal and through the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st Centuries.

Little by little, all of these segments, ethnics, Hispanics, Catholics, Jews, married couples, white males, the military, have all pealed away from the Democrat Party. Now we see this happening with Blacks.

In 2000, Bush got 9% of the Black vote and improved it to 11% in 2004. A small increase but an increas nonetheless. In 2004 in Ohio, Bush got 16% of the Black vote, you know, that same Black vote Ken Blackwell was trying to surpress. Had he not done as such, hell, Bush might've hit 20%+.

Trust me, Republicans have the best Black candidates this year, Michael Steele, Lynn Swann, Ken Blackwell.

The best conservative writers, theorists are all People of Color--John McWorther, Shelby Steele, Thomas Sowell, Star Parker, Linda Chavez, Michelle Malkin, Armstrong Williams, etc.

All this should be setting off alarms in the Dem Party but it isn't happening.

Many Blacks I know are tired of getting nothing but lip service from the Dems. Let's face it, in Ohio as in most levels of the federal government, Blacks aren't getting the jobs, grants, etc. that they used to due to Dem's pervasive lack of power. That's a fact.

Here in Ohio more than a few Black Dems have signed on for Ken Blackwell. Blackwell has run several times state-wide and has never gotten less than 30% of the Black vote, something that no other Republican can claim. If Blackwell does win governor, it will be because he has succeeded in turning more than 33% of Black voters. You think Petro could/ve done this?

At this point, I know more Black Dems who are voting for Blackwell than Strickland.

If other former Dem constituencies have peeled away from the Dems, what makes you think Blacks will not?

Posted by: vivaCalderon06 | July 5, 2006 9:06 PM | Report abuse

>>>Imagine the Republican ticket taking 30% of the Black vote

BWaaaaaaaaaaaaaa hahahahaha! thanks for the laugh.

Posted by: FairAndBalanced? | July 5, 2006 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Squirt makes a solid point, one that through the hyperbole and acrimony, should be scrutinized. Despite all the learned posters deeply felt criticism, the issue here is really the polls. It is not what is believed here, but what is believed by the people. And while my interest in the 2008 election is primarily with whether or not SNL can recapture their former glory, it is very doubtful that any Democratic ticket could compete with a any republican combo that had Condi as VP, a position that, even now, doesn't threaten that oh-so-denigrated yet relied upon demograhpic - the southern bigot (as opposed to the more genial oregonian bigot I suppose) and yet can garner a tremendous amount of both votes, and non-votes (one doesn't have to switch sides to change an election, one merely has to not vote...)
of course, I hate to echo dick morris in ANY way, the one democratic candidate that could possible compete would be hillary...

whic I think would make for some GREAT SNL...

Hammond's Clinton IS the greatest...

Posted by: glacialpenman | July 5, 2006 5:18 PM | Report abuse

If the Democrats posting here believed what they were saying, they would be desperately hoping the GOP nominated Rice. I do not detect such enthusiasm.

Chris is plainly right about one thing: it is a long time to 2008, and much may change. We will get no consenus here about what the economy or Iraq is likely to look like then, and both will have a major impact on the general health of the two parties. So let us play another thought experiment.

Imagine the Republican ticket taking 30% of the Black vote, and all other things being equal. (I know, many of you think things will look so bad by 2008 that the GOP will lose 50% of its current support, but play along for now.) What difference would that 30% Black vote make?

First, obviously, Ohio would not be so close, and the popular vote margin would be significantly bigger nationwide.

Major industrial states like Pennsylvania & Michigan, where the Democrats routinely win 90% of the Black vote, and which were very close in 2004, would tip into the Republican column.

The Democrats would still have won both California and New Jersey, but both have large Black electorates, so they would have been much closer.

Some of the very close states like New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oregon and Washington would also have tipped GOP.

Obviously, there would have been no extra states for the GOP in the South - it is hard to top 100%, but think about the margins. In some southern states nearly half the voters for Gore and Kerry were Black. Take one in four of them away, and states like Florida, Louisiana and Arkansas, which look winnable now would look hopeless. Big margins like this would have coat-tails effects in Senate, House and gubernatorial elections.

Again, I realise nothing happens in isolation. It is not realistic to suppose that the GOP vote among African Americans could triple with all other factors remaining equal. But nonetheless, such arithmetic must be sobering for the Democrats.

Quentin Langley
Editor of

Posted by: Quentin Langley | July 5, 2006 5:01 PM | Report abuse

With regards to a Democrat being in office during 9/11... I suspect that if hypocrisy offends you then you would be offended by members of the DNC stating that it would be impossible to prevent had their guy been in office. It's typical politics, but anyone who clearly looks at the facts can see there was little that could be done. If Gore was in Office 9/11 would have occured, and I imagine that the holes that were recognized afterwards, would have been filled by him just as they were by Bush.

As for the WASP comment again, the vast majority of republicans aren't racists, and a black candidate for the GOP might cause those that are to stay home during the election (or even vote against her) isn't suffecient enough to sway the election. However, it's easy to paint a DNC woman/minority as ultra liberal (if she's a woman she's gonna kill all our babies, if she's a minority...s/he'll give reparations, decrease border security, increase aff. action, etc. etc.)
This will do more than motivate a racist base, it'll motivate a conservative base (and NO they are not the same).

Sometimes politics is less about motivating your base, and more about not motivating the others base.

Posted by: Squirt | July 5, 2006 4:32 PM | Report abuse

btw, speaking of Rice-ian diplomacy, did everyone hear the smack-down that the Russian diplomat gave her regarding the situation in Iraq?

Posted by: FairAndBalanced? | July 5, 2006 4:16 PM | Report abuse


I beg to differ with you but the republican
"southern strategy" will never work with anything BUT WASP candidates. Southern/midwestern conservative white males (the repub base)wont stand for it.

Posted by: cassini | July 5, 2006 4:12 PM | Report abuse

I'd love to see Condi's approval ratings stand up to the commercials that would be run of her either lying repeatedly, or being blatantly stupid and wrong repeatedly, in the runup to the Iraq war.

I can also definitely see a lot of mileage out of her 9-11 Commission testimony. "I believe the memo was titled 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Within the United States'". Incidentally, all those who are currently saying that 9-11 would have been impossible to prevent, I'd love to have seen their reaction to 9-11 happening while a DEMOCRAT was president. On second thought, no, I wouldn't. Hypocrisy offends me.

Beyond the very glaring issues of her competency and/or honesty, let's face it. She is a black woman. For SOME Republican voters, this is going to be a major turn off.

Condi has about as much chance of being our next president as I do. I sincerely hope she runs though.

Posted by: J. Crozier | July 5, 2006 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Popular? Likeable and liked? This sounds suspiciously like what newspeople used to say about Bush when he was widely disliked by a huge segment of the population.

What nonsense!! Spin, Spin, Spin.

Posted by: Celeste Johnson | July 5, 2006 3:43 PM | Report abuse

WASP males are not the only ones that can be elected to represent the GOP. In fact, I would wager a portion of my yearly sum to say that the first Female, or Minority president elected (in general) will be a GOP member. Reason being, the base won't let the other party's nominee get the seat, so it'll have to be. A female run by the DNC will be viewed as too liberal a female, while a GOP female would be...well it would be a snub to the DNC that the "Pro-Womens rights" party was unable to get a woman in before them.

Nothing motivates the Right, like someone on the far left.

Posted by: Squirt | July 5, 2006 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Rice has nothing but a record of FAILURES and LIES to run on.

I could care less if she was gay or not, but the Christianist Right that has taken over the Republican Party wouldn't like that or her undeclared position on abortion rights.

Posted by: Maria | July 5, 2006 3:38 PM | Report abuse

How about McCain-Condi?

Posted by: Jay | July 5, 2006 3:26 PM | Report abuse

That's the press, not the rnc bringing up Ms. Rice's name as a possible candidate
for the presidency. She doesnt have a
chance. If youre not a WASP male, then your chances at becoming president/v.p nomimee for the Republican Party are slim and none. the republican "base" would never stand for it.

Posted by: Cassini | July 5, 2006 3:23 PM | Report abuse

I should clarify,

First thing: bin laden is AS OF YET, unable to attack within the borders of the US (or really anywhere these days).

Of course Bin Laden and the AQ gang will likely never attack the US and instead it would be Autonomous Terrorist Cells (terrorists with no central leadership) and it will be unpredictable even then.

Second: I was referring to Superman as the on in theatres who could have prevented 9/11, but then I realized he is ineligble for president because he was not born in the States...oh well

Posted by: Squirt | July 5, 2006 3:17 PM | Report abuse

While I don't think Condi has a chance at anything better than a Veep placing in the doomed GOP ticket for 08, I think the better news item the press seems to be missing is the now proven FACT that Bush led the attack against the outed CIA active operative, and is the missing "source".

Any chances he'll fire himself and Cheney for their actions? Or is Ken Lay laying the groundwork in Switzerland after killing off his body double so he could avoid prison?

Posted by: Will in Seattle | July 5, 2006 3:15 PM | Report abuse

To VivaCalderon06:

I believe the comment about Ms. Rice's alleged homosexuality was not meant in any way to be a derogatory remark. I believe it was more mentioned to highlight how the GOP, filled with its gay-bashers and holier-than-thou "Christian Conservatives" would have trouble getting her on the ticket to begin with, much less winning the religious right if she were nominated. IF it is true (of which I am entirely unsure and don't really even care), Ms. Rice would never openly admit it if she does indeed have any plans of one day running on a conservative platform. So, to summarize, I doubt it is hypocritical to say that someone has been ACCUSED of being a homosexual, which may hurt her chances to win a primary with an extremely conservative base such as the one currently endorsing Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, & Co.

Posted by: Jack in New Orleans | July 5, 2006 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Pre 9-11 intel.

I think those of you who think it was possible to predict 9/11 ought to go work for the State department, CIA, or FBI. It seems that predicting is as simple as reading a memo. Of COURSE Bin Laden is determined to strike in the again, he's STILL determined, but is unable to now. There is NO ONe (republican or Democrat, or Independent) who could have forsaw what Happened that day. The intel was there, but it was spread thin, CIA had some, FBI had some, and State had some...they weren't communicating, and even if they were there are thousands and thousands of threats that come in every day...what's credible? What's a diversion? what's an actual threat?
The curtailing of Civil Liberties that would have been required to prevent 9/11 would have been lauded as (and rightfully so) unconstitutional.

If you don't like Condi because she failed to prevent 9/11, then you might as well not vote for anyone in 2008, because no one could have prevented it...

Ok that's a lie, ONE person could have stopped it, but you have to go to the Theatres to see him.

Posted by: Squirt | July 5, 2006 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Changing the subject to another headline. On Ken Lay what a perfect moment to die, right before he's sentenced to the rest of his life behind bars. Show us his dead body. Open the casket. He's headed to a villa in South America where he can live out his days a free man.

Posted by: Peter E. | July 5, 2006 3:07 PM | Report abuse

I thought we would have heard from Tina by now, with a long list of reasons as to why Condi should run and why all of us, Dems and Republicants should support her. Tina...where are you?

And VivaCalderon06, Anne Rolfes said this:

"Dear Fix,

It is widely believed in gay circles that Condi is a lesbian. That could be one reason she will not run."

Democrats won't be voting her because she's gay. Republican'ts won't because she's gay...if she is of course. You're trying to deflect what you would do to assassinate her character. That's not something we have a problem with. That fact is what Anne was trying to suggest as a reason for her losing the Republican nomination should she run. Nice try though at delfection, but not good enough.

Posted by: Marve | July 5, 2006 3:04 PM | Report abuse

The uninformed are always attracted to STARS Like Governor Arnold in Calif. Condi, in her previous job as chief foreign policy advisor okayed several speeches by Bush characterizing our efforts in Iraq as a "Crusade" feeding the terrorist's characterizing us as the much hated "CRUSADERS" of the past. She didn't know better because she is a specialist in the USSR, a resume not really needed in the 21ST century.

What are her views on domestic policy, or on anything?

We don't need another ignorant president.

Posted by: Peter L. | July 5, 2006 3:04 PM | Report abuse

"I believe the memo was titled 'bin Ladin determined to strike inside the United States.'"

Nuff said. She won't run and she can't win. Nice of the MSM to kiss up to her anyway, despite her incompetence.

Posted by: Greg in LA | July 5, 2006 2:52 PM | Report abuse

>>>sterling reputation of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice

Hmmmmm. 9/11. Iran + NKorea acquiring or making progress in acquiring NUKES, Iraq, SHOE SHOPPING during KATRINA, total dissassociation with the Civil Rights movement while growing up in the deep south, we are hated around the world b/c of policies she has supported.

Yeah. Sterling.

Actually, TOTAL FAILURE comes to mind. Just like her husb... I mean her dadd-... I mean President... I mean Resident...

Whatta joke.

Posted by: FairAndBalanced? | July 5, 2006 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Lesbian indeed.

Leave it to the left to engage in unfounded rumors and character assasination and then try to excoriate Republicans as bigots and homophobes who won't vote for her.

There is no limit to your shamelessness.

Posted by: VivaCalderon06 | July 5, 2006 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Well Jim, this is the same press that softballed the stunning incompent bush into office. As you can see, still sucking up to repugs.

Posted by: Drindl | July 5, 2006 12:53 PM | Report abuse

I wish we lived in a world where Ms Rice's stunning incompetence and dishonesty were disqualifiers for a future in politics, rather than the fact that she is a fifty-plus single woman. But, taking what I can get, I'm glad that the person who told the president to go fishing after reading him a briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the United States", who lied about Iraq's nuclear technology, who repeatedly told the world that Saddam was linked to 9/11 (after, if I'm not mistaken, Bush had admitted there was none) and who helped this administration scare people into an unnecessary and unplanned war ('we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud'), will never be president.
That said, you folks at the Post are sure doing you part to boost the White House spin (again). Both Kessler's original article and this follow up would be embarrassing puff pieces if they had been about Jennifer Aniston or Oprah. And given Mr Kessler's apparent fascination with Condi's wardrobe, would the Style section have been a more appropriate place for this sad attempt at journalism?

Posted by: Jim Madden | July 5, 2006 12:48 PM | Report abuse

I've seen no sign of any "talks" with either NK or Iran so far. I've seen discussions of possibly beginning talks in the future, if those countries agree to our demands first, but saying Rice got the US to "talk" to them is not accurate.

There is no reason whatsoever IMO to consider Rice as a viable Presidential candidate. There's no record of her opinions, no success stories in any position she's held in government, no policies, nothing to show she would be a good dogcatcher, much less President!

Posted by: John | July 5, 2006 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Thank you b20. Yes, as a foreign policy expert, Rice is an excellent pianist. And did you catch her KILLER stillettos?

Although to be fair, zathras, we might well already be dropping nukes on Iran if it wasn't for her -- and our poor military generals who are trying desperately to stop cheney from plunging us into WWIII. But I have faith that cheneybush will manage to start it anyway before they're done destroying this country.

By the way, not to change the subject but it's apropo for you Chris-- Reed Hundt says that in Aspen all the talk is that John McCain will run with Jeb Bush as VP. How low can he go? Low enought to pick the only man in America stupider and more corrupt than George bush as his running mate?

Posted by: Drindl | July 5, 2006 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Also no mention of her astute handling of the pre-9/11 intelligence, as National Security Adviser. But have you heard her play piano?

Posted by: B2O | July 5, 2006 12:32 PM | Report abuse

I see that the establishment media's process of warming over Rice into some sort of honorable public servant is proceeding on schedule. Lots of positive references, and even a tangent onto her keen fashion sense. NO MENTION WHATSOEVER OF THE MANY LIES AND DISTORTIONS THAT USHERED FORTH FROM HER MOUTH DURING THE DECEITFUL RUNUP TO IRAQ. They simply aren't relevant anymore to the Post.

Are politicians responsible for their statements and actions? Absolutely not. Not as long as the Post is on the watch.

Posted by: B2O | July 5, 2006 12:30 PM | Report abuse

As bad as American foreign policy has been, Rice has done her best to make it better. Before, unilaterists like Cheney and Rumsfeld ensured that the foreign policy was a disaster. At least Rice has pushed the administration into talks with Iran and North Korea. These talks probably would not have happened without her. It may not be much, but just look at what she has to deal with in the administration.

Posted by: Zathras | July 5, 2006 12:27 PM | Report abuse

You are (or, in an ideal world, should be) judged by the company you keep, and the actions you take while in that company. Rice's general support for Bush, and her performance while National Security Advisor, should be enough to disqualify her.

On the other hand, Bush had far less to recommend him as a candidate for president in 2000, so clearly I have absolutely no grasp of political reality in 21st century America. Professional/intellectual competence apparently no longer matters.

Posted by: JDK | July 5, 2006 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Why is this not the Colin Powell thing all over again?

Powell was an American success story, a man with an inspiring life history who served creditably in subordinate posts before proving an ineffectual Secretary of State. Now, part of his life history was that he was black, which is fine. But in his case no one would have thought of him as a potential President if he hadn't been black. It seems to me that Rice -- who has an image as a stronger Secretary of State only because she is closer personally to the President than Powell was -- represents the same kind of case.

There is also the public evidence to consider. Neither Powell nor Rice ever showed signs of enjoying the kind of campaigning required of genuine Presidential aspirants, or of being very good at it. Rice, like a lot of people, might like to be named President, but the last two men we've had in the White House enjoyed campaigning a lot more than governing, and it may be that this is now a prerequisite for getting elected to the job. That means many people who would make good Presidents have no chance of ever becoming President. It probably means that Condi Rice doesn't either.

Posted by: Zathras | July 5, 2006 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Oh, and by the way -- anyone notice how North Korea just fired off 7 missles? Our current so-called 'foreign policy' is a failure, a pathetic joke, a shambles, FUBAR, totally out of control, lurching towards a disaster of epic proportions. And Condi is part of what got us where we are today.

Posted by: Drindl | July 5, 2006 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Condi's refusal to respond to pre-9/11 terrorist concerns makes her vulnerable to charges of incompetence in any future political campaign. She has been able to deflect her failures onto the CIA, but that may not continue. Furthermore, with Bush out of the picture, greater focus on her role in the run up to Iraq will be under scrutiny. She has a poor record as a policy maker. Prada may not be sufficient to save her.

Posted by: Aubrey Price | July 5, 2006 11:16 AM | Report abuse

A lying failure who has nothing but a spotless record as Bush's mouthpiece to run on.

Posted by: Maria | July 5, 2006 11:09 AM | Report abuse

As I posted before I was censored [thanks Chris] the press has not asked Condi the hard questions. She is a middle-aged woman. She has never married. Now, think of the possibilities.

Do you really believe the puritans and busybodies in the republican party are not going to demand to know whether she's 'normal'?

Posted by: Drindl | July 5, 2006 11:06 AM | Report abuse

I wouldn't vote for Rice for President (or any other elected office for that matter) because she's shown little independent thinking in her current position, and has little credibility of her own on any major issue concerning the country, domestic or foreign.

She's an unknown quantity at the State position, so how in the world can anyone think she'd be a good candidate for President, much less an effective one if elected?

Posted by: John | July 5, 2006 10:59 AM | Report abuse


Numbers don't add up

Eighty-one percent of Republicans said they would definitely (14 percent) or consider (57 percent) voting for Rice.

14% + 57%= 71%

Posted by: RMill | July 5, 2006 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Dear Fix,

It is widely believed in gay circles that Condi is a lesbian. That could be one reason she will not run.

Posted by: Anne Rolfes | July 5, 2006 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Condi's reputation is what it is because a racially motivated PC press refuses to ask the question on everyone's mind - Condi, if you failed to identify bad intelligence which got the US into a needless war, how can you be Commander in Chief?

The press is actually limiting the ability of blacks like Condi or Colin to run because they are afraid to ask them the hard questions. It would be better if the press asked the hard questions now so that black candidates like Condi and Colin can get the answers out of the way instead of having to wait for a brutal and senseless campaign.

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes

Posted by: Bobby Wightman-Cervantes | July 5, 2006 10:38 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company