Condi versus Hillary

Bold Deceiver · Post by **Bold Deceiver** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 11:22 am

So don't hate me for playing with the Polling Feature again.

This excerpt from an investors.com publication. Link to "Issues & Insights" Article (PDF)

In a rich display of irony, Dick Morris, the consultant who taught â??triangulationâ?

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 1:42 pm

We're in the beginning of Bush's second term and we're already getting poll numbers about 2008? What happens if they both died before 2008? Geez people.

My take, I don't know enough about Hillary to make an opinion, I haven't heard about her doing much in office so far except be a whipping boy for the GOP. In terms of "Condi", I know she's a puppet from the oil industry as well, who happens to a woman, and happens to be black. But, she doesn't seem to be on the list of horrible people. That list includes Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, et al. I wonder why the GOP would chance the female candidate instead of the shoe-in McCain, is it because he is moderate and breaks with the party often? Or is it the black baby that Bush said he fathered back in the 2000 preliminaries? I don't know, I think there should be a choice for none of the above, where's Monty Brewster?

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 2:11 pm

I'd rather see them duke it out in a boxing ring.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 2:21 pm

A better poll question might "if you're not a yellow-dog Democrat or Republican, which of these would you vote for?" Otherwise, you're just going to uncover the political affiliation of the DBB in general, rather than the actual strength of the candidates.

(For those who are unaware: "yellow-dog _____" refers to someone who would vote for a yellow dog as long as it had the right letter next to its name.)

Skyalmian · Post by **Skyalmian** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 2:53 pm

Zuruck wrote:We're in the beginning of Bush's second term and we're already getting poll numbers about 2008? What happens if they both died before 2008? Geez people.

Where have you been? They started guessing who would be up for 2008 back in November.

I'd likely vote for Condi, as she's the closest in views to me.

Whoever has been mentioning McCain recently around here has apparently never heard of McCain-Feingold and that he intends to be on the committee that will 'regulate' political speech on the internet, such as blogs -- which, by the way, has both the Left and Right united against him and the FEC that intends on using it.

As for Hillary...:

Someone who posts here wrote:Hillary as president = ctrl+alt+delete on humanity.

Bold Deceiver · Post by **Bold Deceiver** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 2:59 pm

Lothar wrote:A better poll question might "if you're not a yellow-dog Democrat or Republican, which of these would you vote for?" Otherwise, you're just going to uncover the political affiliation of the DBB in general, rather than the actual strength of the candidates.

(For those who are unaware: "yellow-dog _____" refers to someone who would vote for a yellow dog as long as it had the right letter next to its name.)

I guess I'm interested in the general political affiliation of the DBB. I just excerpted the question and candidate selection from the actual poll, that's all.

I was surprised to see Rice within 13% of Clinton, though . . . which was one of the points in the article. Rice, btw, recently declined to rule out a presidential bid, although she did say she has never really run for anything and couldn't really imagine it. Link

BD

Pebkac · Post by **Pebkac** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:01 pm

It would be interesting to see Hillary trying to convince black voters that she's "blacker" than Condi Rice, but I don't think it will happen. In the end, it will be McCain vs. <insert name here>. McCain's appeal to both sides of the aisle will take him to an easy win over his opponent.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:18 pm

although i picked suicide over hillary in a previous poll, I pick hillary over condy

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:22 pm

Zuruck wrote:...In terms of "Condi", I know she's a puppet from the oil industry as well,...

You do? I hadn't heard that,tell us about it.

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:32 pm

I picked Hillary because I find it very unlikely the Republican Party would choose a black female presidental canidate this decade.

that, and Secetaries of State normally don't seek the presidency.

Bold Deceiver · Post by **Bold Deceiver** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:45 pm

Will Robinson wrote:
Zuruck wrote:...In terms of "Condi", I know she's a puppet from the oil industry as well,...
You do? I hadn't heard that,tell us about it.

Rice used to sit on the board of directors for Chevron Corporation. Had a tanker named after her for a while, until its name was changed to the Altair Voyager.

So naturally she's a puppet. Smatta with you?

BD

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:53 pm

I had to go with Condi, and I've never voted for a Republican Presidential candidate in my life.

Bold Deceiver · Post by **Bold Deceiver** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 4:06 pm

fliptw wrote: . . . I find it very unlikely the Republican Party would choose a black female presidental canidate this decade.

Let's unpack that statement. I'm interested in your perception of the Republican Party. Do you find it more likely that the Democratic Party would choose a black, female candidate, than the Republican Party?

Which of Dr. Rice's characteristics do you find more damaging to her, as a presidential candidate, for either party:

Female?

Black?

Or is it the combination?

If so, which one carries more weight, in terms of weighing down Rice's chances, in your opinion?

For an interesting read on the subject, you might check into this article on NRO entitled "Grand Old Party:
Blacks might be surprised to compare Republican history with the Democrats'".

BD

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 4:49 pm

black
female
pro-choice

Republicans will never nominate for president someone that carries one of these in the next 20 years. I will bet $20 on it to anyone here. Condi has all three.

"Grand Old Party:
Blacks might be surprised to compare Republican history with the Democrats'".

The parties have shifted greatly over time. The democrats use to be the conservative party and the republicans use to be the liberal party. Look at when Strom Thurman made the switch and you will find several others who also did.

Comparing the histories with a modern frame of reference is extremely misleading: the bottom line is republicans would love to get 1/5 of the black vote. Why is that? Blacks are not ignorant of their own history.

Strom Thurman filibustered the civil rights act while he was still a democrat. Early on all parties were against civil liberties. But when Democrats started agressively supporting civil rights measures, Thurman backed Barry Goldwater for the presidency and turned to the republican party -- because he was against them.

There are several other senators with this same history.

To anwser BD:

Female -- hurts most
Pro chocie
Black -- hurts least

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:08 pm

Gooberman wrote:black
female
pro-choice

Republicans will never nominate for president someone that carries one of these in the next 20 years.

They will not nominate a pro-choice person -- but if a qualified black OR female candidate comes up who is also pro-life, they'll be nominated.

I won't put $20 on it right now simply because I don't know if there are any promising black or female Republican governors or senators who'll be ready for a nomination in the near future.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:12 pm

Lothar snuck a post in while I was editing. I was about to take black out of the three, as I could have easily seen Colin Powell get nominated had he played his cards right and wanted too. Today, I don't think being black is much of a factor at all. It definitely does hurt, but that I could see the right doing in my life time. (I still doubt withen 20 years) It would be a great stratigic move.

Definitely not a woman.

My rant was just on the 'history' comment.

Bold Deceiver · Post by **Bold Deceiver** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 6:08 pm

Gooberman wrote:Republicans will never nominate for president someone that carries one of these in the next 20 years. I will bet $20 on it to anyone here.

You're on. Now listen, I want that paid in certified funds -- no personal checks, signed "Gooberman", drawn off "Bank of Goobmerica" or any of that nonsense.

Gooberman wrote:The democrats use to be the conservative party and the republicans use to be the liberal party.

That's a broad statement, and I think it's incorrect. Depending on what time period you're bracketing there, the dems took both houses after FDR took office and started cranking up government social programs. That's not conservatism, fiscally or socially. I'm not saying it was bad . . . it just isn't conservatism.

On the other hand, I remember being startled to learn that it was republicans who were in the mood for isolationism prior to WWII, and democrats were all for getting involved in Europe (FDR was playing the fence for political purposes, if memory serves).

Gooberman wrote:Comparing the histories with a modern frame of reference is extremely misleading: . . . ."

How so? I gather you don't dispute any of the facts in the article, which, by the way, was written by a (gasp!) black man. I think there is a perception that Republicans are more racist than Democrats, generally speaking, and I think it's probably because they oppose affirmative action.

I'm not sure your pointing to the late Strom Thurmond is dispositive on your assertion that the article is "misleading". Do you believe Strom Thurmond was a racist Republican when he died?

If so, how do you feel about the current Democratic Senator from West Virginia, Robert Byrd? A former recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan, he apparently put in a few filibustering hours against the Civil Rights Act himself. He's also famous for vowing, in the context of desegrating the military, never to fight "with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

Is it just me, or is that a little over the top? This guy is still a sitting Senator!!! Of course, he's supposedly changed his ways ... but then we have this additional odd course of conduct....

The media and the dems didn't rebuke him when he opposed the nomination of Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court. The media and the dems didn't rebuke him when he opposed the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. And I sure didn't see the flashbulbs popping and the protests gathering when he opposed the nomination of Condi Rice as Secretary of State. If he had been a Republican and she a Democrat, there would have been an Inquisition.

Here's why Condi Rice is a Republican, by the way, and not a Democrat:

Condi wrote:"The first Republican I knew was my father, and he is still the Republican I most admire," Rice has said. "He joined our party because the Democrats in Jim Crow Alabama of 1952 would not register him to vote. The Republicans did. My father has never forgotten that day, and neither have I."

The chickens are coming home to roost, I hope. Condi in 2008.

BD

Genghis · Post by **Genghis** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 7:06 pm

Ms. Rice wrote:"The first Republican I knew was my father, and he is still the Republican I most admire," Rice has said. "He joined our party because the Democrats in Jim Crow Alabama of 1952 would not register him to vote. The Republicans did. My father has never forgotten that day, and neither have I."

I belive that's why she became a Republican, but I'd be very concerned if that's why she's remained a Republican.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 7:34 pm

Genghis wrote:
Ms. Rice wrote:"The first Republican I knew was my father, and he is still the Republican I most admire," Rice has said. "He joined our party because the Democrats in Jim Crow Alabama of 1952 would not register him to vote. The Republicans did. My father has never forgotten that day, and neither have I."
I belive that's why she became a Republican, but I'd be very concerned if that's why she's remained a Republican.

Are you saying she hasn't thought it through since then and just stayed a republican out of habit or to honor her father? Or perhaps that republicans have since done things that should make her want to leave that party?
I don't get it, what are you trying to say?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 7:36 pm

O.K. Here's my much anticipated reply (

).
First off...GOOOooooo Condi. You rock grrl.
O.K. that out of the way (hey I just got back from my shooting league and was feeling a mite feisty) Condi has one big challange. No, not from Hillary but from liberal blacks who are undoubtably going to paint her as a Un'ca Tom. You know, like Belefonte saying Powell was living in the house of the 'Massa. The only problem with these liberal black naysayers is a potential backlash by the very people they purpose to represent. By calling Condi a uncle tom what they are really saying is any black who rises to a level of competance to run for POTUS is a uncle tom. The conservative element in the black community and the politically aware blacks are rising and if such people as Belefonte start in on Condi they risk marginalising themselve to a point of being ostracised. So while the Condi/Hillary battle will be interesting I will more be inclined to watch how the black leadership reacts.
Now if you want a lock solid ticket, get Colin Powell to run for pres and Condi as V.P. (or maybe vice versa). With this combo the face of black america could potentially be in the presidents seat for the next 16 years.

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 8:52 pm

bah, not only are you making me choose between two women, which imo should never hold public office, but a white democrat and a black republican, as much as I hate to do it, i would vote for the black female just because she is less an evil than cliton

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 9:20 pm

ccb056 wrote:...women, which imo should never hold public office...

If you are being serious here, I am curious as to your reasons?

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 9:24 pm

Chauvinism

/at least I know my vices

Genghis · Post by **Genghis** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 10:44 pm

Will Robinson wrote:Are you saying she hasn't thought it through since then and just stayed a republican out of habit or to honor her father? Or perhaps that republicans have since done things that should make her want to leave that party?
I don't get it, what are you trying to say?

No, I'm saying that her original quote makes it sound like she has just stayed a Republican out of habit or to honor her father.

Instead, I was suggesting what I believe was the true intent of her quote: that those are the reasons that first inspired her to become a Republican. That in fact she continues to be a Republican today because she has grown as a person in the decades since then, and finds that their platform is in general alignment to her values and beliefs.

Even more simply put, I'm saying it's a bad quote and I don't think she's as one-dimensional as it makes her look. It's a nice anecdote, a fine soundbite, but not a very convincing reason to for her worldview today.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Mar 13, 2005 8:57 am

Genghis wrote:...Even more simply put, I'm saying it's a bad quote and I don't think she's as one-dimensional as it makes her look...

Ahh, I get it now. Yea I'd agree the quote doesn't spell it out for the reader but when you consider who she is, what she's acomplished, I would hope the reader would know enough about Dr. Rice to know she probably doesn't do anything out of lazyness or ignorance.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Mar 13, 2005 9:09 am

Zuruck, if Dr. Rice is a puppet of the oil industry then she must also be a puppet of:

*Charles Schwab Corporation
*the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
*the University of Notre Dame
*the International Advisory Council of J.P. Morgan
*the San Francisco Symphony
*Center for a New Generation, an educational support fund for schools in East Palo Alto and East Menlo Park, California
*the Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula
*Transamerica Corporation
*Hewlett Packard
*the Carnegie Corporation
*Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
*The Rand Corporation
*the National Council for Soviet and East European Studies
*the Mid-Peninsula Urban Coalition
*KQED, public broadcasting for San Francisco.

So why did you just pick "the oil industry" as her nefarious connection...other than it sounds hip to spout off the typical talking points from the left.

Tre dissent

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 3:34 am

I vote Denzel...nuff said

Condi versus Hillary

If the 2008 election for president were held today and Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice were the candidates, for whom would you vote?

Condi versus Hillary