There are rumors flying about the exact nature of the relationship between Hillary and Huma Abedin, “Hillary’s Mystery Woman” according to the liberal New York Observer (Wikipedia), in an April 1, 2007, article by Spencer Morgan. (We have speculated among ourselves as to the significance of the publication date.) Such rumors, while probably on the same level as the National Enquirer cover and article that featured Dr. Rice recently (see our post, “In the closet?”); are not as troubling as the unknown implications of the influence exercised by a top advisor to a prominent Senator, with half a chance of becoming President — according to Newt Gingrich, who recently downgraded Hillary’s chances of winning in 2008 from 80% to 50% on yesterday’s Sunday morning political talk shows.

While we (well, most of us) couldn’t care less about what Hillary does in the boudoir (with or without Bill); there are apparently some of Hillary’s wealthy New York Jewish supporters who have been given pause by the position of influence that Ms. Abedin has attained on the Senator’s staff.  She’s a Washington, DC resident, and frequent transient New Yorker (especially since her association with Hillary Clinton) who arrived from her native Kalamazoo by way of Saudi Arabia.  Pro-Israeli Clinton supporters concerns about Huma have been heightened, since as the Observer pointed out, her counsel is sought out about issues concerning the Middle East and her title among the campaign staff is “Traveling Chief of Staff.”

Interestingly, the Hillary campaign just “fired” two volunteers who had forwarded what have been described as “dirty trick” e-mails that spoke of Barak Obama’s Islamic ties.  (AP - Raleigh News Observer) Unconfirmed sources suggest that part of the decision-making involved in booting these campaign workers was that Hillary didn’t want her “Huma connection” and other Islamic assoications being brought under the scrutiny of the intense press coverage leading up to Iowa caucuses.

With the Annapolis Middle East Summit, many column inches across the nation were devoted to Secretary of State Rice’s “legacy.” While the conference was historic in that it simply occurred, the real diplomatic activity that might help define Condi’s tenure as SoS may be taking place on a little reported issue with regards to US Foreign policy, but very central to the Middle East, the War on Terror, Climate Change (a.k.a. “Global Warming”) and our economy. That issue is energy.

Secretary Rice has had the tough job of continuing to reject the flawed Kyoto Protocol in the face of widespread international support. Kyoto, although championed by Al Gore, was never actively promoted for ratification for years by the Clinton administration – even he realized that the one-sided impact of the treaty would be a severe competitive disadvantage for the US economy. (See, Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and The Elephant and the Dragon)

President George W. Bush opposes mandatory caps on greenhouse emissions, preferring voluntary goals. He believes the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gases unfairly exempted rapidly developing countries and that ratifying it would have hurt the economy of the United States… Environmental News Network, article, “World Energy Revolution Needed for Climate,” Sept. 25, 2007

However, by combining the near global hysteria over global warming* to our own strategic energy interests that scream for alternatives to fossil fuels and a Democratically controlled Congress with few accomplishments to show voters in 2008, Dr. Rice has quietly (thanks to minimal press coverage), albeit slowly, started to enlist international and domestic support for a “global revolution” in energy. Her chief lieutenants for energy issues are Undersecretary for Energy, Economic and Agricultural Affairs Rueben Jeffrey (bio) who was sworn in just this past June. However, given Jeffery’s rather broad portfolio and relatively recent addition; it has been Gregory Manuel (State Dept., “Condoleezza Rice’s Energy Guy,” article EnergyBiz, PDF format), Condi’s Special Advisor to the Secretary and International Energy Coordinator since 2006 that has been her “go-to guy” for energy. Interestingly, both Jeffery and Manuel have post-graduate degrees from Stanford. According to an unnamed source, “If there is going to be a ‘fourth quarter energy legacy’ coming out of State, it’ll be the Secretary’s drive and direction and these two guys’ heavy lifting that gets it done.”

*Actually, “climate change” is the new “PC” term. It’s not a wise move to commit to whether the temperatures are going up or down, or whether the reason they are changing is air-conditioned soccer mom SUV’s, livestock flatulence, or the lack of human sacrifices to the sun god until the all the evidence is in, say in 10,000 years, or so. Or perhaps, it doesn’t really matter since our planet’s biosphere goes on a “blind date” with an asteroid every few millennia.

CNN’s Lou Dobbs is something of a unique cable news journalist.  Personally, I find him to be rather pompous and self-important with his “War on the Middle Class” theme.  Also, he has an irritating anti-GOP bias that is, fortunately, readily transparent.  However, he does have some valid points and criticisms to make of both the Left and Right from time to time.  But yesterday, I had to hit the rewind button on my TIVO several times to make sure that I heard him correctly.

During an extended segment on Lou Dobbs Tonight October 26th episode, an almost agitated Lou discussed the defeat of ”Dream Act” legislation that was little more than a smoke screen for an illegal immigrant amnesty. He dutifully noted that both Hillary and Obama (a co-sponsor of the bill, no less) were both supporters of the legislation.  Continuing, he then went on to express his, and more than 70% of New Yorker’s, outrage over Democratic Governor Eliot Spitzer’s plan to issue driver licenses to illegal immigrants.  Plus, in an invitation to massive voter fraud, Spitzer has ordered state employees to register ”voters” on an essentially “no questions asked” policy which can conveniently be accomplished in the Great State of New York while obtaining a driver license.  It’s not hard to connect the dots here.

But the most notable of Lou’s comments came in response to a viewer who wrote in to say that she had changed her voter registration to “independent” and that she felt that Governor Spitzer, and both Senator Schumer and Senator Clinton should be “voted out” of office.  To which Lou replied that he “couldn’t agree more.”  Remember, this was on his prime time CNN news program!  Watch the video and see for yourself.

“The thing speaks for itself,” or res ipsa loquitur (Wikpedia link).  The following product needs no explanation.  It’s a metaphor that we expect our male readers will immediately feel, uh — viscerally, and instantly understand why the 2008 election is so important.  Feel the squeeze and watch the video!

*Blog Editor: We have no financial interest in this product, nor those selling it:  HillaryTheNutcracker.com, Overnight Express, Amazon

     In the latest Zogby poll,  Condoleezza Rice finished foutrth behind the McCain Romney, and Giuliani.   This is great considering she hasn’t declared.  The big news, though,  is in the same poll,  she finishes third among self-identified “conservative Republicans”, behind  Romney and Gingrich.

     Why is the conservative Republican poll important?   The conservatives are still looking for a candidate they can rally behind.  A liberal GOP candidate will not energize the conservative vote, even if he runs against Hillary Clinton. Condoleezza Rice would be an excellent choice for conservatives.  She has both pro-life and pro-Second Amendment views.  She is also the only one who can continue leading the “War on terror”,  no training required.

   I think she can also serve to unite the RINOs and conservatives of the GOP.     The RINOs will enjoy making history and heading off Hillary or Obama.  Condi doesn’t have the “lightning rod” factor like other conservative candidates.   it would be more difficult for Dems to paint a caricature of Condi as a racist-sexist-homophobe conservative. The conservatives will enjoy having an experienced , principled Republican to continue protecting our country.

   Condi is a win-win for all of the GOP.

As this is being written, Fox News Sunday, for March 11, 2007, has not aired.  However, the leaks coming out of the Fox Newsroom that he’s “leaving the door open” to a possible presidential bid would make the New York Times proud.

Despite Hollywood’s traditional leftward tilt, an actor, turned politician and presidential candidate, has been a successful strategy for Republicans in the past.  Could Thompson be the Republican that stars in the remake of Bedtime for Bonzo Hillary?

 The eagerness with which the possibility of a Thompson candidacy has been greeted by Republicans — especially the more conservative ones — is an indication that the current selection of so-called “frontrunners” and “second-tier” candidates is not very satisfying to party rank and file.  The party and the primary process are basically treating us like a six year old at the dinner table: “Sure, you can have whatever you like for desert.  You can pick from brocoli, asparagus, or brussel sprouts.”   Only, unlike a six-year old, we’re expected to pick up the check and then wash the dishes without complaining.  Moreover, we’re expected to jump up and down, cheer, applaud, rally, march, throw confetti, blow up balloons, etc. all on on cue for the photo oportunities that these candidates are going to be staging all over the country in a primary system that is rigged to prevent any “unapproved” dark horse candidates (that we might actually want to support, like Condi!) from having a chance at the nomination because of the “front-loaded” February 5th Mega Tuesday election schedule.

It’s time for the “grassroots” to insist on a seat at the “grown up’s” table.  If we don’t, we’ll be eating brussel sprouts for desert for a long time to come with no one to blame but ourselves.

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. 

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?

Last month at the Iowa State Fair, there was a Presidential straw poll. In true Iowa fashion, the “Cast Your Kernel” poll had a corn theme. Channel 13 WHO-TV sponsored the poll . they wrote the names of 10 potential Democrats and 10 potential Republican presidential candidates on hard kernels of corn. People could take a kernel of their choice and place it in a jar.

Condoleezza Rice tied for second with Giuliani on the Republican side, each receiving 20% . McCain came in first with 24%.

On the Democratic side, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton tied for first with 33% each of the Democratic kernels.

Read the whole story here

Iowan Condistas: we need your help to spread the good word! Sign up on our website. If you’d like to help plan an event in your hometown, e-mail me at: Illinois@4condi.com. We have everything you need: info, talking points, balloons, stickers, and buttons.

Wes Fowler

The Case for Hillary Clinton

Susan Estrich

In the past, we Condistas have whispered about our own “Plan A” and “Plan B,” but now it’s the Democrats doing the whispering.

This weekend, Susan Estrich, USC Law Professor, Harvard alum, author (The Case for Hillary Clinton), unabashed Democrat, and Fox News consultant, wrote an article that appeared, with little fanfare, on the Fox News website, A Woman on the Democratic Ticket, But Maybe Not Hillary. Professor Estrich is one of the few liberals that “gets it” when it comes to national security. She has even been known to agree with Ann Coulter — on national television no less. But make no mistake, she is definitely a “left-coast” liberal at heart who wants to see a Democrat in the White House.

Gov. Janet Napolitano

In the article, she drops two names of potential candidates that will strike fear into Ken Mehlman’s heart and are like “kryptonite” for Karl (Rove). Those names are Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas and Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona, “fresh” candidates on the national scene — and not burdened by the heavy baggage that Hillary will have to bear if she attempts to run for the Oval Office. Hillary’s “bicoastal” fund raising abilities if coupled with either of these potential candidates would be formidable. However, the biggest danger to any other potential Democratic candidate for 2008 is Hillary’s desire to call, once again, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, “home.” She feels that she’s entitled to the nomination and already has a multimillion “war chest” that she is using to purchase the loyalties of important leaders at all levels of the Democratic party before she even announces her candidacy. The question is, does Hillary realize that she suffers from terminal “Katherine Harris” syndrome and forgo her own personal ambition for the good of her party?

Robert Dole was the Republican candidate for president in 1996. Had he “handed-off” the nomination to his wife, Senator Elizabeth Dole, maybe the issue of our first female Chief Executive wouldn’t be on the table for 2008. Although he has been the spokesperson for Viagra, here he embraces the person, Gov. Sebelius, that may give the “high hard one” to Republican presidential hopes in 2008.

For those of you unfamiliar with Florida politics, Katherine Harris, while Florida Secretary of State certified the 2000 Presidential election results that were essential to Bush 43 becoming President. While she is popular among Sunshine State Republicans, she has such high “negatives” that she is, for all practical purposes, unelectable.

Senate Candidate Katherine Harris

Fortunately for us, among the few “constants” in our universe, one them is the infinite size of Hillary Clinton’s ego, and there is little chance that she’ll abandon her ambition to return to the White House. For those of you who haven’t already read it, check out The Truth about Hillary by Edward Klein. Granted, the book (hardcover, paperback, audio) is what’s known as a political “hack job” with vague, unnamed single sources; but as a former resident of the great State of Arkansas during the Clinton years, I have no reason to doubt the majority of the book and its portrayal of Hillary Clinton’s personality and plans for the future.

The newest issue of Time magazine is out.  Hillary Clinton is on the cover and the title is “Hillary Gets Ready to Run.”   The article talks about how good of a Senator she is and how she has proven her critics wrong.  it also highlights polls showing her to be the favorite and the strongest candidate. 

    Howver, buried deep in the article, is a quote from Bill Clinton.  It’s on page two of the article on the website.  Check it out here:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1229054-2,00.html

 Bill has said “privately” that the first woman President will be a Republican in the mold of Margaret Thatcher.    Who do I think of when I think of a woman in the mold of Margaret Thatcher?? Condoleezza Rice !  Even Bill Clinton admits, Condi will be the first woman President.

    Let’s take this quote and tell everyone we know! 

In Opinion Editorials (”All the opinions that are fit to print” — a project of the Frontiers of Freedom center-right think tank), Lee Ellis, a retired journalist who previously worked for CBS and Gannett, filed his August 8, 2006, article, Candidates for President in 2008–Who’s Needed in an Era of Terrorism? (He must’ve worked in the days before Dan Rather lowered CBS’ journalistic standards below those of the National Enquirer.) His thesis is that Condi and Newt are the two top contenders for 2008 and that the choice between the two of them is dependent on who the Democratic nominee will be. Namely, if Hillary is nominated by the Democrats, then Condi must be the Republican nominee — echoing Dick Morris. If anyone else is nominated, then the Republicans should pick Newt. According to Mr. Ellis:

While both would make excellent presidents who would be strong leaders, it depends on whom the party of Howard Dean and Ted Kennedy nominate for President. If it chooses Hillary Clinton, then only a smart woman can defeat her. A man will lose! Only Dr Rice can outdo her on TV and, let’s face it, the 2008 presidency is going to depend on TV debates and interviews…The media has also proved by its coverage of Hillary’s 2004 Senate race and TV debates with Rick Lazio, that it will let no man beat her. Many feel strongly that the US needs its first woman President. If Hillary is nominated as the Democrat candidate, expect another Clinton presidency and all it will entail for eight solid years -UNLESS - Dr. Condoleezza Rice is nominated as the Republican choice. Those TV debates will be electrifying and Hillary will go down to defeat but a woman will reign!

At least we can agree on half of his hypothesis! The problem with the second half is that Newt, great guy that he is, is not electable in the November, 2008, general election.

Judging by how often Dr. Rice appears on Timmy Russert’s show, we conclude that he must enjoy being dominated by powerful women!

The focus on gender and race by the media in 2008 will be unavoidable if there is a female presidential candidate from either party. It will be a “first” for the nation, and provide political pundits around the world, and of all political stripes, a bottomless pit of material for their craft. But their focus will be misdirected — as so often has been the case in recent years. The media’s “talking heads” will discuss such issues as: “Is America ready for a female president?” or “Is America ready for a (fill in the blank) president?” However, in 2008, you will not find “a woman”, or “female candidate of color,” or even “caucasian female candidate that has forgiven lecherous husband his past affairs then lied about it” on the ballot.

(more…)

The New York Times, “All the news that’s fit to invent print,” apparently isn’t even remotely concerned with accurate reporting, or even trying to maintain the appearance of objectivity — just check its coverage today of Dr. Rice and Hillary.

After yesterday’s graduation at Boston College, and the positive reaction to Dr. Rice’s appearance (video) do you think that there is even a positive mention of it in the Times? Nope, Katie Zezima’s Rice’s Appearance Draws Protests in Boston was the best they could do. From the headline you would think that the ceremony was marred by student protests. However, the article contradicts its own headline.

“Dozens of students and professors who stood, turned their backs, and held up signs to protest the war in Iraq.”

Dozens, eh? Well, out of a group of 3,224 graduating seniors and thousands more of invited guests, the estimated 50-60 protesters seems like an awfully small number — after all, this event took place in the heart of liberal darkness, Boston, Massachusetts. In the third paragraph is the only, lonely positive statement.

“Inside, however, Ms. Rice received a standing ovation when she was introduced, and she drew applause throughout her address. (Damn it!)” The final exclamation is ours, as we imagine Reporter Zezima’s and other liberals’ reactions.

The article’s accompanying photo was shot at a low angle to give three professors holding up anti-war signs the illusion of being a crowd. Why were there no images of the standing ovation when Dr. Rice was introduced? After the weeks of controversy leading up to this commencement, wasn’t the positive reaction the real story? Could it be that the crowd’s reaction reduced the impact of the protesters to insignificance? So, with a little creative reporting, the NYT gave the protesters a “leg up.” (Of course, had the protesters been even minimally successful in disrupting the ceremonies — as they were with Senator McCain — you can bet that it would have been “page one, above the fold.”)

While the Times couldn’t find space for any objective reporting about the Boston College event and Dr. Rice, they did find space to run a political ad. (We forgot, they call those “articles” at the NYT.) Yes, we almost tore the newspaper out of the bottom of the bird cage when we saw the headline, Clintons Balance Married and Public Lives complete with a photo of the affectionate couple. (We suggest you cut out this article and keep it around the house in the event of an accidental household poisoning. It is more effective than ipecac to induce vomiting.) Naturally, this article was “front and center” on both their print and online editions.

All is not well in the Democratic party — at least according to Gerard Baker of the UK’s The Times. (link) It’s his opinion that Al (Gore, not Bundy) is going to follow in his former boss’ footsteps and become known as the next “comeback kid” by beating Hillary for the Democratic nomination. Furthermore, he suggests that Al would take great delight in giving the former First Lady a very public political spanking.

It seems that Al feels that he would have been president in 2000 had it not been for the Bill’s indiscrete unzipping, followed by Hillary, and her supporters, discretely zipping up a lot of the money and support he needed to win because they didn’t want a Gore Presidency getting in the way of her career path. Mr. Baker reports that Gore supporters explain their unhappiness over the situation this way:

“Go figure, they say. Clinton gets sex in the Oval Office, but Gore’s the one who gets screwed while the ugly progeny is a Hillary presidency. Is that justice?”

Gore 2008? We can hope for such a stroke of political genius by the Democrats, only Kucinich 2008 would be better, but we don’t share Mr. Baker’s optimism regarding our former VP. Al’s candidacy makes for great speculation right now — especially with his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, being released. But unless there’s a scene with Bill (Slick “Cigar” Willy) and Sharon Stone in a skimpy, but stained, blue dress that the critics failed to mention, we doubt that it’ll come anywhere near to making the millions necessary for Al to match Hillary’s war chest for 2008. And if Al were somehow able to mount an effort in the Democratic primary, you can bet that all of his Howard Dean imitations (”He betrayed this country!”) would be replayed endlessly with not so subtle suggestions that he doesn’t have what it takes to be Commander in Chief — followed by visuals of “beatnik” Al after he lost the 2000 election, grew a beard, and stuck pins into a Janet Reno voodoo doll because she sent Elian Gonzalez back to Castro at gunpoint — thus losing the Cuban-American vote in Florida, and hence the election.

Well-known “moonbat” and left-wing activist, Susan Sarandon has endorsed Hillary’s challenger, Jonathan Tasini, for the New York senate race in 2006. (link)

The conspiracy theorist in me thinks that this is some sort of ploy to make the junior senator form New York look more moderate, but it’s just probably more lunacy from the Left.

However, we can learn something from this. Jonathan Tasini, a political nobody, is suddenly “news” because of Susan Sarandon’s endorsement. Unfortunately, in the US celebrities are magically endowed with Pied Piper like political abilities. We need to cultivate our own celebrities. Any ideas?

Below is Susan as an activist, actress, and academy award winner.

Russian newspaper Pravda discusses the Condi vs. Hillary speculation as well as the 2008 presidential race in general.