The American Left and our terrorist enemies are setting themselves up for a big “I told you so” regarding the Annapolis Middle East Conference that officially starts tomorrow.  (Unofficially, it has already begun.  EuroNews article and video; AFP, “Rice in diplomatic flurry ahead of Mideast peace talks”)

In contrast to Secretary of State Rice’s “failure is not an option” statement regarding the objectives of the conference, expectations for success have been, generally, characterized as modest or even low.  (Baltimore Sun, “Failure is not an option.” by David Wood)  True, how much can be accomplished in a single day?  But as has been widely reported, the conference has been “front loaded” with “pre-negotiations” including visits by Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas to the White House. 

Just the fact that the Saudis and the Syrians are going to be present is an accomplishment in itself and may lower the threshold to their participation in the future. 

Ninety percent of success is just showing up. 
Woody Allen 

Of course, the Syrians and the Saudis have both downplayed their participation and the chances for success in their domestic (state controlled) media outlets — not wanting to appear overly friendly with Washington or Israel.  In reality, both of these Arab states see the conference as a forum for their respective positions on their own “pet” issues, especially the Golan Heights for Syria, and if they score a few diplomatic points with Washington in order to hedge their bets against a future nuclear-armed Iran, so much the better.  (Alsumaria, “Assad and Ahmadinejad: Annapolis Conference to Fail”)

What is a more disturbing than the expected negativity from Iran’s Ayatollahs is reading about the politically motivated opinions of “experts” in the US media, such as the Sun article, where reporter David Wood quotes the “heavyweights” Lee Hamilton (of the quickly forgotten Iraq Surrender Study Group) and Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was White House national security adviser under President Jimmy Carter. (Now there’s an entry on your resume that you’d like to forget!  Instead of “heavyweights,” shouldn’t he have written ”has beens?”)  It seems that these guys are on almost the same page as Ahmadinejad and Iran’s ruling Ayatollahs when it comes to prospects for Annapolis! 

Hamilton, along with Brzezinski and six other foreign policy heavyweights, wrote to Bush and Rice last month warning that failure at Annapolis “risks devastating consequences” in the Middle East because it would undercut moderates.  (Blog Editor: Kinda like in 2000, when President Clinton’s Camp David get together failed, right?)

Robert Little, also of the Baltimore Sun, quotes Aaron David Miller, a Woodrow Wilson Center Public Policy Scholar who doesn’t mind criticizing his own board members (Condi currently sits on the Wilson Center’s Board of Trustees) in his November 25, 2007, ominously titled article, “Rice’s legacy on the line at Annapolis conference.”

“She’s about a year or so away from being judged as a kind of inconsequential secretary of state,” said Aaron David Miller

That takes chutzpah from a guy who proudly lists himself on his Wilson Center bio as a ”Former Advisor to six Secretaries of State on Arab-Israeli Negotiations, 1978-2003….Expertise (in) U.S.-Middle East relations; Arab-Israeli negotiations; Arab world and Palestinian politics; Israeli politics”  (Notice that does NOT include Dr. Rice’s tenure as Secretary of State)  Let’s see, how many “comprehensive” Arab-Israeli peace accords were concluded during that period?  ZERO.  Maybe without his advice, Condi will do better than her predecessors.  She certainly would be in a better position with some bipartisan support, but no such luck.  Also, Mr. Little neglected to mention in his article that Miller has a book coming out next year, America and the Much Too Promised Land: The Elusive Search for Arab-Israeli Peace.  It would be disastrous for his book sales if peace just started breaking out all over the Middle East.  Further evidence that his opinions, to which he is fully entitled to have and communicate, may be weighted down with ideological baggage was a June 19, 2007, Washington Post op-ed that he co-authored with Robert Malley: “West Bank First: It won’t work.”  (Blog Editor: We don’t mean to imply that Dr. Miller’s writings are economically influenced, but we do find these facts about his point-of-view interesting and wish that they would have been mentioned in the Sun article.  Some aspects of his work are quite beneficial to the cause of peace, such as his work with Seeds of Peace.)

Achieving any progress towards Middle East peace in one day is difficult enough no matter how much diplomatic preparation has been undertaken.  Partisan reporting and criticism only make peace that much more “elusive” (to use Miller’s book title), but that’s exactly the point.  The undermining of peace efforts in order to gain political or personal advantage for 2008, and beyond, is just another obstacle that our Secretary of State, unfortunately, must overcome.

This Sunday, Secretary of State Rice will appear on ABC’s This Week, hosted by George Stephanopoulos, to discuss the ongoing situation in Pakistan. (ABC News)

(Editor’s note and correction: At the time this post was written, this incident was little more than a CSPAN video.  Reporting on this incident has taken on a life of its own in media outlets around the world.  Therefore, it has now been “widely reported.”)

Condi’s confrontation with a “Code Pink” protester yesterday during a congressional witch hunt  hearing was not widely reported.  CSPAN was there, and the video shows that the woman got her “blood soaked” hands  within inches of Secretary Rice’s face before being hauled off by security personnel while screaming “war criminal” over her shoulder.  (CSPAN video, Frank James in Baltimore Sun column “The Swamp” )

The attacker’s Code Pink sisters were attired in their usual frumpy pink sweat shirts – looking like they were hung over from an all-night Ellen DeGeneres marathon sponsored by NOW – while the woman that menaced Secretary Rice was dressed in dark pants and dark blouse.  This clever disguise confused the  Keystone Cops Capitol Police who apparently concentrated their attentions on the “uniformed” wackos, giving the ”camouflaged” Code Pinker an opening to get up close to Condi.  If all it takes is a change of clothes, minimal use of a hair brush, and a bath in the last 48 hours* to foil security on Capitol Hill — no wonder Condi isn’t too keen on responding to Congressional subpoenas!  (Where’s Blackwater when you need them?)

Is “menaced,” or “assault,” too strong a word?  The Sacramento CBS outlet, Channel 13, titled their report, “Condoleezza Rice Attacked At Capitol Hill Hearing.”  Blood is a biohazardous material that can carry any of a variety of infectious diseases.  What if the attacker’s hands had been covered in some caustic or hazardous chemical agent?  Even if it were only “simulated” blood, like a phony explosive device or toy gun, when used in this fashion during the commission of a crime it is certainly a form of terroristic threatening designed to provoke a fearful reaction in the victim.  Of course, Dr. Rice, was nonplussed by the incident and can be heard exchanging pleasantries with the non-delusional individuals around her as the “Pink Ladies” were carried out of the hearing room loudly protesting that they were being injured.  (A resistance tactic they picked up from their friends in Al-Qaeda?)

Where are the calls for Congressional investigation over this security breech?  It isn’t hard to imagine that some Democratic congressional staffers didn’t have some inkling that this attack was getting ready to happen or even shared an “after action” green tea and veggie wrap with the protesters during lunch.  Wouldn’t that make them complicit in a conspiracy?  Are restraining orders, at least, being sought against those involved to prevent them from returning to Capitol Hill for an encore performance?

Is the lunatic fringe of the Left finally being rejected across majority of the non-psychotropic drug taking political spectrum?  After Bill Maher’s recent outburst at 9-11 conspiracy protesters in his audience, calling on his security personnel to “kick ass,” we have to wonder if there may be some hope for some small measure of political sanity in our nation.  Wait a minute!  Was Bill advocating torture?  Call the ACLU!  On the other hand, it may be an isolated incident of Maher’s becoming “older and wiser” or just an unanticipated side effect of testosterone replacement therapy.

*Code Pink supporters are not known for their attention to hygiene.  Maybe soap causes global warming?

Between the Democratic media consultants and their mainstream media brothers and sisters, the “politics of personal destruction” are alive and well. So, in an act of mercy, Secretary of State Rice accepted the resignation of Richard Griffin, the State Department’s Director of the Diplomatic Security Service, thus ending his career of 36 years in government service. Mr. Griffin, once Congressman Henry Waxman put him in the cross hairs of his congressional “inquiry,” may not have initially appreciated that accepting his resignation was indeed merciful. However, once targeted, he contracted (according to an unconfirmed source) the equivalent of a “political Ebola virus” — a highly virulent, and an almost always fatal and highly contagious condition — that leaves those surrounding the afflicted with little choice but to isolate themselves from the source of the “disease,” or perish. (Read John Broder’s article in the International Herald Tribune)

The Diplomatic Security Service is an unsung hero in the War on Terror. A war that the Left, for example Senator John Edwards, insists is little more than a bumper sticker slogan. This small agency has been instrumental to many victories in this global conflict. Unfortunately, since most of their successes remain classified, their political cushion of past accomplishments is severely limited. With the current anti-Bush, anti-military, anti-American hysteria that holds sway in the main stream media; military and political leaders are only as good as their last mistake. In Mr. Griffin’s case, the last “mistake” was failure to keep private security contracting out of the headlines, most notably what is becoming commonly known as the “Blackwater scandal.”

We are not trying to make excuses for the inexcusable, but we cannot encourage government officials to “think outside the box” or make command decisions while being given inadequate resources and incomplete intelligence and then punish them when there are poor outcomes. This is the “fog of war.” There are fine lines between accountability, loyalty to subordinates and “witch hunts.” Given the caustic congressional “oversight” environment, Condi had little choice but to accept Griffin’s resignation and move on. After all, she has a long “to-do list.” Hopefully, she will short-circuit Waxman’s self-righteous, self-important oversight crusade and remove his self-serving pandering to the lunatic Leftist fringe from the mainstream media “radar screen.”

If we are to achieve victory in the War on Terror and regain sanity in our domestic policies, our mass media outlets must stop acting like PR shills for the radical Left. Are there any suggestions about how this can be accomplished?

Yes, fellow Condistas, it’s true. Yesterday in Harlem, as widely reported, Condi again downplayed, without outright rejecting, in a General Tecumseh Sherman sort of way, the idea of a presidency in her future.

At a joint appearance with Representative Charles Rangel at Public School No. 154, the Harriet Tubman Learning Center, the subject of President Condoleezza Rice was initially broached by the Democrat! (From Reuters’ article by Arshad Mohammed, “Rice questioned about her sleep, fears and dreams” )

Rangel…teasingly suggested Rice aim for the White House.

“The Republican ranks for president are still open,” he told students. “We might be able to make some news this morning.”

“Charlie, don’t start,” Rice said.

Jennifer Medina of the NY Times “City Desk” in her article, “An Odd Couple Tours a Harlem School,” quoted the following exchange between Condi and the Congressman. (see below*)

Will you run for president?” one student asked.

Ms. Rice responded with a bit of an embarrassed laugh and a direct answer: “I don’t think I’m the kind of person who would run for president.”

Mr. Rangel grabbed the microphone and exclaimed, “You missed your chance to make big news today!”

We’ll parse these words soon in an upcoming blog post — at the risk of sounding like a Clinton under oath!

*He’s Chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee — and a fellow with whom Dr. Rice might like to be on friendly terms in the future. After all, she very well could face the prospect of a Democratic House in another Republican administration. (Hers, or someone else’s!) Could this be her way of setting the stage for bipartisanship — just in case she’s coaxed onto the Republican ticket? Of course Charles isn’t an uninterested party here, either. There’s been speculation that he hasn’t always appreciated the Clinton Machine (a.k.a.”The Arkansas Carpetbaggers”) setting up shop in his state as their tactics have become more heavy handed. Having a few Republican votes available to him in the future might allow him to resist Hillary’s efforts to dominate Empire State politics and give him a stronger negotiating position in legislative wrangling — making him and his committee more than just a rubber stamp for Hillary’s policy wonks. And make no mistake, Representative Rangel wants to be “a player” and not a puppet.

From a self-described, unconfirmed “low-placed source” at State, Secretary Rice is sending a group of investigators “to kick asses and take names” – OR convincingly demonstrate that Blackwater’s hired guns acted in self-defense when they allegedly shot and killed Iraqi civilians. That’s a tall order. Proving a “negative” and/or what was an individual’s “intent” (or lack thereof) is difficult under the best of investigative circumstances, but in the murky world of Iraqi factions, tribal loyalties, religious rivalries, and constant press “sniping,” etc.; it will make the quest for the Holy Grail pale in comparison. Luckily, there’s no time pressure. The “preliminary” report is due for delivery October 5^th.  (UPI, AP report in Pravda)

Condi has set the bar rather high.  Of course, she has always maintained the highest of personal standards for herself, and as such she expects nothing less from her most trusted colleagues.

With progress now convincingly being made in Iraq — a fact begrudgingly admitted even by many in the mainstream media, albeit with numerous, ominous caveats – Condi is not about to let this incident derail the forward momentum brought on by the poorly named “surge.”

Is there a “take home message” for Condistas in this issue? As the members of the investigative group are named, they will fall into two general groups with overlap based on each individual’s professional and political resume. Ideally, each member will fall into both categories, but alas, that would be in a “perfect” political world – and not the world of “realpolitik.” The first group will be Condi’s most trusted confidantes. The second will be those that are selected to increase the credibility of the investigation’s findings both internationally and domestically. Those that are squarely in the first group are potential cabinet members and upper level staffers in any future Rice administration.

Is there any ”silver lining” to investigations of wrongdoing by members of the American military and their “hired guns” – past present and future? Actually, there is. Iraqis (based on personal communications) are impressed that the US Government seriously prosecutes its own when they are guilty of misconduct. This never would have happened under Saddam. On the other hand, anti-American interests are quick to point out that it is impossible to know if the sentences against American military and civilian personnel are actually carried out. (Note to State, Defense, PYSOPS, etc.: This would be an excellent avenue to exploit. Give trusted representatives of the victims’ families unannounced access to military and civilian correctional facilities in order that they confirm that sentences against those convicted are, indeed, being carried out.)

(Editor’s note: This blog contribution was edited for length.)

Old dogs don’t learn new tricks.  The Democrats, in accordance with their “death by a thousand investigations” strategy since the 2006 election, are calling the liberal dinosaur, Congressman Henry Waxman, back to active duty.  (Waxman has a history of attacking Condi.  See our blog post from earlier this year, Democratic Witch Hunt Targets Condi.)

Within a few hours of each other, all the “usual suspects” in the mainstream media: the New York Times, Associated Press, Washington Post, Los Angels Times, CBS, Politico.com - and Iran’s Press TV - were touting the day’s left-wing fringe talking points about investigations of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice by the oh-so Honorable Henry Waxman, now that he is the Chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.  In a letter to Condi, he’s complaining that the State Department, and specifically Dr. Rice, is “wrong to interfere with the committee’s inquiry” into corruption inside the Iraqi government and the recent Blackwater brouhaha.  Lucky for us this letter was conveniently provided to the press in a fine example of Congressional discretion and a clear demonstration of how Congress can diligently guard classified subjects currently under investigation.

What’s the supposed basis of his theatrical outrage?  State Department officials asked Congress; along with their myriad of staffers, all of whom are famous for rigid compliance in their handling of sensitive and, dare we say classified, information; to treat the information that they would provide as a “state secret.”

Let’s get real.  These are ongoing investigations by the Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) and other military and civilian agencies.  And in a country where any of the potential witnesses can get “whacked” faster than a “snitch” in a Sopranos rerun; keeping secrets can mean the difference between a successful investigation and another “intelligence failure.”  Henry is trying to parlay this into some type, any type, of scandal and more television “face time” as he pompously presides of his so-called “oversight” hearings.

C’mon Congressman, there’s a war to fight — and in case you forgot — WIN !    Can’t your political grandstanding take a backseat to national security just once?  Please?

Please note: As far as we are aware, there’s no underlying racial implication to the expression, “The Black Swan.” Rather, it is the title of Nissam Nicholas Taleb’s book, The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable, released in April, 2007. With a penchant for citing philosophers and writers that (with luck) most of us haven’t heard about since freshman Philosophy 101 and Western Civilization 101, the book describes how we all handle, or mishandle in many cases, situations that involve the highly improbable, or what the writer terms “black swans.”

Taleb is a Wall Street refugee who is reinventing himself as an author and philosopher.  How well has he done that?  That’s up to the individual reader, and we suspect, how closely one feels that his treatise confirms, or refutes, their own ideas.

So, how does this impact Condi? In a variety of ways, but the most direct application is 9-11, which he uses as an example of a “black swan” phenomenon.   (NYT Op-ed, from Fooled by Randomness blog)  If Taleb’s theory gains widespread acceptance, there are negative political implications for those, mostly Democrats, who are trying to assign blame for the attack in order to gain political advantage. A key part of their strategy for 2008 will be to try and attach President Bush’s lower approval ratings, fueled by the non-stop 9-11 and War on Terror-related liberal media attacks that pass for journalism these days, to any prominent Republican – Condi included. She is especially vulnerable to being targeted due to her high profile in the current administration and reputation for a “Teflon” coating that keeps her approval ratings considerably above those of many of her colleagues.

However, Condi herself is a “black swan.” Her personal history of growing up in segregated Alabama, seeking higher education, teaching, administering, and a life of public service is itself a highly improbable career trajectory. But when coupled with her ability to ascend to the Presidency one day, her status as a “black swan” is a certainty.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s book is available at Amazon, Barnes&Noble, and in downloadable audio at Audible.com

US News and World Report’s (USNWR) Washington Whispers, edited by Paul Bedard, has, from time to time, provided tantilizing hints of happenings inside the beltway, and most interesting to us, glimpses into Dr. Rice and her “inner circle.”  His most direct mention of Condi 2008 in Whispers, prior to his column this weekend, was May 30, 2005.  (link)

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.

At the time, this was an exciting development and many Condistas spent countless hours speculating as to who Bedard’s source might have been.  However, his reporting on this occasion is not quite as encouraging, being entitled Maybe Someone Should Ask Condi and he goes on to quote Tom Holt, of ThinkCondi.net, in a somewhat mocking manner –  just as the BBC reporter, Richard Allen Greene, couldn’t help but make the following observation about CPAC 2007, earlier this month.

Even Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state who has never even hinted that she might run for president next year, has a lone enthusiast hopefully bearing a red balloon saying “Condi ‘08″.

FYI, we didn’t attend CPAC, as a group, this year for a reason — it finally dawned on us that it is the Republican Party that nominates presidential candidates — and while it is always great fun to go “rub elbows” with those who share common ideological ground, we have to target our very limited resources in a very focused manner.   (There were, however, some very dedicated Condistas — from a variety of groups — that attended CPAC at their own expense to keep the message in the public eye.  Our hat’s off to them.)  The BBC’s Mr. Greene betrays his political perspective by his mischaracterization of a “lone enthusiast.”  He obviously didn’t spend much time at CPAC with the National Black Republican Association (www.NBRA.info).  The individual Condistas that attended CPAC were inundated with requests for more Condista materials.  It was a tactical decision, perhaps even a blunder, to decide not to try and compete with the well-financed machines that Mitt, Rudy, and others were fielding at CPAC this year, but there is a “method to our madness.”  (More on that later.)

By the way, Mr. Greene did go on to make the observation: “That puts Ms. Rice at least one supporter ahead of the man who announced on Wednesday that he is running for president - Senator John McCain of Arizona.”  McCain, whose support in the polls has always mystified us, because we have NEVER been able to find McCain supporters at any of a number of conservative and Republican events.  (As opposed to the many anti-McCain activists.)  The Arizona Senator’s supporters are like the aliens that crash landed in Roswell, New Mexico.  A majority of Americans (surprisingly) believe that they exist, but no concrete evidence that they are real has ever been uncovered.  Of course, considering the number of dead people that voted for Democrats in recent elections, maybe we shouldn’t be surprised.  (Just kidding, well, uh, sort of.)

Getting back to Paul Bedard at USNWR, we have, since our inception, looked to the ONLY successful presidential “draft” of the twentieth century, that of President Eisenhower as a model of how to “draft” Condi.  If one carefully studies history, they will discover that the war hero and NATO Commander (at the time), was quite reticent to accept a nomination by any party.  See our post of March 25, 2006.  (Hat tip to Josiah Schmidt for the original research.)  However, unlike the “Draft Eisenhower” movement, we are not the political heavyweights with “deep pockets” that ultimately convinced “Ike” to run.  (Draft Eisenhower)  Every Condista across the country is going to be working, each with their own individual talents, to line up the support that will be necessary to pull off what will be only be the third Republican “draft” in the past century — Eisenhower and Goldwater were the first and second, respectively.  Compared to those who drafted Ike, we’ve got a long way to go.  So, it is too early — for us — to ”ask” Condi.  (Although it almost appears to be a ritual with Sean Hannity everytime she appears on his radio show.   Of course, it can’t be such an awful question that she doesn’t keep returning for return engagements, right?)  Paul, one day it will be the right time to ask — and we’ll be here, along with many others.  Meanwhile, Secretary Rice’s efforts towards peace in the Middle East, coordination of diplomatic and military efforts around the globe, etc. are keeping her “dance card” pretty full right now.  Distracting her with any concern of an election at this time would politicize everything she is doing.  However, will she ultimately make that decision?  For that, we’ll quote, yet again, Mark Goldblatt of the American Spectator:

“…she’s said that she has no plans to run, that she won’t run, that her real ambition is to become commissioner of the National Football League. But I believe Rice is first and foremost a patriot, and if a case were put forward that campaigning for president were an act of service to her country, rather than service to her ego, she might reconsider.”

Negative campaigning is just a fact of life these days on the American political landscape.  Once a political figure starts being viewed as a potential candidate, it is almost a certainty that the attacks and mudslinging will follow.  Take this CBS News graphic, for example.  Newt isn’t even declared and he’s included in negative mainstream media coverage!

When Condi becomes a candidate will she be able to become the next Teflon President?  (Reagan was the first.)  See our homepage post on Anita Kumar’s St. Petersburg Times article.

What are the most likely areas that the jackals of the liberal media machine will focus on?  How can we best prepare for the negative attacks — because you know it’s coming.

There are several biographies, written from different perspectives, that are being released in time for this summer and the 2008 election.  At least two are available for “pre-order:” The Faith of Condoleezza Rice by Leslie Montgomery (Hardcover Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Books-a-Million, CD-ROM Barnes & Noble); Twice as Good: Condoleezza Rice and Her Path to Power (hardcover Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Books-a-Million) by Marcus Mabry, a Newsweek editor and chief correspondent; and an as yet untitled biography by Elisabeth Bumiller, a Woodrow Wilson Center Scholar on leave from the New York Times where she was a White House correspondent.  Interestingly, the NYT made Bumiller’s husband quit his State Department assignment to avoid any potential ethical questions.  (Ethics at the NYT?  We suggest reading Bernard Goldberg’s Arrogance to get a deeper appreciation of just how comical a notion that is.)  

Unlike the somewhat bland, textbook, “just the facts, Ma’am” type of writing that has been typical of past biographies such as Greenwood Publishing’s 2006 Condoleezza Rice, A Biography, or the more widely distributed The Condoleezza Rice Story by Antonia Felix (Make sure that you read the updated 2005 edition available from Amazon, and Books a Million), these newer biographies are sure to be more controversial, especially Bumiller’s — which we anticipate (as well many on the “loony Left,” see Darryl Plant of the Daily Kos) will be an attack on Condi and the Bush administration just in time to inflict maximum political damage during the runup to the 2008 elections.  See our post when the book was initially announced.

For children, there are a number of age-appropriate biographies, as well.  Condoleezza Rice: America’s Leading Stateswoman (2007), Condoleezza Rice: Being the Best (2005), Condoleezza Rice: U.S. Secretary Of State (Journey to Freedom) 2005. These make great gifts to your local school libraries and are very inexpensive.

      Last week,  Sen. Boxer  grilled Secretary Rice regarding the war in Iraq.  During Condoleezza began discussing the progress.  Sen. Boxer , in her infinite wisdom, asked Secretary Rice “Who pays the price?”.   She went on to ramble about Rice not having children and being unwed.   Since Rice didn’t have children, somehow she was not qualified to discuss the war.

   When I heard her say this,  I had to do a double take.  Isn’t this Sen. Boxer, the liberal Democrat from California?  Isn’t she a liberal icon for feminism, the idea that women can choose not to have children and choose not to marry???

    I’m not the only one who thought this.  Secretary Rice responded in a very dignified manner:

“In retrospect, gee, I thought single women had come further than that, that the only question is, ‘Are you making good decisions because you have kids?’ ” Rice said on Fox News.”

       Sen. Boxer really showed her true colors.  She hits below the belt, undermining her own feminist values in order to take a cheap shot at the Republicans.  

   Will her liberal supporters call her on this?  Not likely. 

What lesson can Condistas glean from this?  Look at Condi’s response.  It was the response of a true statesman (stateswoman).  She took the high road during the hearing , and she gave a great response to the media.  Women who wonder about what Rice thinks about women’s equality no longer need to wonder.  Rice is the pinnacle of the American dream  and a model for young women all over the world.

We are featured in a news story today on the ABC News website. It talks about our movement and the possibility of Condi running for President. My favorite part of the article talks about how Condi is being groomed to become a possible contender for 2008.

It’s media exposure like this that will encourage people to come to our website and learn more about our movement. Be sure to spread the word!

In response to Bill Clinton’s outburst to Chris Wallace on FOX News, Condoleezza Rice set the record straight.  Bill said that he did everything he could to fight terorism while president.  He said he even a left a complete plan on how to fight Al-Qaeda for Bush.  He then concluded that Bush did nothing for 8 months.

     Condoleezza responded yesterday morning.  She said no such plan was left for the Bush administration. 

     Hillary Clinton, in the first lob of the 2008 Presidential race,  defended Clinton’s treatment of the terrorist threat.  She then said that Clinton wasn’t the one who ignored a report titled “Bin Ladin determined to attack within the United States”.

    Condistas already know about that report.  it was discussed during the 9/11 hearings.  Dr. Rice was on the stand when Sen. Biden asked her the title of the report.  After she responded with the title, she tried to explain that the report gave no details about when or where the attacks would be.  Sen. Biden interrupted , of course.  He said he just asked for the title. 

    There is a bigger picture here:  Hillary took this opprtunity to politicize the War on Terror and 9/11.  Condoleezza in her staterments this morning made it cleat that we shouldn’t be finger-pointing and blaming each other over this. 

   We can count on more of this from the Democrats as 2008 approaches. 

Condi was interviewed by Katie Couric on “60 Minutes” tonight. You should go here if you missed it. There are lots of video clips, including ones that didn’t air.

There is also a comments section on the page. Many comments show support for her running for President in 2008. We should all add our own comments to that page!

Katie did ask Condi about running for President. This segment didn’t air on TV, of course. She said that elected office “probably” isn’t for her. (link) Despite this statement, “60 minutes” set up an online poll asking “Should Condoleezza Rice run for President?” The results are currently 50/50. Let’s get on there and vote!

Katie asked her about her views on abortion. This clip didn’t air, either. (link) She said she supports parental notification and opposes late term abortion, but she would not ban abortion.

My favorite part of the interview was when Condi drew parallels between the bombings and terrorism committed on African-Americans during the segregation days and the bombings and terrorism in the Middle East. (link) These are both instances where people were fighting for freedom and being terrorized because of it. She said that when people say “Iraq isn’t ready for democracy.” it reminds her of when people used to say “Black people are simple people. They aren’t ready for the vote.” In another unaired clip, Katie asks her about cooking fried chicken. (link) I found this a little racist and rude.

Katie also accuses her of growing up shielded from the horrors of the civil rights movement. Condi responds “Until bombs started going off in the neighborhood.” (link) (What a great response!) This clip was also unaired. In the end, Condi turned out great and very Presidential. This is a great start to stirring the presidential pot.

Right, or wrong, celebrities play a large role in our nation’s political life.  It’s a point that shouldn’t be lost on us and our efforts.

It took Cher to turn the issue of better combat helmets into a newsworthy item.  And she was more successful than all of our generals, wounded veterans, etc.  (MSNBC, ABC)  Dr. Rice, being something of a celebrity herself, has had a large measure of success getting the Darfur region into the news — especially with her trip to the region last year.  (Security Council statement, State Dept. fact sheet)  But when George Clooney and Mira Sorvino  (MSNBC, Asbury Park Press, SaveDafur.org, USINFO, All American Patriots, Heritage Foundation report),  get on the soap  box, it’s on every major network in a major way.  Do not underestimate the power of celebrity.  Americans are addicted to it, just take a look around at at any checkout aisle in any supermarket.

Do not be shy about putting celebrity to work for us!  Condistas, since 2004, have had their photo’s taken with a variety of celebrities: Michele Malkin, Senator Cornyn, Dick Morris, Niger Innis, various television interviews, etc.  There’s a reason that they have “photo ops” — because they work!  That’s why Condi has her photo taken with every visiting dignitary to the State Department.  (Or perhaps it’s more correct to say that they’re having their photo taken with her.) Condi has used celebrities for promoting her own agenda at the State Department.  So, to whatever extent possible, we need to incorporate celebrity into our strategy.  (As the Left is so fond of saying, “Think globally, act locally.”)

 Most of us don’t know any major film or television stars well enough to ask them for a “photo op,” or even if they’re Republicans.  So you may be thinking, “How am I going to use “celebrity” to to promote CONDI 2008?”  Well, here are three suggestions:

1. Politicians.  Election season is prime time for ”photo ops” with politicians.  Without being too obnoxious, it’s fairly easy to get your photo taken with gubernatorial, senate and house candidates.

   Here are a few pointers.  If the candidate is overwhelmed with the crowd don’t overlook their spouses.  It’s astonishing how many times a candidate’s spouse is ignored — almost to the point of rudeness — especially at smaller gatherings on rural campaign stops.  Lieutenant Governors and their spouses are frequently much more “available” to “nobodies” like us.   This is a situation where ”bigger is not better.”  The campaign events in a major city are generally going to be heavily attended.  But a campaign stop in a rural county is frequently a much more intimate affair with more opportunities for interaction.  In the brief moment you’re going to be with the candidate, don’t “corner” them for an endorsement, or overt statement of support.  No smart politician is going to do that until we’re alot closer to 2008.  (Although in our experience, most will spontaneously make encouraging, even if non-committal, remarks such as: “Condi’s great.”,  “I’d love to see her run.”,  “She scares the Democrats to death.”)  If anyone expresses any concern, just reassure them that they’re not going to find any off-the-cuff remarks on the Internet the next day unless they clearly give their approval.  And you may get a real gem of quotation — even if short of an endorsement.  Several politicians, or their staffers, have told us that although they couldn’t issue a statement of endorsement, they’d be happy to have a “photo op” with a Condista (a term legitimized when Laura Bush mentioned us in regards to 2008) or in front of a Condi 2008 display.

2. Authors.  You’d be amazed what an author will do at a book signing for the price of few books.  And you can get them to “jump through hoops” if you show up with a local reporter — even if it is from the local community college’s FM station (usually available for the cost of a ride), or your local retirement community’s newsletter.   A microphone, or reporter’s notebook, is all it takes to have them at your mercy.   Here again, “the smaller the better” when choosing events to attend.

3. Reporters.  You’d never believe this but (in general) print, and to a somewhat lesser extent, radio journalists and local talk show hosts have BIG egos and are hungry for exposure.  If a local reporter, editor, or radio commentator mentions Condi in a positive light (Although there might be the rare situation where highlighting a negative news item might be appropriate.), a quick e-mail, or telephone, request for a digital “head shot” will usually be successful if coupled with a mention that it might appear on our website, or blog, along with a link to the article (if available.) or broadcast audio.

These are ideas for “cold” contacts — where you have no real previous experience with the person in question.  Of course, if you have a personal connection to a celebrity whose famous, and not infamous, that’s another matter that depends on the individuals involved.

Hope this gives you some ideas for some “photo ops” of your own!  And no matter where you go always remember: make sure you have a high quality digital camera handy at all times!!!  Happy “photo-oping!”

In what has to be a major “coup” in her new role as the first solo female news anchor on a major television network, Katie Couric; villified as a cog, albeit a well-paid one, in the liberal mainstream media (MSM); “scores” an interview with what is arguably the most powerful woman in the United States, Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice.

CBS News link

Condoleezza Rice has an interview in this month’s Essence magazine. I will warn you, only the first part of the interview is available free on the website. You have to actually buy the magazine to get the complete interview. They ask a lot of the tough questions, but Condi answers with confidence and intelligence as always.

They ask her about the war in Iraq: “Do you still think it was a good idea?” She answers, “Absolutely.”

They ask her what she thought about Hurricane Katrina , seeing the people on the rooftops waiting to be rescued. She replies, “I knew that we had a terrible crisis on our hands, a terrible tragedy. You know, there are these pockets in America where race and poverty come together in a really terrible way. It was quite clear that in the poorest parts of New Orleans, people didn’t have the means to get out. I remember seeing school buses underwater and thinking, It’s a pity that they weren’t evacuated on those school buses before they went underwater.

But I will tell you what I deeply resented. I resented the notion that the President of the United States, this President of the United States, would somehow decide to let people suffer because they were Black. I found that to be the most corrosive and outrageous claim that anybody could have made, and it was wholly and totally irresponsible.”

She also later says if African-Americans truly cared about Africa, they should know that U.S. assistance to Africa has tripled since Bush has been in office.

Condi proves once again her strong convictions and impeccable Presidential qualifications. To read her complete life story, which in my opinion , is second only to the life of Ronald Reagan, you have to read “Condi: The Condoleezza Rice Story” by Antonia Felix. This is an absolute MUST READ for all Condistas. Most of my quotes for talking points come from this book.

She is, to almost all Republicans, the “800-pound gorilla,” in the 2008 election. (This is not a reference to her any of her physical characteristics.) However, Americans for Dr. Rice has been very careful not to follow Dick Morris’ lead and make the next presidential contest a strictly “Condi vs. Hillary” affair. The possibility of two women in the race is a great “hook” — for book sales and bookings on the talk show circuit. But it is easier to get “blind-sided” when you have political tunnel vision. At the end of last month, there was a lot of media hoopla about the Time magazine cover with Hillary in a “presidential” profile and the “Love her-Hate her” check boxes. (Time magazine article, poll, video)

However, in spite of Hillary’s political money machine, (Hill PAC),at the end of the election cycle the only result that is important is whether you have won the general election, or not. In August, the junior senator from New York was featured on the cover of Time magazine. The results of these polls are most revealing. Conventional wisdom has it that Hillary could easily get the Democratic party’s nomination. She only needs to ask. But if the Democratic party’s ultimate goal is to win the general election, her nomination might not be their best strategy. Should we focus on Hillary, or let the Democratic primary process filter out popular, but ultimately, losing candidates. Whenever Hillary hits the news, it is undeniable that our website sees a “counter-Hillary” effect, traffic goes up, etc. There’s even a Stop Hill PAC organization. (link, We have no association with this organization.) Our independence allows us to do, and say, things that would be inappropriate from a campaign. Is this something that we can (should?) exploit?

Rosie O’Donnell, Jane Fonda, and Gloria Steinem (Wikipedia for Rosie, Jane, Gloria) have launched a new liberal radio network under the banner of Green Stone Media. It has special significance for supporters of Dr. Condoleezza Rice, Condistas, because the new radio network’s management is definitely Contra, as in Contra-Condistas. From their website, you can discover their ideological perspective, but compared to Air America it is a “kinder gentler” liberalism, at least in its delivery, but ultimately, not in its extremism.

“After all, glaciers are melting, costs are rising, children are growing - there’s a lot to talk about! We’re about connection, community and fun, and we invite you to be part of the conversation.” Green Stone Media homepage.

Unlike Air America that had little to bank on except ideology and Al Franken’s big mouth when it started, these three liberal Musketeers have a long history of successfully marketing their liberal “party line” to middle America under the guise of “women’s issues.” They have an impressive track record of syndicated television shows, videos, magazines, books in addition to their own celebrity. Radio is just an extension of their collective experience. Of course, all of their products are infused with a large dose of liberalism. Some of it overt. Some of it subliminal. Just look at that quotation above. “Glaciers are melting.” Global warming somehow got slipped into the middle of their feel good promotion of “growing children…connection, community and fun.” By linking these issues through constant repetition of the “party line,” they can cast their political opponents in a very negative light. After all, if you question global warming, or melting glaciers, then you must be against “growing kids, connection, community and fun.”

Don’t laugh, the Democrats have successfully used this strategy since the famous political ad from the Johnson-Goldwater race of ‘64. And although we’re making progress against Democratic disinformation, they have been successful in making too many Americans believe that all Republicans are racist, sexist, homophobe warmongers who got rich in some underhanded way and go on vacation to club baby seals and pollute the environment. Whether by design, or dumb luck, liberals, and especially the celebrities that support them, have been able to use their media access to link Republicans to negative political positions in the minds of millions.

Long term they are potentially a much bigger political threat than Air America

(more…)