Draft Condi: In Iowa poll, only Rice beats Hillary Clinton

I'm on the Facebook one.

 

I'm no longer on Facebook but I do know that Condi has her own page there, now with more than half a million likes! .

Condi also has her own Twitter page which you can follow. 159K followers!

Here's the link for Condoleezza Rice for President 2016 on Facebook. Only 31,000 likes but that's still ten times the number of members we have on Rice for President Yahoo Group.

 

I strongly tend to agree!

We Canadians would be impressed as well. I wonder what she would think of delegating certain troubling problems on Canada's P. M. Stephen Harper?

http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...s-p-m-brokering-jordan-israel-peace-deal.html

 

Can anyone tell me what Ms. Condi Rice has done to deserve this position? Or the chance to run for it? Other than being the mouthpiece of two administrations. Am I the ONLY one who wants a qualified, battle-tested person to be the next President of the United States?

I'm done with everyone's "firsts", I'm done with playing to populism. I want a Commander in Chief. It can be a gay POTUS, it can be a woman, it can be anyone. But that CAN'T be the reason, or the discussion. Hillary was right in 2008 not to run on her being a woman, I could care LESS. All I want to know is if I'll make more money with you in office, rather than the other guy.

If I'm better off with you as POTUS, you got my vote. If the other guy is, he got my vote. You better NOT make an emotional fallacy appeal. Which is what the whole "First black, gay, etc al." IS. They made an emotional fallacy appeal to these low-information voters and they gobbled it up.

Don't gobble it up in 2016. Get me the Leader.

 

We are in total agreement here. Condi is fine as a human being and as a troubleshooter, but there is a great deal more than that required in order to be an effective president. Her gender is of no use there and nor is her skin tone. Even the fact that she's a Republican is of little practical value when trying to wrangle cooperation out of a recalcitrant Legislative Branch or dealing with the results of the subtle machinations of other governments or in comprehending how capitalism functions and when it ceases to function properly if you tweak the wrong factor because some slick economist convinced you of the wrong thing. Then there is a host of other factors that you need to be involved with at the equivalent of national level experience (as mostly only U.S. Representatives, Senators, and Governors are involved in them) before stepping into the Oval Office; otherwise it's too easy for you to be conned by ethically corrupted or ideologically blinded advisers.

All of the preceding is why, consistently, the newbie presidents with the best chance of at least becoming competent as holders of that office and in their other function as Commander-in-Chief come from governorship backgrounds; because even as far short as such 'experience' as that does fall in comparison to functioning in the most high pressure and complicated Executive Office position in the entire history of human existence, it still remains the next nearest set of skills-building experiences.

Now in theory a former vice president who then goes on to become president would be even better than a former governor becoming president; but we seldom put former V.P.s into the Oval Office, and that's probably because most of them do not quite have the natural charisma of a politician who went the governorship route first. Think about G.H. Bush. He had all the charisma of a wet paper bag. He didn't actually do all that badly as president, but people wanted someone who could inspire them (for good or bad, if you will) which is why Bill Clinton turned G.H. Bush into a one term president.

So what about a former senator turned president? Better than a total outsider to the intricate working of government, I grant you, but arguably not as ideal in regards to various types of key experience levels as that of a former governor. My opinions in this are my own, and are based on observations; but I believe that I am correct and especially so as we continue to evolve a more complex network of interconnected national and international problem-sets requiring broad experience in leadership.

Finally, to repeat your own assertions, gender, sexual preferences, skin tone, ethnicity . . . should all be non-issues. All that should matter are types and degrees of applicable experience and -- to a lesser extent -- how bloody damn corrupt or honest the candidate seem to be once the vetting process is completed . . . and there needs to be a thorough and honest vetting process for candidates Right, Center, and Left; and voters need to be honest about it. Has their favorite contender really been adequately vetted in comparison to other candidates or was he or she essentially allowed to skate past the heart and soul of the process because the Mainstream Media took a fancy to the person and pretty much refused to do their job?

 

Rice has no experience whatsoever in seeking or holding an elective office.

Rice has never indicated that she is interested in seeking elective office.

Rice was befouled by her major public exposure, her complicity in the Dub's Iraq fiasco.

That anyone would fantasize about her imaginary presidential candidacy attests to the GOP's desperation in finding a viable candidate.

 

Unfortunately, I can't rep you for the epic post.(I've got to spread it around before giving you some more). So consider my like a BIG like. As you said, experience, positions, consistency, etc. The whole shabang has to be important in picking the next POTUS. I don't even care which party it comes from. If robust economic reform comes from a Democrat, am I really going to hold it against him that BHO did a crappy job? Not really.

I'll even go so far as to say that experience, relative to how many years one has persisted in Capitol Hill(at minimum, 2) isn't so much of an importance to me. James F. Polk(I know, ancient name) was one of the youngest Democrats to ever attain the WH, and he did a great job. Politics is also about philosophy, it is the place where intellectual minds should reside. I remember a glorious political era which once invoked Jefferson, Madison, Federick the great.

So, if one were to eloquently state their positions(and I don't mean catchphrases mind you, or that he doesn't sound like Bush. The 16 year old me learned that lesson the HARD way, we all did). By which, I mean they believe what they say and they say what they believe. I'll give him a vote. In fact, if one can hold this most essential quality, all other qualities might be secondary.

So when we say the 16 Pool is crappy, let's really boil down to it: There isn't a single man or woman in this field who can say what they mean and mean what they say.

 

Rice infamously used that term in hyping the Iraq fiasco.

Clinton has said that she "got it wrong. Plain and simple,” when she voted to surrender the decision whether to invade Iraq to Bush, but never fantasized about "mushroom clouds."

That errant vote, one of 29 by Democrats in the Senate, was a major factor in her failing to win the 2008 nomination.

Whether it still plays as well for '16 we'll see - but no one will be pretending she hyped the war by evoking chimerical "mushroom clouds."

 

The politics of Condi are pretty complex, but she's a potentially great VP candidate. I'm sure she's received the offer from a few of them already.

 

She got it wrong, Bush got it wrong...same thing, we know.

Hildawg voted to send us to kill Iraqis. She sent us to bomb their homes.

You can't deny that. I've posted her votes from the congressional website in like 10 threads. Hildawg's more of a war monger than half the neocons. Then again, no one thought Obama would go drone-crazy and slaughter the middle east.

 

One was president and made the decision; the other made the mistake of enabling him - along with most fellow Senators.

Pretending there is an equivalency is comical - akin to naming Senator Henrik Shipstead as the jamoke who declared war on Japan when he voted for the Declaration in December 1941.

Attempting to befoul Clinton with Bush stink is a predictable tactic, but attempts to assign equal blame is comically desperate.



.

 

Answer this very simple, unpartisan question with a yes, or a no. You may add random numbers after your answer so you have enough characters to post:

Did Hillary Clinton vote Yes to invade Iraq.

Once again, this is a simple question, without the need for deflections and whining. It's a Yes, or No question.

 

In her, and in his defence, the case that was being presented that Saddam either had, or was attempting to develop WMD's was impressive indeed and anybody could have taken that case very seriously. I did then, and still do now, and I suspect that President Bush loves to be called an idiot, as opposed to having Americans truly well informed as to how much danger they really were in back then, and are still in even at this time.

One of the areas of weaponry where the Former Soviet Union got ahead of America was in the development of small, dirty nuclear devices that would be perfect for what certain terrorist groups want to achieve.

Any billionaire would have to attain a truly high level of incompetence to be entirely unable to acquire such devices in the wake of the collapse of the USSR?!

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

 

No. She voted along with 76 other Senators for that bill that authorized military action against Iraq.

The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush while also authorizing him alone to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determined to be necessary and appropriate."

He decided that it was "necessary and appropriate" and ordered the invasion of Iraq.


Who decided to invade Iraq? Not the 77 Senators and 297 Congressmen who surrendered to Bush that exclusive power.

 

Soooo by Hillary's vote, the United States is allowed to kill Iraqis?

So when she could have voted NO to any military action, she decided to vote YES.

 

Even though her vote would not have been determinative, she should not have voted to vote to allow Bush to decide whether to initiate the disastrous war.

If you would like to hold her exclusively responsible for needlessly killing tens of thousands of people, there is nothing to prevent your entertaining such a notion.

 

Yes, except that now we get into the various ideological biases of all of the nation's media outlets, Left and Right. Anyone who stands out from the crowd enough by way of possessing meaningful ethics and the will power to adhere to them come what may will be visiously attacked and (legally) libeled and slandered to a fare-the-well and to the extent that he or she correspondingly won't stand a chance of making it through the primaries on either side.

So any good and decent politicians running (and let's allow that there might be one or two on either side) will either be destroyed or have to hide the true nature of their integrity until at least they have secured their party's nomination. That bodes ill. So forth and so on. But that's probably enough of dragging this OP off topic, yes?

 

No one holds her solely responsible. She however, was a part of it. When she had the chance to say NO to murdering Iraqis, she said yes.

She's also an elitist 1%er.

Yea, she deserves to lead the free world

 

Sorry. I don't think Condi would beat Hillary in a national election. Condi is smart and a great politician. But I don't think she would want her life scrutinized the way it would be if she ran for President.

 

That would be very interesting!

 

Yes, as she openly admitted, she was one of far too many who "got it wrong. Plain and simple.”

 

In April 2008, a poll of Senator Hillary Clinton's own senate seat of New York, indicated that New York voters would support a McCain-Rice ticket in preference to a ticket headed by either Clinton or Obama.

Note, without Rice on McCain's ticket, Clinton could beat McCain, but Clinton can't beat McCain-Rice. Rice makes the difference. Rice beats Clinton, in her home seat, a democratic stronghold and if Condi can win there, she can win everywhere - a landslide victory for President Rice.

Agreed.

Any Secretary of State has their life scrutinized so Condi has been scrutinized plenty already and she didn't shrink from that scrutiny.

Sure there would be more scrutiny if Condi ran for president but her life is that of a saint so the more scrutiny she gets the better!

 

Do you think she would want to talk about her sexual orientation?

 

the right will not run Condi, even if polls show support for her....

 

Then they are not "right"; they are wrong.