Condeleeza Rice? VEEP? Drudge says she’s at the top of the list. My initial gut check: Bad idea. Doubly down on boring (say by choosing Pawlenty or Portman) is not a bad idea in 2012. But doubling down on stiffness? That’s strike me as risky. Placing a guarded intellectual with no experience on the campaign trail? Yikes! Professor Rice is as intelligent as they come. This intelligence means exactly nothing when it comes to glad handing babies in Paducah. Condi Rice touring a hubcap plant in Western Pennsylvania answering questions about pension reform? Hmmm. Can’t see it.
Granted, if the foursome is Obama, Romney, Biden and Rice – Rice is easily the most qualified of the lot and, frankly, the most accomplished. In political terms though…what does she add? Would she appeal to women? Cut into the gender gap? I don’t see how. Women voting for women just because they are women is a myth. Clinton has a constituency. As does Palin, though she limited it by talking so much for two years. Other women rising in both parties have built or are building constituencies. Where is Rice’s constituency?
The attempted balancing here is easy to suss. Romney’s in charge of the home front. Condi’s portfolio is foreign policy. ‘Cept the voters MR needs don’t care about foreign policy. And Rice on the ticket screeches GEORGE W BUSH. The tiny voting bloc (Neo-Cons) who’d get excited about Rice A. Don’t matter. and B. Are in Romney’s pocket already. A few Autumn rallies with a couple of retired generals serves the same purpose.
This story feels like a planted misdirect. We shall see. But nothing about Rice says “Gee, I think I’d like to spend three months having my personal history invaded and torn to shreds.” Then again, nothing this year feels predictable.
Related articles
- Go Ahead and Pick Condi (boomantribune.com)
- One Small Problem: Rice for Veep (polentical.com)
Interesting if he really does pick Condoleezza “no one could have predicted that someone would use a hijacked airplane as a missile” Rice. Other than that, she has a reasonable record. Still, I agree with your reasons as to why she’s not a great pick.
what is good about it is that dem pols and pundits won’t be able to play the stupid woman card on her because she is not at all stupid. so maybe with this pick it would have to stay on the issues which she has been on the wrong side of many times. but i would rather listen to policy arguments over sexist arguments any day.
i would basically like this election to have matured over the last which means getting away from the sexist type attacks, attacks on what she is wearing, where she went to school, that she has no brain, all of these things i hope to not see in this election. but with ob you never know because he has no platform and nothing to run on, so they will try to go there anyway i guess, although this time they would look stupid themselves if they did go there because no one can say she is dumb that’s for damned sure.
I think it’s a misdirect as well. Very effective shiny object – no one is talking about Obama or Bain.
FTR, I think she would make a great VP, but she is not a natural campaigner.
It doesn’t bother me that she was part of W’s team. Just as Hillary’s being part of Obama’s team wouldn’t keep me from voting for her if she had decided to run.
Condi is pro-choice. Romney promised he would not pick a pro-choice VP.
Also, Condi has said she likes what she is doing and emphatically stated in the last 2 weeks that she would not serve as Romney’s VP at a Republican function where she spoke. She didn’t love being in the administration – she likes playing her piano and teaching.
Well compared to Biden “jobs is a 3 letter word folks, J O B S’ and this classic, “stand up Chuck and take a bow”,(Chuck in wheelchair)… Rice indeed towers above that buffoon. Would not bother me in the least to see Rice as VP choice however I have always favored Rubio. One thing is certain, Rubio will be the KeyNote Speaker at RNC this August if he is not on Romney ticket.
And for what it’s worth, my nickel’s still on Jindal . . . although the scary thought of Kay Bailey Hutchison has recently cropped up after her seeing her as a Romney surrogate on Hannity. Ugh.
I’m probably not as familiar with Hutchison as I should be, but it’s hard to imagine a worse choice than Jindal – assuming you’re applying the Clinton criterion to VP selection.
I have thought for a long time that it could not possibly Condi Rice, but this trial balloon or head fake or whatever it is is making me seriously reconsider my assumptions. As my readers know, I’ll vote for any woman over any man any time. That’s all I’ll say for now.
Maybe he’ll pick Phyllis Schlafly.
Some days I have to admit, I’d even vote for her. It’s up to the major parties to make sure she’s not only woman on my ballot on one of those days.
Laugh all you want, but I’d vote for Phyllis Schafly. I don’t have to agree on every political point, I just want equal representation, finally. And Schafly is hardly worse than over half the 86% of men in Congress right now or the two men at the top, for that matter. There’s always going to be something about any woman put forward. And that’s by design.
And I’ve never had a beef with blacks voting for blacks. It’s the allegiance to the Dems–or one party for that matter–that bothers me. People who pick parties are fools. (Just ask George Washington.) I know because I was one. YMMV.
Well, Lola, more power to ya, but much less respect. ‘Any woman over a man’ is the opposite of a well considered voting ideology. In fact, it’s just plain ignorant. I like you plenty, but that statement is appalling.
Jay, I wonder how you’d vote if the tables were turned and you’d lived your life under 90-85% female rule. Also, I expect to see a similar comment under John’s lesbian comment any minute now. Waiting for it, in fact.
*entire life
With all due respect, of course.
Lola, there was a time when I might have voted for a gay candidate just because they were gay. I wouldn’t now. I think it’s wrong.
What you’re condoning is equivalent to buying something with a credit card just because you’ve waited you whole life to have the thing, regardless of whether or not the thing is any good or even worth the price. Oh, and the interest!
I know I’m not changing your mind about this, so we can just put it in the ‘Positions Lola Takes That Jay Hates’ bucket. I’m sure if you started your own I could fill it fairly quickly.
That’s fair, Jay. I don’t have to agree with everything someone believes to like them, and I certainly do like you. What’s not to like? Smart, funny, and CALICO!
Lola, vote Green! We had two women on the ticket in 2008. And we’ll have two women, Stein and Honkala, on the ticket in 2012.
Lola, I understand how you feel about seeing a woman in power, but not any woman. That is nearly as bad as voting skin color. Condoleeza Rice is brilliant and accomplished, but she has been known to say she’s not interested in politics..I could see her brought back in a Romney Cabinet, though.
Condi’s a brilliant and accomplished academic and person but was a totally incompetent National Security Advisor and only slightly better Secretary of state, IMHO. She’ll bring few female votes to the ticket, even fewer Black votes. This is a trial balloon that will plop like a lead balloon.
…and I am sure the Conservative, or, um, uh, Liberal Press will delve into what REALLY matters – her “Cankles” and “Cleavage” and her hairstyle. Oh and she MUST be a Lesbian – why – why – why – she’s not married~! (As opposed to Newt – who seems marriage as a serial responsibility) And at almost 58 – what other reason COULD THERE BE~!! /snark
lol, I’m only laughing cause it’s true. These are things the press would so MUCH rather talk ( and talk ) about than boring jobs numbers and such.
As I was typing this one out I thought “I wonder what people will have to say…” Not disappointed so far. On reflection – for an hour – I really do believe Rice. She’s happy at Stanford and that’s that. I’d be surprised if she’s on the ticket. Very surprised. It’s funny though, Rice being outed a lesbian for real might just get that ticket my vote… come on, a lesbian VP? That is double stuff history right there.
As a guy who wants an interesting election (I hold out little hope for a President Romney and none for a BHO second term.) I think Rubio would be the most fun to watch unless Martinez was a surprise choice.
great analysis, totally agree!
All this VP speculation sure has the Chattering Class a-chattering. What’s a Bain, again? Distracting the MSM is about as easy as misdirecting the Daleks in that ancient Mac game.
Plus, MR now has half a dozen candidates auditioning for the job by stumping for him.
Romney should string this out, & wait until the convention to announce.
Totally agree. And Obama is stuck with crazy old Uncle Joe who he doesn’t want to talk about or be seen with. Obama surrogates are few and far between unless they are being paid by him and willing to commit slander.
I don’t think a VP matters much this year whomever Romney picks. Biden is a stinker and will lose big time in the debates to whomever is Romney’s pick which is the only time any regular Americans are going to pay attention to either of them. If Biden shows up sober, that will be an accomplishment for him and the rest of the debate, he’ll be barely coherent, so he’ll look. . . . um. . . bad in comparison to anyone. The rest of the campaign, this is going to be about Obama vs. Romney. Period. The only reason Obama was able to make the 2008 campaign at all about Palin – which I told my Obamaphile friends at the time was bizarre in the extreme to set up the race as the presidential candidate vs. the VP candidate – but they did it because McCain “was of a certain age.” They basically said that McCain was so old he’d keel over any second, so we needed to make the campaign more about Palin’s qualifications. That’s not a relevant argument now (not that it was then, but they did it anyway).
I just don’t think the VP is going to be as important this time around.
Rice …because Cheney can’t serve this time and she’s pinch hitting? /snark. Rice would be acceptable to the top .999 She’s like the 2nd stage of Barry for them …. they still get to use the race card .
As Lola showed in her post above, actually it’s not a myth.
There’s all kinds of bad decision making in America based in flawed thought process that people are convinced is smart and sound, not least choosing whom to support or defend or protect or in some way side with because of superficial markers that make people feel good, feel superior, feel avenged. Whether it’s whom to date or marry, whom to befriend, whom to vote for or work with or play with, the main thing, the only thing, is feelings; organized reasoning is so yesterday, so boring and annoying and stodgy. Americans have gone from a thought and work based choice-making to a feelings-based thought process. It’s where truthiness comes from – what one feels is true, that’s more compelling than what facts or reasoning indicate is true.
Not only isn’t it a myth, it’s rampant, it’s the norm today, and it plays right into how Obama got elected, how Wall Street gets away with its scams, how corporate greed like WalMart and Monsanto and pharmaceutical companies convince us to pay for snake oil that bites, how banks get us to go into debt for things we don’t need in the first place and make us feel both empty and bloated in the second place.
It’s all about deception and shallow victory, that’s what wins: deceiving others into doing something against their best interest and deceiving ourselves that easy bad choices and feeling victorious is the same as harder good choices and substantive achievement. As long as you have a trophy in your hands, it doesn’t matter whether or not it’s earned – that’s what this generation was taught and that’s the belief they act upon. Whether or not Obama makes life better or worse for blacks, or Romney makes life better or worse for ABOs or a woman like Phyllis Schafly makes things better or worse for women is beside the point to someone who’s deceiving for the sake of feeling a victory.
If you follow a deceiver, it’s pretty stupid to be surprised when you’ve been deceived.
I blame the new touchy feely culture entirely on Oprah, or any one of a number of others, who became wealthy exploiting misery.
Of course it’s not a myth. I would vote for the smartest candidate on the ticket, which would clearly be Condi, not the ho hum men.
Vote for Phyllis Shafley just because she’s a woman? Yeah, that makes sense.
Women deserve to be represented by women. While Phyllis Schafly would not be my first choice by any stretch of the imagination, given how few opportunities women are given to vote for women, we can’t be faulted for voting for one when we can. Surely, there are better black candidates than Charlie Rangel? But he’s the black candidate his black constituents have on the ballot. I would like to see an amendment to the constitution that allocated one senatorial seat to a man and one to a woman from each state. But the men in this country would never let that happen. So we women have to get there any way we can. And maybe that means electing someone like Schafly. Her views are no different than a large number of men who already represent us.
“If Biden shows up sober, that will be an accomplishment for him and the rest of the debate….” I do wonder about this. He strikes me as a man with a moderate case of alcoholism…. I still wonder if he’s going to be deep sixed at the last minute.
But you’re not voting for Elizabeth Warren… Right elliesmom?
I don’t know. I want to vote for the woman. I really do. I would rather have voted for Marissa DeFranco. My main beef is with the Democratic Party for shutting her out. Warren is a liar and a fraud. But then so are a lot of the men in the senate. I’m working through this one. If I do vote for her, it will be a “Schafly” vote – just because she’s the woman on the ballot, not because I like her ethics or her politics. And when she comes up for re-election, if she wins, I’ll work hard to get another woman to run against her.
I saw this and really cant figure it out, it seems like a fakeout to get the press talking/speculating and to confuse OFA.
I get that culturally it’d be great to have an African America, woman and possibly lesbian VP… but at the same time like JWS said, I see Condi and the first thing I think of is “GW Bush”… then I think of Condi’s embarassing testimony at the 9-11 hearings… then I think of the attack ads that OFA would play showing the clips of Condi saying “we never thought you could use a plane as a missile” then cut to Obama saying how he personally killed Bin Laden. The end.
I personally figured that I’d eventually vote hopefully for Colin Powell if he ever ran for prez, but I think after the W administration he’s pretty much done.
For some reason I’m get the feeling Rubio will get the VP nomination.
He seems telegenic, he’s got personality to counter Biden and he’s good for the Latino vote.
Plus Mittens and Marco would be an awesome bumper sticker, and potentially a great sitcom.
Hell yeah, I’d vote for a smart, AA lesbian in a New York minute. But Rice won’t be on the ticket, and neither will Schlafly. We won’t see any women on the big ticket for a long, long time. I think politicians, of both sexes, learned in 2008 that there’s too much woman-hate in this country for a mixed gender ticket to be viable. If Romney picks a woman, any woman, someone will have to pick me up off the floor.
I think he might. His Lt Governor was a woman. And striking now, while the current crop of misogynists has exhausted most of its powder and before a new crop of misogynists has a chance to lock and load, might be better than waiting. Just like the race card isn’t playing really well because it’s been so overused, the same woman-hate might not cut as deeply if we work fast.
When all the fun and games are over, it will be Rob Portman.
IMO it has to be a guy, or Mittens isn’t serious…it’s the Mondale Rule. and please no one confuse what I’m saying with the notion that a woman can’t serve ..of course one can. If they would let her, but they won’t. McCain was meant to lose and Palin was added to his ticket in order to sink her politically…at least from the halls of the GOP elite .
You don’t know, elliesmom? After the argument you yourself just made? Interesting…
Well, perhaps you could at least take down the Scott Brown sign.
Looks like someone is trying to pick a fight.
If you want an argument “Anonymous”, at least have the courtesy to identify yourself like responsible grown-ups do. I believe I said that women shouldn’t be judged for voting for other women just because they’re women. I also said that there are SOME days that I would vote for Phyllis Schafly – days when I am angry that there are so few women for us to vote for. I feel the same way about Warren as I feel about Schafly. Neither woman is someone I want to vote for. But if on Nov 6th Warren is the only woman on my ballot, I might vote for her. If she’s not, I’ll probably pass on her. I don’t need all of the people who represent me to be women. Just some of them. The Scott Brown sign on my lawn is an “Up Yours” to the MA Democratic Party in response to their blocking DeFranco who had a legitimate right to a primary against Warren. It stays on my lawn whether I vote for Warren or not.
I totally get the blind support of Obama by the black community. There’s part of me that actually feels empathy with them. I get a little sad thinking about how they will feel if Obama gets booted. It WILL feel personal.
At this point, I openly admit that I am a fan/cult member/whatever for Hillary. The deluge of ugly hatred and liberal hypocrisy at her (and me in a few instances) turned my support into passion. And now that feeling has transferred towards female candidates in general.
The f’d up part is that I’m still so bitter (yes, BITTER!!!!) about Hillary and Sarah that I want revenge on the Democratic party. I want them to be humiliated as I was. As Hillary was. As Sarah was. And on and on. There is something about betrayal that cuts deepest. I want the democrats to lose and women to win. Irrational. Shallow. F’d up.
But that’s where this barely evolved person is.