Rumor mill: Rice wants it

[NeoConIV]

Rice Wants It--But in Draft Form
Political associates of Secretary of State Condi Rice are stirring the 2008 presidential pot on her behalf. While she takes the high road, they're pushing her name out there. "She definitely wants to be president," said one. But, the friend added, Rice isn't planning on quitting to run. "She wants to be drafted," he said.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/articles/050530/30whisplead.htm




Very encouraging for Condistas....

[1369]

I've always had a gut feeling that the 2008 presidential race would be between Rice and Clinton.

[NeoConIV]

For all the chatter about a Billary run, I'm not so sure she is going to get the nomination. She carries an awful lot of baggage. Perhaps too much baggage for a presidential run.

[Bandit2981]

For all the chatter about a Billary run, I'm not so sure she is going to get the nomination. She carries an awful lot of baggage. Perhaps too much baggage for a presidential run.
baggage? the blood of 1200 american soldiers on Rice's hands over a bullshit war is greater baggage than anything Hillary has done

[NeoConIV]

stay tuned, you'll see what I'm talking about in June.

[BronxCowboy]

I think your right NeoConIV, Hillary doesn't have a shot. She not really that popular among democrats, and she's even less popular among non-democrats than Kerry was. If Clinton is the candidate, the Republicans win in a landslide, and the Democrats know this. Hell, I'm a liberal democrat, and I don't even like her. The main reasons that people here in New York voted for her for Senate were that she has name recognition and the alternatives were crappy. I can see Gore before I can see her.

[BronxCowboy]

FWIW, most of the "chatter" that I've heard about HRC running has been from Republicans. Their having wet-dreams about campaigning against her.

[IcemanCometh]

the day a black woman runs for president on the republican ticket is the day a black woman runs for president on the democratic party. aka never in your lifetime

neocon,aggy,mfd et all would sooner quit the party that betrayed them than vote for condi

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

bullshit war

Spoken like a true liberal without a proper world view or historical perspective.

As for Condi, right now I'd have to say she'd have my vote.

[BronxCowboy]

To put things in "historical perspective," conservatives were among the staunchest opponents of US foreign intervention prior to the cold war era. Ain't that a trip.

[cherylsteele]

baggage? the blood of 1200 american soldiers on Rice's hands over a bullshit war is greater baggage than anything Hillary has done

Why is it blood on Rice's hands? and why is it a "bullshot" war? Could you elaborate and not just spew without some reasoning?

I tend to be a liberal Dem...most of the time....but Hillary is just not a good candidate.

As for voting for Rice or not.....2008 is till a ways off and many things can happen....I would give her serious consideration at this point though.....I would like to know more on how she stands on other issues than foreign policy.

[scott]

Rice would be a cute candidate for the obvious reasons, but when you have a John McCain sitting in your stable, you have to run him. He would have been the right choice in 2000, and he will be in 2008.

If the GOP wanted to go for some kind of Bush regime and really push Condi, it wouldn't surprise me to see McCain run on a Dem ticket and win in a landslide.

[IcemanCometh]

john mccain will be 72 in 2008 making him the oldest president ever. his time was in 2000 but unfortunately the republicans stole it from him

[NeoConIV]

it wouldn't surprise me to see McCain run on a Dem ticket and win in a landslide.

http://www.mudmystic.com/whoa_small.jpg
Whoa!




Cheryl, here are a few links with some good info:

http://www.americansforrice.com/Issues.htm

Good running blog here:
http://www.condipundit.com/

[travis2]

I'd vote for Rice.

McCain is no Republican.

[JoeChalupa]

For all the chatter about a Billary run, I'm not so sure she is going to get the nomination. She carries an awful lot of baggage. Perhaps too much baggage for a presidential run.

Condi will get hammered for the Iraq War baggage.

[BronxCowboy]

Hillary supported the Iraq war too, i.e. she voted approval in the Senate, while Condi really had no say.

[BronxCowboy]

I agree that McCain is the best choice that the Republicans have out there. He would probably win whether he ran as a Republican or a Democrat. However, the Republicans won't nominate him and I doubt that he'll run as a Democrat.

[Extra Stout]

McCain will be too old to run in 2008. He'd be unlikely to survive two terms.

But if you like McCain, you'll probably like Chuck Hagel too.

[NeoConIV]

Condi will get hammered for the Iraq War baggage.
I love you like a brother Joe, but dead wrong.

[NeoConIV]

I agree that McCain is the best choice that the Republicans have out there. He would probably win whether he ran as a Republican or a Democrat. However, the Republicans won't nominate him and I doubt that he'll run as a Democrat.
In case you weren't aware, McCain just caved to the democrats on judicial nominees. He just wiped away any hope of a prez bid in 2008. Trust me, this is going to hang over him like a plague...well, forever.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

I'd vote for Rice.

McCain is no Republican.

And Zell Miller is no Democrat.

[dcole50]

i'd like to see a female president ... can't say i'm crazy about rice or clinton, though. i think race would play a role in rice's run, unfortunately. it'd be intersting to see if a state like, well, mine would back her. i'd like to hope that race or gender wouldn't play a role, but i'm not so optimistic.

also, i'd vote mccain if he ran.

[Jekka]

i'd like to see a female president ... can't say i'm crazy about rice or clinton, though. i think race would play a role in rice's run, unfortunately. it'd be intersting to see if a state like, well, mine would back her. i'd like to hope that race or gender wouldn't play a role, but i'm not so optimistic.

also, i'd vote mccain if he ran.

Oh, race and gender will most definitely have some sort of effect.

My mother (who is white) is the first associate Methodist minister for a congregation in Houston - her senior pastor is a black man, and the least-ranking one with the least amount of experience (is graduating from seminary next week) is a white man. While the senior pastor has been there several years and my mother has been there longer than the second associate, some members of the congregation will only take communion from the second associate, or hire him for their weddings, etc. If this is the case in a church, I can guarantee it will have an effect on a presidential ballot. I would love to see a woman in the oval office, but I'd be wary to say that Americans are progressive enough to make that happen.

[Nbadan]

You'll post like the American people actually pick their party candidates. The NeoCons have no choice now but to run a candidate whose strings they can pull or they all go to jail. Its the Neocons in the administration and the NeoLib-controlled DLC that are pushing for a Hillary and Rice candidacy.

[NeoConIV]

You'll post like the American people actually pick their party candidates. The NeoCons have no choice now but to run a candidate whose strings they can pull or they all go to jail. Its the Neocons in the administration and the NeoLib-controlled DLC that are pushing for a Hillary and Rice candidacy.

Whatever. Rice in o8 baby!

[BronxCowboy]

In case you weren't aware, McCain just caved to the democrats on judicial nominees. He just wiped away any hope of a prez bid in 2008. Trust me, this is going to hang over him like a plague...well, forever.
I'm well aware. That's why I said that the Republicans probably wouldn't nominate him. But I think the fact that he was willing to reach and participate in a bipartisan effort to achieve a compromise is commendable, and not "caving." But I wouldn't expect Republicans to see it that way.

[NeoConIV]

I'm well aware. That's why I said that the Republicans probably wouldn't nominate him. But I think the fact that he was willing to reach and participate in a bipartisan effort to achieve a compromise is commendable, and not "caving." But I wouldn't expect Republicans to see it that way.
I would say to that that republicans have worked hard to get a majority. But now that we have a majority, it's rendered null and void because of people like Arlen Specter and McCain. Honestly, what the hell is the purpose of having a majority if we cut 'deals' with the minorty that prevent the majority from excerising the clout they've hard earned? McCain undercut A LOT of hard work by conservatives in the party. But you know, whatever, he'll have a price to pay.

Could go either way, nature of the beast. By no means is this a 'right wing' thing.

[Spurminator]

Honestly, what the hell is the purpose of having a majority if we cut 'deals' with the minorty that prevent the majority from excerising the clout they've hard earned?

You act like having the majority is like winning some kind of sport and getting entitlements.

Perhaps McCain and Specter vote how they (edit: and the people they represent) believe and not necessarily along party lines. I don't see how that can possibly be considered a bad thing.

[JoeChalupa]

I'd vote for Senator McCain.

[MannyIsGod]

I would say to that that republicans have worked hard to get a majority. But now that we have a majority, it's rendered null and void because of people like Arlen Specter and McCain. Honestly, what the hell is the purpose of having a majority if we cut 'deals' with the minorty that prevent the majority from excerising the clout they've hard earned? McCain undercut A LOT of hard work by conservatives in the party. But you know, whatever, he'll have a price to pay.

Could go either way, nature of the beast. By no means is this a 'right wing' thing.
I thought the representatives were aligned to their constiuants and not to any specific party beliefs?

The job of those in the majority and the minority are to represent the will of their constituants.

[NeoConIV]

I defer to my man Jonah on why the compromise sucks...



Nor is the worst aspect of the compromise the embarrassment the GOP brought upon itself with its inept rhetoric. Ever since they moronically coined and popularized the phrase “nuclear option,” the Republicans were destined to look bad. Implicit in the phrase is the notion that the Republicans were the ones determined to do something radical and dangerous, even though it was the Democrats who were actually promising to “blow up” the Senate.

But nooooo, the Republicans had to come up with a phrase that showed how macho they are, even at the expense of conceding the better part of the argument to the Democrats. Where is the vaunted “message discipline” the Republicans are supposed to have? They couldn’t simply call it the “restore Senate tradition” option? Did they just have to show off their big swinging nuclear options?

The most annoying thing about the compromise, I believe, is the logic underneath it.

First, there’s the abiding faith — eternally celebrated by the press — that compromise is always and everywhere a good thing. If I say two plus two equals four, and you say two plus two equals one billion, is it really such a great advance to split the difference and agree that it’s somewhere near 500 million? The media’s love of compromise is the moral hazard that comes from always seeking both sides of an issue. The press should seek both sides, of course, but it shouldn’t conclude that simply because each side has good arguments that both are right, or that splitting the difference is enlightened. The media sees such blurring as wisdom, when really it’s cynicism.

And my point exactly...


Besides, it is far more dangerous when democracies choose not to have arguments. This is because political arguments represent conflicts of legitimate interests and legitimate perspectives. Intellectually shabby compromises by their very nature don’t settle the disagreements, they merely postpone and exacerbate them.

http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/goldberg/goldberg200505250806.asp

[MannyIsGod]

The fact remains that your being crtical of a senator who does not represent you because he didn't succomb to what a large party - whom he doesn't represent either - wanted.

I'm sick of this supposed 2 party system that is really nothing more than a farse to begin with.

[NeoConIV]

I'd vote for Senator McCain.
Great. He'll need it I'm sure!

[MannyIsGod]

In fact, after reading through that article, I'm going to declare it idiocy. It tries to compare compromise in the Senate over non absolutes to compromise over an absolute (2+2=4).

But then again, the republican party does tend to view it's morality as absolute regardless of how other people view those values.

[NeoConIV]

He's just making a broader point that I can easily see applied to the current debate.

I agree with you on moral absolutes, because there are moral absolutes. :) Chiefly, abortion is murder.

[Bandit2981]

Chiefly, abortion is murder.
you know, dropping bombs on countries we hate kills babies too(or takes out their resources so they starve or dehydrate to death)...what makes that kind of murder more acceptable than an abortion in a clinic?

[MannyIsGod]

Not to get on a tangent here, but I do think compromise can be a very dangerous thing, Neo. Take into account how this country is willing to compromise our liberties in the name of safety.

[Clandestino]

you know, dropping bombs on countries we hate kills babies too(or takes out their resources so they starve or dehydrate to death)...what makes that kind of murder more acceptable than an abortion in a clinic?

:rolleyes

[scott]

McCain is no Republican.

Whereas I'd usually retort with a rude comment, because I respect him I will kindly ask Travis to elaborate instead.


I would say to that that republicans have worked hard to get a majority. But now that we have a majority, it's rendered null and void because of people like Arlen Specter and McCain. Honestly, what the hell is the purpose of having a majority if we cut 'deals' with the minorty that prevent the majority from excerising the clout they've hard earned? McCain undercut A LOT of hard work by conservatives in the party. But you know, whatever, he'll have a price to pay.

Republicans worked hard, so they earned the right to eliminate checks from a system of checks and balances??

[desflood]

The fact remains that your being crtical of a senator who does not represent you because he didn't succomb to what a large party - whom he doesn't represent either - wanted.

I'm sick of this supposed 2 party system that is really nothing more than a farse to begin with.
I believe the real farce here, Manny, is your attempt at spelling :p

[GoldToe]

McCain is his own man and I like that.

[NeoConIV]

Bandit, "dropping bombs on countries we hate"? Elevate the discussion please. "Takes out their resources so that they starve or dehydrate to death"? You can't be serious. I'm lost for words. Really.

Manny, if compromising liberties for safety was ever to be abused, sure, very dangerous. But as Hugh Hewitt points out:


I think it is far more accurate to say GOP activists --of all ideological stripes, including big-tent, Arlen Specter-supporting, party-first folks like me-- are furious because they know what the "deal" does to the NRSC and the effort to build a lasting majority. You can stray on Social Security and private accounts and be a good Republican. You can vote to keep ANWR closed and be a good Republican. You may favor abortion rights or same sex marriage rights (though not their imposition via court diktat), and you can even vote against any particular judicial nominee on sincere grounds, and be a good Republican.

But you can't sell out the Constitution. And you shouldn't sell out good people unfairly slimed by extremists of the left. The gang of seven did both. That's why folks are furious. It is wrong to characterize that as an ideological reaction. It is a principled reaction to an unprincipled maneuver.

or this point:

How refreshing it would be if, say, Barbara Boxer would stand up in the Senate and say "I oppose Justice Owen because she's a center-right Republican and I'm a liberal." Fine. Boxer won the election in California. She can do whatever she wants with her vote. But to try and turn William Meyer or Janice Rogers Brown or Miguel Estrada or all the others into ogres is disgusting.


This is the work of McCain. Enjoy!

[cherylsteele]

http://www.mudmystic.com/whoa_small.jpg
Whoa!




Cheryl, here are a few links with some good info:

http://www.americansforrice.com/Issues.htm

Good running blog here:
http://www.condipundit.com/

Thanks for the links......but I still would like to know why Bandit thinks Rice has blood on her hands.

[Nbadan]

but I still would like to know why Bandit thinks Rice has blood on her hands.

My thoughts are that Bandit is referring to the Downing Street Memo, which if authentic (the British haven't denied it is), proves with little doubt that the W administration, including Ms. Rice, was intentionally shaping intelligence data to support an invasion of Iraq and the overthrown of Saddam Hussien. An Invasion that even our closes allied, Britian, thought was probably illegal.

[Nbadan]

McCain is his own man and I like that.

His own man? You got to be fuckin kidding me. Everytime that McCain has had a chance to be 'his own man' against policies he disagreed with this administration he had bent over backwards and taken up the ass.

Doesn't matter what my feelings about McCain are though because the Republican NeoCons would never nominte him - he is simply too much of a wild-card.

Look for the NeoCons to help push the nominations of Guiliani, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney and Hillary Clinton (since when did party affiliation get in the way of absolute power?).

[NeoConIV]

Look for the NeoCons to help push the nominations of Guiliani, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney and Hillary Clinton (since when did party affiliation get in the way of absolute power?).
None of those have a prayer.

I would be looking at Rice, Allen, and Romney.

[Nbadan]

I would be looking at Rice, Allen, and Romney.

Rice will never get the nomination. Tolerance for women and minorities runs only so deep in the Republican party.

[NeoConIV]

Rice will never get the nomination. Tolerance for women and minorities runs only so deep in the Republican party.
Oh really? Wish I could see the look on your face when that notion of yours gets shattered into a million pieces very soon... :elephant

[Nbadan]

Oh really? Wish I could see the look on your face when that notion of yours gets shattered into a million pieces very soon..

If Condi got the Republican nod I would leave the forum, but since that'll happen, yeah right, I guess your stuck with me.

:hat

[Bandit2981]

My thoughts are that Bandit is referring to the Downing Street Memo, which if authentic (the British haven't denied it is), proves with little doubt that the W administration, including Ms. Rice, was intentionally shaping intelligence data to support an invasion of Iraq and the overthrown of Saddam Hussien. An Invasion that even our closes allied, Britian, thought was probably illegal.
thats a big part of it, as well as the "bin laden determined to attack inside the US" memo that went ignored, as well as the statements of richard clarke, paul o'neill, etc etc etc...its a long list, not just 1 or 2 specific things

[desflood]

Rice will never get the nomination. Tolerance for women and minorities runs only so deep in the Republican party.
Let's see what a black man has to say about that...

Liberals, race, and history
Thomas Sowell (archive)


May 24, 2005 | Print | Send


If the share of the black vote that goes to the Democrats ever falls to 70 percent, it may be virtually impossible for the Democrats to win the White House or Congress, because they have long ago lost the white male vote and their support among other groups is eroding. Against that background, it is possible to understand their desperate efforts to keep blacks paranoid, not only about Republicans but about American society in general.

Liberal Democrats, especially, must keep blacks fearful of racism everywhere, including in an administration whose Cabinet includes people of Chinese, Japanese, Hispanic, and Jewish ancestry, and two consecutive black Secretaries of State. Blacks must be kept believing that their only hope lies with liberals.

Not only must the present be distorted, so must the past -- and any alternative view of the future must be nipped in the bud. That is why prominent minority figures who stray from the liberal plantation must be discredited, debased and, above all, kept from becoming federal judges.

A thoughtful and highly intelligent member of the California supreme court like Justice Janice Rogers Brown must be smeared as a right-wing extremist, even though she received 76 percent of the vote in California, hardly a right-wing extremist state. But desperate politicians cannot let facts stand in their way.

Least of all can they afford to let Janice Rogers Brown become a national figure on the federal bench. The things she says and does could lead other blacks to begin to think independently -- and that in turn threatens the whole liberal house of cards. If a smear is what it takes to stop her, that is what liberal politicians and the liberal media will use.

It's "not personal" as they say when they smear someone. It doesn't matter how outstanding or upstanding Justice Brown is. She is a threat to the power that means everything to liberal politicians. The Democrats' dependence on blacks for votes means that they must keep blacks dependent on them.

Black self-reliance would be almost as bad as blacks becoming Republicans, as far as liberal Democrats are concerned. All black progress in the past must be depicted as the result of liberal government programs and all hope of future progress must be depicted as dependent on the same liberalism.

In reality, reductions in poverty among blacks and the rise of blacks into higher level occupations were both more pronounced in the years leading up to the civil rights legislation and welfare state policies of the 1960s than in the years that followed.

Moreover, contrary to political myth, a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. But facts have never stopped politicians or ideologues before and show no signs of stopping them now.

What blacks have achieved for themselves, without the help of liberals, is of no interest to liberals. Nothing illustrates this better than political reactions to academically successful black schools.

Despite widespread concerns expressed about the abysmal educational performances of most black schools, there is remarkably little interest in those relatively few black schools which have met or exceeded national standards.

Anyone who is serious about the advancement of blacks would want to know what is going on in those ghetto schools whose students have reading and math scores above the national average, when so many other ghetto schools are miles behind in both subjects. But virtually all the studies of such schools have been done by conservatives, while liberals have been strangely silent.

Achievement is not what liberalism is about. Victimhood and dependency are.

Black educational achievements are a special inconvenience for liberals because those achievements have usually been a result of methods and practices that go directly counter to prevailing theories in liberal educational circles and are anathema to the teachers' unions that are key supporters of the Democratic Party.

Many things that would advance blacks would not advance the liberal agenda. That is why the time is long overdue for the two to come to a parting of the ways.

[MannyIsGod]

Many things that would advance blacks would not advance the liberal agenda. That is why the time is long overdue for the two to come to a parting of the ways.

Oh that goes both ways. Replace the word liberal with conservative and it still makes perfect sense.

[The Ressurrected One]

Oh that goes both ways. Replace the word liberal with conservative and it still makes perfect sense.
Okay, I did. I can't think of one Conservative agenda item that is at odds with the advancement of Blacks.

Fill us in Manny.

[MannyIsGod]

Okay, I did. I can't think of one Conservative agenda item that is at odds with the advancement of Blacks.

Fill us in Manny.
:lmao

And the consevatives don't use the military for political gain, and the republicans don't play politics, etc etc.

No, you know, I think I'll save my breath with you from now on.

[Nbadan]

Black self-reliance would be almost as bad as blacks becoming Republicans, as far as liberal Democrats are concerned. All black progress in the past must be depicted as the result of liberal government programs and all hope of future progress must be depicted as dependent on the same liberalism.

In reality, reductions in poverty among blacks and the rise of blacks into higher level occupations were both more pronounced in the years leading up to the civil rights legislation and welfare state policies of the 1960s than in the years that followed.

Thomas Sowell is such a tool. Progressives don't fear black or minority success, they welcome it because it usually equates to wealther coffers at election time. This whole Democrats want to keep blacks down is a myth perpetuated through the Republican echo chamber with little real basis in reality. If Blacks and Hispanics ever really smartened up and started realizing which political party is really fighting today for greater minority rights, affordable health care, affirmative action in education and lower taxes after we pay off our debt. Progressives would start to carry states in the South, and we can't have that, so we keep perpetuating this Liberals-hate-blacks myth to keep minorities confused AND away from the ballot boxes. Never mind that blacks aren't buying it since 80% voted for Kerry in 04, but hispanics and other minorities are, or Texas would go Democrat - could still happen.

[ChumpDumper]

Rice wants to be President; it sounded pretty clear in her interview with Juan Williams this week. She was expounding on all kinds of issues that had nothing to do with her current job. That said, she'll be drafted as a reaction to a Hilary Clinton nomination. Republicans will have no choice - they'd have to do something to get back the female vote.

[BronxCowboy]

Rice wants to be President; it sounded pretty clear in her interview with Juan Williams this week. She was expounding on all kinds of issues that had nothing to do with her current job.
Agree.

That said, she'll be drafted as a reaction to a Hilary Clinton nomination. Republicans will have no choice - they'd have to do something to get back the female vote.
Disagree. Hillary would be the dream candidate for ANY Republican to run against. If she's nominated, GOP will win with whomever they pick, as long as it isn't Tom DeLay or Dick Cheney.

[ChumpDumper]

You'd be surprised at the women's vote.

[Nbadan]

You'd be surprised at the women's vote.

But a women and a minority? Whew...talk about strike two. I think the Republicans would be more dangerous with Hutchingson, but even then only as a Vice Presidential candidate with a male.

The Democrats can't afford to gamble on Hillary. She alienates to many moderates not so much because of anything really based in reality, but because she is a darlin of talk radio, but then again the right-wing media has no problem scavenging its own if the legislator doesn't measure up on the fundi scale.

[BronxCowboy]

The Democrats can't afford to gamble on Hillary. She alienates to many moderates not so much because of anything really based in reality, but because she is a darlin of talk radio, but then again the right-wing media has no problem scavenging its own if the legislator doesn't measure up on the fundi scale.

She alienates too many progressives, as well. Full-fledged support for the "War on Terror," backing the war in Iraq, and voting in the Patriot act aren't going to get you too many liberal votes, regardless of whether you're famous or what type of genitalia you have.

[NameDropper]

Rumors...

http://prodtn.cafepress.com/5/15677655_F_tn.jpg

[mookie2001]

ehh
i think hillary would be a good president, although she seems like a big bitch
i hope she doesnt run because it will be VERY hard for her to win
i would likely support whoever got the Dem nomination

[JoeChalupa]

Hillary can do it.

[Nbadan]

She alienates too many progressives, as well. Full-fledged support for the "War on Terror," backing the war in Iraq, and voting in the Patriot act aren't going to get you too many liberal votes, regardless of whether you're famous or what type of genitalia you have.

Yes, you also forgot for her new open dialogue approach on abortion rights. Everyday Hillary drifts more and more to the center, or so it would seem, but I'm not sure that Reagan-Democrats have really bought into the new, improved and centrist Hillary, especially since the Right keeps continuously attacking her as a rabid liberal in sheep's clothing. I'm not sure what to make of the recent love fest between rabid conservatives like Newt Gingrich and Hitlary. My guess is some powerful entity wants to see a Hillary nomination in 08, almost as much as they fear a John McCain nomination.

[ClintSquint]

The Democratic party needs to move back to the center and become the party it once was.

[BronxCowboy]

become the party it once was.

If by this you mean a strong supporter of labor, more populist, and less driven by big business, then yes. If you mean keep being the puppy dog of the GOP and following the Republicans to the right, then no. Gore ran on a centrist platform and look what happened (I won't say that he lost). Kerry ran on a centrist platform and got his butt kicked. The Republicans have been able to paint Democratic candidates as "extremists" no matter how moderate they are. (For example, most of the country believes that Kerry supported gay marriage, despite the fact that he never made a statement to this effect and frequently stated that he did not believe in gay marriage.) It's a mistake for the Democrats to sacrifice liberal votes in order to gain moderate appeal, because it won't happen. They need to put forward candidates who know where they stand and are not afraid to tell everyone, regardless of the issue or the right/leftness of it. I do think that dialogue on some particularly divisive social issues is a good thing, but I don't think that's the same as moving toward the center. You just have to pick your battles, but the ones you do pick, you absolutely have to hold your ground on.

[NeoConIV]

Rice wants to be President; it sounded pretty clear in her interview with Juan Williams this week.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4669163

In case anyone is interested in what 44 has to say...

[ididnotnothat]

She is getting ready I already noticed she changed from that "flip" hair style she's been wearing. Now she has to fix that gap.

[Ocotillo]

I'll be elected president before Condi Rice is.