What about McCain/ Condoleezza Rice ticket...??

sevenoneeighty

Now wouldn't that make things very interesting...

It would test several things at the same time:

She's got great experience, she is more qualified than both Hillary and barrack, she has the international world leader thing down with experience, she is a "she"...She is also, of course, a woman of color.
The highest black woman appointee EVER in US History - appointed by Republican Bush - as was Powell. Dare I say... Change?

Obvious Drawbacks:
But she may be tied too closely to Bush/ Iraq for too many voters.
That may Hurt McCain but it might also help him...and talk about energy it might bring to the GOP side. If Barrack and Hillary combine, this might be a more reasonable ticket. Would McCain lose moderates and independents?

Frankly, I can't imagine a more qualified woman on the GOP side.
Others exist I'm sure, I just can't think of one right now. I would just like to see it for the fun of it, wouldn't you? Some of the "strengths" the Dems are running on would be just about crushed if that ticket became a possibility.

michaelkeys

Good points, 7180, but I think McCain will take a page from The West Wing--just like that show's Republican candidate Sen. Arnie Vinick-- and take on a young, white VP who would be palatable to the Christian right, IMHO. Kinda like JFK choosing a Southern VP to balance his being a Northeastern Catholic.

Also, Rice being a qualified female of color would not outweigh her close proximity to the Bush admn, which EVERY GOPer seeking office or re-election it seems is running away from like the plague.

idlewild

It would be a mistake on McCain's part. She might be a good attraction for the holy roller set but in the end the democrats would have a ton of ammo against her. Pre-911 when she insisted that cold war nukes not terrorism was the real danger to the States and post 911 and Iraq which are self explanatory.

sevenoneeighty

^ Maybe...maybe not.
As I think about it, McCain already supports staying in Iraq as does Condi.
There is now a distinction between Iraq 2003 and Iraq 2008, I think.
We are in a different place now andyou can hate Bush but still realize the world needs "stability in Iraq".

These were interesting:
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/03/17/080317taco_talk_hertzberg

Rice is already fourth in line for the Presidency, and getting bumped up three places would be a shorter leap than any of the three Presidential candidates propose to make. It’s true that her record in office has been one of failure, from downgrading terrorism as a priority before 9/11 to ignoring the Israel-Palestine problem until (almost certainly) too late. But this does not seem to have done much damage to her popularity. In a Washington Post-ABC News poll taken when opposition to the Iraq war was approaching its height, she enjoyed a “favorable-unfavorable” rating of nearly two to one. The conservative rank and file likes her. Though she once described herself as “mildly pro-choice,” she is agile enough to complete the journey to mildly pro-life. And she is a preacher’s daughter.

Choosing Rice would be a trick. Her failures would be buried in an avalanche of positive publicity for a personal story as yet only vaguely known to the broad public. (One of the little girls who died in the 1963 Birmingham church bombing was her playmate? We didn’t know that!) But the trick would not be an entirely cynical one. Her ascension, though nowhere near as momentous a breakthrough as the election of Obama or Clinton, would be a breakthrough all the same. In this connection, a kind word for George W. Bush may be in order. By appointing first Colin Powell and then Rice to the most senior job in the Cabinet, a job of global scope, Bush changed the way millions of white Americans think about black public officials. This may turn out to the most positive legacy of his benighted Presidency. ♦

And this one from Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/mccain-rice-_b_87640.html

No one can deny that Condi's got solid Republican credentials. She's even got extremely solid foreign policy credentials (as measured by Republican voters). She's proven to be a loyal underling who won't eclipse her boss in any way. She's also much younger than McCain. She would even shore up McCain's lack of support with the far-right conservatives, which has so far eluded him. Heck, Condi's even got an oil supertanker named after her! In short, an ideal vice presidential candidate for McCain.

Of course, she would tie McCain's campaign to the policies of George W. Bush, but McCain himself seems to have decided that this is the platform he wants to run on. Now, he could tack back to the center after officially wrapping up the Republican nomination, and to do that he'd likely pick a different running mate than Condi. But he's been known for "doubling down" on Bush policies before -- even when everyone in politics told him it'd be suicidal to do so (supporting the Iraq "surge" so strongly) -- so I could see him doing it again, by naming Condi as his candidate for the veepacy (or maybe "for veepification").

This could be a political choice worthy of Machiavelli. Let's face it, John McCain is an old white guy. He's going to have an enormous uphill battle against the winds of history in running against either a white woman or a black man. The only possible way his ticket could be "historic" is to pick as a junior partner a black woman.

I still think it would be an interesting choice by Mac.
And Politically, it would be a very shrewd move.

witch-king

i would think the public doesn't want any continuation of the incompetence of the bush regime, e.g., condi rice. as far as her "experience" goes, she has no experience with any foreign policy successes in the last 7 years. she's sadly over-hyped.

michaelkeys

[quote="SevenOneEighty"]

By appointing first Colin Powell and then Rice to the most senior job in the Cabinet, a job of global scope, Bush changed the way millions of white Americans think about black public officials. This may turn out to the most positive legacy of his benighted Presidency. ♦

As for the very last sentence, no argument here. But how much these appointments may have actually "changed the way millions of white Americans think about black public officials" I'm not so sure.

sevenoneeighty

witch-king wrote: i would think the public doesn't want any continuation of the incompetence of the bush regime, e.g., condi rice. as far as her "experience" goes, she has no experience with any foreign policy successes in the last 7 years. she's sadly over-hyped.

Um...Her Experience?

National Security Advisor ( 4 years)
( that's of the United States of America)

Secretary of State ( 4 years)
Personally visiting and negotiating with the following country's leaders...

Per wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleezza_Rice

.....
# 5 National Security Advisor (2001–2005)
# 6 Secretary of State (2005–present)

* 6.1 Major initiatives
* 6.2 Regional issues
o 6.2.1 Gaza withdrawal
o 6.2.2 Border Crossings Deal
o 6.2.3 Israeli-Palestinian conflict
o 6.2.4 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict
* 6.3 Egypt
* 6.4 Saudi Arabia
* 6.5 Iran
* 6.6 Iraq
* 6.7 North Korea
* 6.8 Japan
* 6.9 Russia
* 6.10 Equatorial Guinea
* 6.11 Kenya
* 6.12 Venezuela
* 6.13 Pakistan.......

But what could she possibly know...?:D
Looks pretty impressive to me.

For Barrack and Hillary: Your turn.

I agree the Bush thing is a gamble, but McCain is ALREADY "staying the course" and he won the GOP Nomineee, so....doesn't seem to be a problem so far.

Colin Powell:
Interestingly, most people still have a high opinion of Colin Powell- even after the debacle at the U.N.. Many still feel like he was fooled too. He has even so much as admitted to that. It still sucks for him. Condi has never gotten her props, respect or recognition and has even been the victim of out-right personal attacks by media. She has also never been elected - only appointed to office and she is not a "politician" either.

But it's a challenge to find anyone with a resume as good as hers for a candidate running on national security in 2008.

michaelkeys

Powell is a much better choice. He still has some respect out there.

alafairnadia

MichaelKeys wrote: Powell is a much better choice. He still has some respect out there.

hear hear. though, not sure powell would have mccain. I have *no respect* for condy rice. but colin powell? the guy got shoved into a shit storm, tried to hold the party line after getting smacked down for saying no, and quit. kinda revolutionary.

boygabriel

This post seems to confuse the meaning of "experience" with that of "competence".

GWB has tons of experience as President, yet he's one of the worst ever. And Rice has been there every step of the way?

No thanks.

michaelkeys

Boygabriel wrote: This post seems to confuse the meaning of "experience" with that of "competence".
GWB has tons of experience as President, yet he's one of the worst ever. And Rice has been there every step of the way?
No thanks.

Good point.
But it's not just this post that has confused "the meaning of 'experience' with that of 'competence'", and I think Sen. Obama has tried to point that out.

boygabriel

Also, the last thing the US and the World needs is another major American leader (Rice as VP) who's career was based on studying the Cold War vs the Evil Omnipotent Communists.

It's Cold War-styled arcane thinking that got us into Iraq and has isolated us diplomatically across the globe.

witch-king

SevenOneEighty wrote: [quote=witch-king]i would think the public doesn't want any continuation of the incompetence of the bush regime, e.g., condi rice. as far as her "experience" goes, she has no experience with any foreign policy successes in the last 7 years. she's sadly over-hyped.

Um...Her Experience?

National Security Advisor ( 4 years)
( that's of the United States of America)

Secretary of State ( 4 years)
Personally visiting and negotiating with the following country's leaders...

you seemed to have missed two important words in my statement: "no" and "successes." rice has a lot of experience in failed foreign policies, much more than either clinton or obama.

sevenoneeighty

yea...she definitely has that reputation.
Even dating back to her collegiate administrative days.Unfortunately, that description is applied all too often for political reasons.
Ideologues will see right past that and still vote for their candidate.

Just as many democrats voted for Kerry-Edwards! Oy.
And just as democrats see past the incompetence of Janet Reno, Madeline Albright, Dick Morris, Sandy Berger, Hillary Clinton, and even Bill Clinton (handling of terrorist attacks abroad: doing nothing, Monica) during the Clinton years....

Understandably, 8 years of Bush have made folks forget many things.
I think she has problems for sure, but is still up there as a viable VP choice for McCain. I still remember the name of the intelligence memo:

August 6, 2001
"Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S."

That one stings. (but remember, historically, it stings all the way back to the Clinton years).

boygabriel

SevenOneEighty wrote: yea...she definitely has that reputation.

what rep? "adviser to one of the worst presidents in history?"

Ideologues will see right past that and still vote for their candidate.

I'd love to see someone from the Bush Administration try to get elected right now. That would be high comedy.

Just as many democrats voted for Kerry-Edwards! Oy.

what?

And just as democrats see past the incompetence of Janet Reno, Madeline Albright, Dick Morris, Sandy Berger, Hillary Clinton, and even Bill Clinton (handling of terrorist attacks abroad: doing nothing, Monica) during the Clinton years....

Understandably, 8 years of Bush have made folks forget many things.
I think she has problems for sure, but is still up there as a viable VP choice for McCain...

Wait, Clinton had his faults, and so the National Security Adviser (and later Sec. of State) to one of the worst presidents in U.S. history makes a "good VP candidate"?

A woman who played an absolutely central role in the worst foreign policy disaster in American History makes a "good VP candidate"?

You couldn't possibly be setting the bar lower for a "good VP candidate".
It's a joke that you think Rice as a VP candidate would pose any major problem whatsoever for Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama.

sevenoneeighty

^ Yup,
That pretty much what I am saying.

If she enters the race, the dynamic would change.
It might energize the GOP side and race and gender would play a factor too.
The media coverage would change.
The way the media and opponents criticize Condi would also get scrutinized in the same way it is for Obama and Hillary (careful, or you'll be charged with racism and sexism in one sweep...).

I get it, you don't like her. Many people don't like her.
Critics who will never vote for the other party, would never vote for the candidate anyway. Just like the fiercest critics of Obama were not going to vote for him anyway so...it doesn't necessarily matter what you think if you were never going to vote for McCain an yway.

It is about what it would do for the GOP if she entered the race as a VP candidate. Oh yea, Edwards was a boob and Kerry was proven to be a sad choice for the democrats. But folks had no choice.

sevenoneeighty

Remember, the Democratic party is SPLIT right now.
No matter who gets the nomination at this point, votes will be lost.
People supporting the "other" will stay home, vote for Nader, or even McCain out of spite...

Anything that can shake up the numbers on the GOP side could allow the Democrats to snatch defeat out of the ( once automatic) jaws of victory.
Maybe it is not this, but it could be ...Romney for example...

Dems are in trouble come November, no matter what.

boygabriel

SevenOneEighty wrote: ^ Yup,
That pretty much what I am saying.

If she enters the race, the dynamic would change.
It might energize the GOP side and race and gender would play a factor too.
The media coverage would change.
The way the media and opponents criticize Condi would also get scrutinized in the same way it is for Obama and Hillary (careful, or you'll be charged with racism and sexism in one sweep...).

I'm reasonably certain there's no power on earth that could overpower the rank stench of failure that hangs around the right-hand (wo)man of the worst president in history.

I get it, you don't like her. Many people don't like her.

Wrong. It's not personal in any way, shape or form. I think she as been one of the most incompetent Natl Security Advisers and Secretaries of State in recent U.S. history. I also think she played a central role in the worst foreign policy disaster in U.S. history.

Critics who will never vote for the other party, would never vote for the candidate anyway. Just like the fiercest critics of Obama were not going to vote for him anyway so...it doesn't necessarily matter what you think if you were never going to vote for McCain an yway.

your thesis in this thread is conflating two points, one of which I strongly disagree with (Rice is competent to keep serving public office), the other of which I'd love to see purely for 'crash and burn' purposes (Rice would be popular as VP).

It is about what it would do for the GOP if she entered the race as a VP candidate. Oh yea, Edwards was a boob and Kerry was proven to be a sad choice for the democrats. But folks had no choice.

So you're saying she'd get votes no matter what? I agree. Her votes would have nothing to do with competence. Diehard bushies are going to vote for McCain no matter what. But you're fooling yourself if you think she wouldn't suffer in 'electability' due to the connection the Republican Base would draw between her and the least popular president in U.S. history.

boygabriel

SevenOneEighty wrote: Remember, the Democratic party is SPLIT right now.
No matter who gets the nomination at this point, votes will be lost.
People supporting the "other" will stay home, vote for Nader, or even McCain out of spite...

Anything that can shake up the numbers on the GOP side could allow the Democrats to snatch defeat out of the ( once automatic) jaws of victory.
Maybe it is not this, but it could be ...Romney for example...

Dems are in trouble come November, no matter what.

We simply disagree and we will surely revisit this post come November.

Personally, I think b/c the Dems are voting in the primaries in record numbers, a vast majority of them are going to vote in the general election too. And they're not going to vote for McCain, I'll tell you that.

The division of the Democratic Party is vastly overstated. Democrats are enjoying an embarrassment of riches right now with two excellent candidates. I think it's a pipe dream that Democrats are so divided they'd stay home or vote for McCain over the other Democrat.

The Democratic base is passionately motivated for this election, just as conservatives were in '04 when Rove got gay marriage on the ballot and rallied the base to come out and vote against gay marriage, and at the same time, vote for Bush.

Hell hath no fury like the anger of the American people, and especially the Democratic base, against the one party responsible for the clusterf*ck that has been the past 8 years. I mean you really think a significant number of Dems are going to dislike the 'other' Democratic candidate more than they dislike the nominee from the party responsible for the Iraq war? Really?

sevenoneeighty

^
hmmm.. I'm not so sure about that. Not as of today anyway.

I think the division IS happening and it is REAL. I have heard on now many occasions from supporters (family, friends, the blogs and web posts too) that supporters will absolutely NOT vote for the other democratic candidate. This is a real problem.

This is especially true from Obama supporters- a significant portion will NOT vote for Hillary. At least, that is what they are saying today.

Time will tell. I truly hope to visit this again in November.
The only absolute saving grace is a joint ticket which looks like it is not going to happen. If Obama goes down in flames ( a la Wright) it will be even worse for the Dem party long term. The party is already getting damaged by this debacle of a contest.

The good news is, regardless of the nominee, people are going to take some longer, harder looks at the silly process.

boygabriel

Really? You really know people who would stay at home rather than vote a Democrat into office? They'd be happier with McCain than with Clinton? Do they like the Iraq War? Do they want to start a third war, this one with Iran? Do they like abortion rights? Do they know the next president will probably appoint 2 supreme court justices and decide the balance of the court for the next few decades if not half-century?

This reminds me of Ann Coulter's recent proclamation that she'd vote Clinton before she voted McCain. It makes for cute headlines, but it's a bunch of b.s.

boygabriel

Also, can you link a couple blog posts that say they'd stay home before they voted for Hillary? I read a lot of liberal blogs and haven't seen that anywhere.

alafairnadia

Boygabriel wrote: Also, can you link a couple blog posts that say they'd stay home before they voted for Hillary? I read a lot of liberal blogs and haven't seen that anywhere.

yeah, I'd like to see this. as I've said before, I have a few hardcore republican feminist friends who will vote mccain unless clinton is the dem nominee. I'm not one of them - foremost, I'm not a republican - and have said frequently that I'll happily vote for obama over mccain. but I've not heard that there are obama supporters that won't vote clinton and will either stay home or vote repub or vote green or whatever. cause really? that's retarded. if you look at their stated policies and voting records, they're practically the same person. there are a few key differences - clinton voted for the war initially, obama wants to limit national health care to kids only - but otherwise they are interchangeable policy-wise. so personality is that big a deal to folks? pathetic.

this makes me hate people.

boygabriel

alafairnadia, out of curiosity, what do your feminist friends think of the fact that the next president will pick at least one, maybe 2 supreme court justices? If McCain wins, it would all but seal the fate of Roe V Wade, for example.

alafairnadia

Boygabriel wrote: alafairnadia, out of curiosity, what do your feminist friends think of the fact that the next president will pick at least one, maybe 2 supreme court justices? If McCain wins, it would all but seal the fate of Roe V Wade, for example.

trust me, I think they're idiots. I'm on the feminism boat, just not on the "I'll vote mccain" boat. their problem: they earn shit tons of money.

sevenoneeighty

alafairnadia wrote: [quote=Boygabriel]Also, can you link a couple blog posts that say they'd stay home before they voted for Hillary? I read a lot of liberal blogs and haven't seen that anywhere.

yeah, I'd like to see this. as I've said before, I have a few hardcore republican feminist friends who will vote mccain unless clinton is the dem nominee. I'm not one of them - foremost, I'm not a republican - and have said frequently that I'll happily vote for obama over mccain. but I've not heard that there are obama supporters that won't vote clinton and will either stay home or vote repub or vote green or whatever. cause really? that's retarded. if you look at their stated policies and voting records, they're practically the same person. there are a few key differences - clinton voted for the war initially, obama wants to limit national health care to kids only - but otherwise they are interchangeable policy-wise. so personality is that big a deal to folks? pathetic.

this makes me hate people.

Oh Snap!
Surely. Its not just the Blogs - its the COMMENTS too.
You guys sound like you don't know that many Black Obama supporters or haven't been down south lately (I'm being serious).

Hang out at a black Brooklyn Barber shop this weekend too. I can tell you that people in my family and two close friends have already said it - and I beleive them. They will NOT vote for Hillary and would rather sit out or even vote for McCain. the pain runs THAT deep people. rev. Wright is just the tip of the iceberg and I'm sorry to have to tell you that. It is THAT deep. Plus Hillary is HATED.

These are all purely anecdotal but here they are - just wish I had more time. They don't "prove" anything. but I can assure you, this is what is happening. Will it make a difference, I don't know. I think it may for the black Obama vote, depending on how things play out for Obama. If black people feel he is "lynched" by the media, Hillary will have problems.

http://www.ostroyreport.blogspot.com/

The intensity is so strong that many Democrats in both camps say they'll either vote for the GOP's John McCain or sit out the election entirely if the other candidate wins the nomination.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/2008-presidential-election/282082-obama-v-clinton-can-we-elevate-3.html
Sample post of sentiment.

Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
I would have to disagree. If Hill gets the nomination, which appears more likely now, The black voters as well as the young voters will be fit to be tied. They will think she and bill and the old dogs of the democratic party have stolen it from Obama. They will sit out or vote in protest for McCain.

I hate these petition things, but the buzz is out there and it is strong:
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?obama725

To: Democratic National Committee

[This is a message to the Democratic National Committee and all members of the Democratic Party. It is solely a statement of intended action and makes no claim to, nor is responsible for, the motivations or opinions of the undersigned.]

We currently support the candidacy of Senator Barack Obama for the office of President of the United States.

If Senator Obama becomes the nominee of the Democratic Party, we intend to vote for him in the general election on November 4th, 2008.

However, if Senator Hillary Clinton becomes the nominee of the Democratic Party, we will

a) abstain from voting in the general election.

OR

b) vote for Republican nominee Senator John McCain or another third-party candidate in the general election.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

Interesting article:

http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080318/OPINION07/803180323/1004/OPINION

Most whites don't get it, nor do Democrats
In the end, the Democrats will be so divided that neither candidate's supporters will have a strong desire to support the other candidate, and the result will be lower turnout and a win for the Republican party

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/01/22/what-happens-to-obama-s-supporters-if-he-loses.aspx

seth86 said:

I'm a fairly liberal Obama supporter who would likely vote for McCain or Bloomberg over Hillary.

----
bcbaird said:
--------

Actually, seeing as there is zero chance in hell Roscoe Bartlett will get voted out of here, and no senate seats are up, I might just stay at home and get drunk. Or maybe I'll go crazy and vote Libertarian just to give those suckers false hope...
------
vanwurs said:

...I will happily vote for John McCain if he is the nominee of the Republican party and Hillary is the nominee of the Democrats. I have policy disagreements with him, but I have no doubt that he is an honorable and decent man who would probably make a good president. I cannot say the same for Hillary Clinton....
--------
maxblum13 said:

Until a couple weeks ago I would have voted for Hillary should she have won the nomination. Now I will support McCain, as will many of my fellow first time voters.

http://www.reachm.com/amstreet/archives/2008/03/05/i-will-not-vote-for-hillary-clinton/

...I will NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton. I would sooner vote for Satan...If that means indirectly throwing the election to McCain, then I will have chosen to elect the lesser of two evils. If McCain 2008 means Obama 2012, then so be it.

I wish I had more time...I tried to post a variety of things and can get you more if you want. No, it is not scientific - but none of this is. Bush got re-elected in 2004 in spite of all the polls, etc. Go figure. This is reminding me of 2004 in NYC all over again - the Dems are finding a way to lose again. Its a low...slow..buzz that builds to a roar.

But seriously - the Brooklyn Barber Shop give you all the real news - for real!

Hey, Just Google it on the internetS for yourself folks!

sevenoneeighty

I think it would be foolish for either candidate or candidates supporters to start counting the other's votes as if they are "automatic" at this stage.

This is Howard Deans worst nightmare.

And to make things more interesting:
McCain leads Obama by 6, Clinton by 8 in Reuters/Zogby Poll
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/03/mccain-leads-ob.html

It may not take that much numerically to send the Dems in to depression for another 4 years....just sayin'. it's gonna be a loooong summer for the Democrats.

sevenoneeighty

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2832854120080328?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=10112&sp=true

Rice hails Obama race speech as "important" for U.S.
Fri Mar 28, 2008 6:15pm EDT

By Sue Pleming

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Sometimes touted as a contender for the Republican vice-presidential slot, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has aired her thoughts on race in the United States, a prominent issue in the presidential election campaign.

Rice, the top ranking African-American in President George W. Bush's cabinet, told The Washington Times she had watched Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama's major speech on race last week.

"I think it was important that he (Obama) gave it for a whole host of reasons," said Rice in a transcript of the interview released by the State Department on Friday.

Obama would be the first black U.S. president if he wins the Democratic nomination and beats Republican candidate John McCain in the November election to succeed Bush.

Obama's speech -- which he gave after a storm of criticism over racially charged sermons by the black pastor of his church -- spoke of a racial stalemate in the United States and a need to heal racial wounds.

While saying repeatedly she did not want to talk about the election campaign -- "I don't do politics" -- and also reiterating her lack of interest in the vice presidential slot, Rice said the United States had a hard time dealing with racial issues.

"There is a paradox for this country and a contradiction of this country and we still haven't resolved it," she said in a detailed reply to questions about Obama and race issues as a whole before next week's 40th anniversary of the slaying of civil rights leader Marin Luther King.

"But what I would like understood as a black American is that black Americans loved and had faith in this country even when this country didn't love and have faith in them, and that's our legacy."

Rice said her own father, grandmother and great-grandmother had endured "terrible humiliations" growing up in the segregated south and yet they still loved America.

While many blacks called themselves African American, Rice said they should not be looked at as immigrants.

"We don't mimic the immigrant story. Where this conversation has got to go is that black Americans and white Americans founded this country together and I think we've always wanted the same thing," she said.

Later on Friday, when asked what Americans had learned about race since the civil rights movement, Rice told reporters: "You have to work hard every day to make the extraordinary, moving and inspirational words of our founding documents a reality for all Americans."

Earlier this week, Rice addressed a conservative lobbying group in Washington, stoking fresh talk that despite her public protestations to the contrary, she might be interested in becoming McCain's running mate.

Rice told the Washington Times again that she was "not interested" in the vice presidential job and she planned to return to her California home when the Bush administration ends in January 2009.

"It's time for new blood," she said.

boygabriel

SevenOneEighty wrote: Remember, the Democratic party is SPLIT right now.
No matter who gets the nomination at this point, votes will be lost.
People supporting the "other" will stay home, vote for Nader, or even McCain out of spite...

Anything that can shake up the numbers on the GOP side could allow the Democrats to snatch defeat out of the ( once automatic) jaws of victory.
Maybe it is not this, but it could be ...Romney for example...

Dems are in trouble come November, no matter what.

just updating your dire predictions.

Obama holds 12-point lead over McCain, poll finds....the great majority of Clinton voters have transferred their allegiance to Obama, the poll found, with 11% of Clinton voters defecting to McCain.

Unless there's another earthquake of Jeremiah Wright proportions, that 11% is going to drop, not grow.

michaelkeys

Boygabriel wrote:

Obama holds 12-point lead over McCain, poll finds....the great majority of Clinton voters have transferred their allegiance to Obama, the poll found, with 11% of Clinton voters defecting to McCain.

Unless there's another earthquake of Jeremiah Wright proportions, that 11% is going to drop, not grow.

Promising, no doubt. But w/ the election a little more than 4 months away and the GOP smear machine just getting warmed up...There are also rumblings about the Republicans not having their hearts in this one and waiting for a candidate they can really get behind in 2012. But, again...

witch-king

condi rice is the poster child for foreign policy incompetence. i hope mccain picks her.