Condoleezza Rice has probably been the biggest name bandied about in discussions of McCain's potential running mates. This isn't the first time she's indicated she has no presidential ambitions so I'm not too surprised.
Condoleezza Rice's name on the Republican ticket is a dream to some, but not a reality she can see happening.
The secretary of State told reporters Friday she will not be a vice presidential candidate in the upcoming election.
"I have always said that the one thing that I have not seen myself doing is running for elected office in the United States," she said at a news conference to discuss her recent trip to Africa. "I didn't even run for high school president. It's sort of not in my genes."
Instead, Rice told reporters: "You can all come and visit me in California."
Rice has said she plans to return to Stanford University, where she served as provost and taught as a professor.
She said she is looking forward to making her choice for president as a voter after being involved in President Bush's 2000 campaign and having a strong interest in his 2004 re-election.
"I'm going to keep doing what I'm doing as secretary of State to see if we can use the last few months, as the president has put it, to sprint to the finish because there's a lot of work to do," Rice said.
I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts it ends up being Pawlenty. The man is a perfect running mate. His youth, record of social and fiscal conservatism, position in a Northern Blue State, and history of friendship and loyalty to McCain all put him in the best possible position for the job. I'm sure most of McCain's advisors are telling him the same thing.
... Assuming it's her line and not some speech writer's. Which would be pretty ironic after the talkin' to she had just given Barack, wouldn't you say?
Hillary has finally picked up on the fact that experience is her rival's only real kryptonite and that she needs to be going on the attack over the next few weeks mainly on that issue. This inexperience has never been driven home quite as ruthlessly as it was on MSNBC's 'Decision '08 with Chris Matthews' last night when the host completely humiliated Texas State Senator Kirk Watson who worships at the alter of the Obamessiah. I think Hill's got the message now though since she's already referenced this clip in a campaign speech today:
I hate Hillary's politics. A lot. But like Jack Nicholson said, "She's the right man for the job." I don't mean for President; I just mean for the Democratic nomination. Obama's record is tabula rasa. And I think that is the line of attack we'll be hearing from the Clinton camp over the last weeks of the primary.
Barack's going to start feeling a lot of resistance. Hillary's going to have to go negative, I imagine, and John McCain has already turned his guns on the man. His "eloquent but empty call for change" line got about 30 seconds of cheering when he delivered it last night and it's getting a lot of attention today.
Also: Nicola was asking in the comments about why Michelle Obama's gaffe about not being proud of America didn't cost Obama any support in Wisconsin and I responded it was probably because people hear what they want to hear. This is Obama's official spin on the comment:
Barack Obama, interviewed on WOAI radio in San Antonio, Texas, expressed frustration that his wife’s comments became political fodder.
“Statements like this are made and people try to take it out of context and make a great big deal out of it, and that isn’t at all what she meant,” Obama said.
“What she meant was, this is the first time that she’s been proud of the politics of America,” he said. “Because she’s pretty cynical about the political process, and with good reason, and she’s not alone. But she has seen large numbers of people get involved in the process, and she’s encouraged.”
As the Wisconsin exit poll numbers roll in, it's finally hitting home for me that the Clinton Election Machine has been thoroughly trounced. There is no Comeback Kid part deux, no finding her voice and winning over America. She has been politically bested by a man with no accomplishments or a single substantial policy.
In the most recent installment of Shire Network News - the one with the Ezra interview - the host and an interviewee analyze the charismatic Democrat's vacuity. The interviewer reminds us of a part in the new Family Guy Star Wars spoof when the Emperor figures out the perfect formula for great Star Wars dialogue: "Something, something, something, dark side; something, something, something, complete." He went on that Obama has stumbled upon a similarly perfect formula for Democratic speech-writing: "Something, something, something, hope; something, something, something, change." And it's true. Listening to Obama speak is like playing a policy version of Where's Waldo.
"Is that a policy? No, no. That's just emotional demagoguery. Is that a policy? No. Hmm."
It's impossible to detect a single tangible policy behind his undoubtedly stirring words. And, consulting the delegate count, current poll numbers, and the momentum of the race, Democrats are buying right into it.
On a sadder note, how about Clinton's latest hair-brained scheme? Talk about desperation. Apparently, her campaign is prepared to win over a few of Obama's delegates - the one's he's already won - if Hillary thinks she needs them for the convention. That's right. She plans on somehow persuading pledged delegates who currently back Obama to switch sides in large enough numbers to secure the nomination. Apparently, it's legally possible and is kind of an open secret of the Democratic nomination process.
“Delegates are NOT bound to vote for the candidate they are pledged to at the convention or on the first ballot,” a recent DNC memo states. “A delegate goes to the convention with a signed pledge of support for a particular presidential candidate. At the convention, while it is assumed that the delegate will cast their vote for the candidate they are publicly pledged to, it is not required.”
So let the wooing begin, I guess. But can anybody actually see this plot panning out? Firstly, this rule is fairly obscure and violates some pretty entrenched conventions of the process. Secondly, the pledged delegates have been elected by the people to back a certain candidate so it would be seen as a betrayal to the voters if they switched sides at the last minute. And, finally, even if they manage to convince a few of Obama's people, how could they possibly hope to gain enough delegates to snag the nomination, especially if one assumes Obama will be fighting fire with fire and wooing her own delegates? Good luck with that, Hill.
So, despite a few moments over the past few months in which I was absolutely certain she couldn't be stopped no matter how charismatic the Obamessiah was, the American people seem to be eating his vacuous rhetoric like it was a delicious steak dinner, marinated in the sauce of hope and grilled on the barbecue of change. The polling numbers are spiraling out of Hillary's control. Her winning the nomination may still be possible mathematically, but here's one man's opinion: stick a fork in her, she's done.
PLUS: I wish I could call it a 'palate cleanser' but in reality it's more of a 'suicide inducer':
I'm so, so sorry. But, to be fair, Huckabee's fans suck too.
The mini series appeals to two types of people: history/political geeks and people who love liberty. I happen to fall squarely into both categories so I'm pretty much in Heaven.
I hate to play into these conspiracy type stories but the JFK assassination is interesting and, as far as I can tell, the story and the "lost documents" are legit.
Lost documents said to be a "conspiracy theorist's dream come true" have been unearthed which suggest that Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby plotted together to kill President John F Kennedy.
According to the Warren Commission, the official inquiry into the assassination, Oswald acted alone when he shot Kennedy as the president's motorcade swept past the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas. Two days later, Ruby shot Oswald dead as police were escorting him for questioning.
The boxes of evidence, found in an old safe in a Dallas courthouse, include a transcript of a conversation said to be between the pair discussing how they would carry out the assassination on behalf of the Mafia.
The transcript claims that the real target of the Mob was the president's brother, Robert Kennedy, the attorney general, himself later assassinated. Robert had launched a campaign against the criminal underworld.
In the alleged conversation, Ruby, a nightclub owner, and Oswald decide that it would be easier to kill the president than his brother and that JFK's death would end the inquiry just as effectively.
They go into it in much greater depth in the article if you're interested in that kind of thing.
The debate surrounding McCain's likely choices for a running mate has been drawing a lot of speculation on the right in recent days. There have been a lot of interesting, and in some cases even exciting, names thrown out there as possibilities. Early on there was talk about Romney or Huckabee filling the slot but McCain really doesn't like Mitt and that acrimony, combined with their divergent policies, would be more than enough to make for an awkward campaign. On the other hand, Huck shares some of McCain's more centrist convictions but would do little to nothing to satisfy the socially and fiscally conservative base that simply cannot be left behind for this election to yield a Republican to the White House.
Although a lot of other names have been proposed for the slot, two in particular jumped out at me as the most probable choices. These are Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty and former Oklahoma congressman J.C. Watts.
Vin Weber outlines why we might be seeing Pawlenty's name of the ticket in a Jonathan Martin article at Politico:
“First of all, his age is attractive,” Weber says, hinting at the nearly quarter-century difference between his fellow Minnesotan and the 71-year-old McCain. “Second, he’s from outside Washington. Third, he represents a battleground part of the country. And he has a nice balance of, on one hand being totally acceptable to conservative wing of the party, especially to social conservatives, but at the same time sharing a couple of key maverick strains of thought with McCain.”
Although you hate to bring it up, the age factor will probably be a central issue in the federal campaign. McCain is not a young man and Pawlenty's youth, coupled with his social conservatism and his strong stance on immigration, may go a long way towards convincing some of the Ann Coulter "I'd vote for Hillary before McCain" social conservatives to fall in line to keep the Democratic candidate out of office.
The article continues:
Declining to say how she got wind of the story, Taylor lavished praise on Pawlenty. "By far, he's the strongest candidate" to serve as McCain's running mate, she said.
"He's a conservative, rock-n-roll Republican and is counterintuitive to the party stereotype that we're old and rich,” says Taylor, who recalled visiting St. Paul and finding the governor jamming in his office to recording artist Bruce Springsteen. “He's young and blue-collar."
And, Taylor said, in a potential race against the 46-year-old Barack Obama, Pawlenty would be "as good as our party has for that [match-up].
...
“Politically, he’s pretty skilled, no question about it,” says Moe, who lost in a three-way gubernatorial race to Pawlenty in 2002. “He’s a bright guy and very charming, no question about it.”
Another name being tossed around is that of J.C. Watts, best known in Canada as the former quarterback and Grey Cup MVP for the CFL's Ottawa Rough Riders. The possibility of Watts as the Mav's running mate was mentioned over at the Halls of Macademia earlier today. The arguments for Watts filling the veep slot are strong.
Mr. Watts used to be considered a rising star in the party, and delivered a highly praised speech on character at the 1996 Republican national convention. He was selected to deliver his party's response to president Bill Clinton's State of the Union Address in 1997, and addressed the nation after Mr. Clinton's impeachment in 1998.
Now he is a multi-millionaire, running a variety of businesses, including selling John Deere tractors in Texas, offering companies strategies for business development, communications and public affairs, and lobbying government for small businesses, Fortune 500 companies, trade groups and historically black colleges and universities.
An outspoken conservative who once worked as a youth minister and associate pastor with the Southern Baptist Church, Mr. Watts has a congressional record sponsoring tax incentives for businesses in low-income areas. He also helped write U.S. President George W. Bush's "faith-based initiative," which was a key domestic part of his "compassionate conservatism.
...
The 51-year-old has courted controversy in the past by chastising some black Democrats and civil-rights leaders as "race-hustling poverty pimps."
Like Mr. McCain, he has not hesitated to speak his mind and criticize his own party's leaders."
Watts has been the source of quite a bit of controversy in his day and so would also bring a few of the maverick qualities - as well as the youth - that McCain will likely be looking for in a running mate.
A lot of other, less likely, names are getting attention too, including Condi Rice and, ridiculously, Joe Lieberman. All considered, Watts and Pawlenty seem to be in prime position for the slot. Only time will tell.
President Bush broke his silence on the 2008 presidential race on Sunday, giving his imprimatur to Senator John McCain of Arizona as a “true conservative,” who nonetheless has “got some convincing to do” to persuade fellow Republicans of his bona fides with the right.
The remark, in an hourlong interview broadcast on “Fox News Sunday,” was as close to an endorsement as Mr. McCain will get from Mr. Bush at this stage, before a nominee has been officially declared. It was also a sharp departure for Mr. Bush, who had refused to be drawn into commenting on the race.
“I think that if John’s the nominee, he’s got some convincing to do to convince people that he is a solid conservative,” Mr. Bush told the Fox host, Chris Wallace. “And I’ll be glad to help him if he’s the nominee, because he is a conservative.”
With conservative pundits like Rush Limbaugh saying that a McCain nomination would destroy the Republican Party, the senator’s advisers had been hoping for just this sort of public embrace. It came on the heels of Mr. Bush’s call for unity in a speech Friday to the Conservative Political Action Conference, which was also widely interpreted as an implicit endorsement of Mr. McCain.
Until now, with the exception of an early prediction that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would be the Democratic nominee, Mr. Bush had done his best to steer clear of extensive discussions of the candidates, especially the Republicans. He has repeatedly said he will not be the “pundit in chief,” and said on Sunday that he did not want to get “into the trap again of getting involved in this primary.”
Even so, Mr. Bush offered his thoughts not only on Mr. McCain, but also on the other remaining Republican candidate, Mike Huckabee, and the Democrats as well. He also defended former President Bill Clinton, who has been accused of playing on racial sentiments by attacking Mrs. Clinton’s opponent, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.
“I can understand why President Clinton wants to campaign hard for his wife,” Mr. Bush said. “And you know, these accusations that Bill Clinton is a racist I think is just wrong. I just don’t agree with it.”
...
Mr. McCain’s differences with the White House are well known. He did not vote for the president’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, a sore point with groups like the conservative Club for Growth. And he disagreed with Mr. Bush on campaign finance reform and the use of harsh interrogation tactics against terrorism suspects. But Mr. Bush defended him.
“I know him well,” Mr. Bush said. “I know his convictions. I know the principles that drive him. And no doubt in my mind he is a true conservative.”
This quasi-sorta-but-not really endorsement may actually help McCain gain some credibility among conservatives but it doesn't change anything in terms of the problems Republicans have with the Maverick's history and policies. Bush may be convinced that he's driven by conservative principles but the base isn't so the President had it right when he said McCain's got a lot of convincing to do if he's going to win in '08.
Unless you're only a Republican in the vaguest possible sense - that is to say, a John McCain supporter - you must be beginning to get that sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach. You know, the same one you got in 2004 when you realized that Paul Martin was actually going to become Prime Minister of Canada. A lot depends on today's Super Tuesday results, of course, but it's looking more and more likely that McCain's going to be the candidate and, worse yet, that the veepee could be Huckabee. It's a disheartening prospect.
Through it all, there has been one great comfort felt on the right: the Democratic candidate is probably going to be Hillary Clinton. No matter what problems we have with the current direction of the GOP, a glance at the Democratic primaries gave us hope. Hillary Clinton is a socialist-cum-moderate who says things like "I have a million ideas; America can't afford them all" on the campaign trail. She's a figure of the institution in an election where the buzz word is change. She's as divisive as any Republican and her popularity is probably about equal to John Kerry's in 2004 but no greater. Whether it's McCain or Romney who gets the nod, chances are they'd have a good shot at beating her.
Although the momentum seems to favour Clinton, I don't mean to completely count out Obama. He has made - and is still making - an impressive run at it. Clinton has a large support base and the advantage of name recognition but the adulation thrown at Obama has proven time and again to be a force to be reckoned with. It's true that his experience is non-existent. And it's also true that his power is mostly as a symbol of that great and nebulous concept of change. "Change into what? Um. Who cares? Just change, okay!" But the power of what he represents has now become impossible to deny and, for Clinton, too dangerous to ignore.
So, for all these reasons, I wasn't all that surprised to hear that Clinton strategists are beginning to say that Obama would "absolutely" be considered as a running mate if Hillary gets the nomination. The animosity between these two had put me at ease heretofore but the possibility of a Clinton/Obama ticket, something I consider to be increasingly likely now that they're beginning to make nice, cannot be dismissed out of hand. Against John McCain and the inevitably divided conservative base that would accompany his nomination, it's hard to find an angle that doesn't point to a Democratic landslide. When even Ann Coulter says she'll vote for Hillary over McCain, you know the Republicans are going to have trouble satisfying the base.
With Clinton and Obama on the same ticket, we're beginning to enter nightmare scenario territory; 16 years of Democrats in the White House. Consider it. In the general election, Hillary would likely match Kerry's performance in 2004 and pick up the usual blue states but Obama's name on the ballot would almost certainly be enough to keep and gain most of the swing states like New Mexico, New Hampshire, and Iowa. His popularity among independents and the power of his "change" message has already proven effective in most of these states.
There's that sinking feeling again.
The more I mull it over, the more sense it seems to make for the Democrats. Is the Clinton/Obama ticket as likely as I think it is? Roland Martin offers some pretty persuasive reasons to think it'll never happen, but I'm still not convinced.
We've all had fun watching Obama and Clinton snipe at each other. There's clearly no love lost between these two. But how far are they willing to go to keep a Republican out of the White House?
I can't be the only one who thinks the answer is "as far as necessary".
Posts
