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.

Smelling the possibility of some political advantage leading up to the 2008 election, Democrats practically tripped over themselves getting up to the microphones to express their “outrage” over the revelation that the CIA had erased tapes of the interrogations of top terrorists. (Chicago Tribune, Toronto Star) In one of the few (known) intelligence successes of the post 9-11 era, these interrogations produced information that was “actionable,” accurate and resulted in the disruption of terrorist activities.

The CIA’s stated rationale for erasing the tapes was to protect the identity of the agents involved in the interrogation. This certainly seems reasonable given the fact the e-mail written by the agency’s director, Michael Hayden, to explain the erasure to CIA personnel was in the hands of the Associated Press within hours of distribution at Langley. (The Register) However, he neglected to mention that agents would need not only protection from al-Qaeda, but also several American Senators, Congressman, and left-wing activists.

Mainstream media (MSM) apologists for the extreme left fringe (Code Pink, MoveOn.org, Air America, etc.) are, knowingly or unknowingly, subverting the nation by becoming the accomplices of their more radical ideological brothers and sisters. How? They are the “bridge” that connects them to the rest of the “body politic.” But is this really possible to do without specific intent, or knowledge? Could such a large “conspiracy” really exist except in the disturbed minds of conspiracy theory nuts?

It is doubtful that there is some secret liberal “star chamber” (other than the “war room” of the Hillary for President campaign) that is working behind the scenes to plot our national destiny. One only needs to look at the multitude of missteps taken by the recent Democratic “leadership” of Harry “the war is lost” Reid, Nancy “self-appointed ambassador to Syria” Pelosi, John “Impeachment” Conyers, Charles “tax-hike” Rangel, Hillary “Ask me a question” Clinton, and others to realize that if there is any liberal leadership cabal that they aren’t the “sharpest tools in the political shed.” However, this does not mean that the collective effect of the shrill, even rabid, Left is not effective at shaping national politics when facilitated by constant, and favorable, media access.

The Clinton strategy of “triangulation” illustrates how a noisy “lunatic fringe” on the Left works as a political strategy to shift national politics toward an overall liberal agenda. It can make what was politically unthinkable, possible. While the radical Left has generally been too delusional to carry out large scale organized, effective political activity within, or in conjunction with, the Democratic Party that does not mean that their impact has not been felt as they tilt the national political debate to the Left. In legal terms, to be guilty of conspiracy it is not necessary for the left hand to know what the right hand is doing. (Or in this case, the far left hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing.) This is why none of the current crop of Democratic candidates are willing to alienate themselves from the radical Left. They need them to make their own liberal agendas seem moderate.

The right-left political spectrum (represented by the inferior line of the triangle) is bridged by the political media (represented by the two superior, angled lines of the triangle) which if, “fair and balanced,” does not result in a skewing of political discourse.  However, if the political media caters to radical ideologies due to personal, collective, or organizational biases; the entire political environment is shifted towards the radical end of the spectrum.  The strategy of furthering a “progressive” (that’s code for “radical and liberal”) agenda within the Democratic Party is outlined in Paul Waldman’s Being Right is Not Enough.  Of course, the book’s subtitle, “What Progressives Must Learn from Conservative Success,” points out that it’s all the Republicans’ fault that such tactics are necessary in the first place.  (Amazon, Audible audio book)

“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

Until Fred Thompson became a candidate with his declaration on the Leno Show, conservatives - for the most part - didn’t have a “first-tier” candidate in the Republican primary that really got them excited about the upcoming 2008 Presidential race in spite of the general recognition that a 2008 Democratic victory would be a tragedy for nation.  (Fred ‘08 website)

Unfortunately, it takes an actual candidate to win an election.  In the US we are only allowed to vote “for” a candidate and not “against,”  “anybody but Hillary,” or “none of the above.”

Rudy and Mitt, for many on the Right, are “compromise candidates.”  It isn’t that Rudy and Mitt are disliked on the Right.  On the contrary, they enjoy wide respect for being “Yankee Republicans” that have managed to get elected in the nearly “solid blue” Northeast.  That said, they are not viewed (by many in the GOP) as “brethren” in a struggle that predates the “Reagan Revolution.”  Furthermore, their recent conciliatory moves to the Right are viewed more as expedient political maneuvers, rather true “conversions” to the conservative point of view.

The lack of a candidate that “connected” with the so-called “Republican base” allowed Fred to remain the “stealth” candidate for months.  He has had the luxury of seeming very “presidential” by avoiding the primary race’s “squabbles.”  In the absence of definitively stated policy positions - made necessary during the “typical” primary process - the former senator continues to make the most of his Law and Order television persona, Arthur Branch, a southern conservative turned Big Apple prosecutor.  (Shouldn’t that story line have premiered on the SciFi Channel first?)  As such, he has been portrayed week, after week, season, after season, as the wise, all-knowing, “down home” and folksy older (but not elderly) boss that explains to his urban, mostly liberal staff, the conservative positions of the day using rural southern anecdotes that are conveniently, debated, and poignantly resolved in the 60-minute prime time episodes of Law and Order.  We doubt that NBC ever imagined that they were creating a conservative icon when the created Thompson’s character.

But there is a cloud on Thompson’s horizon - politically and personally.  Could a page from the Democratic history book, Paul Tsongas’ presidential campaign of 1992, be repeated?  (NY Sun, “Thompson’s Cancer Stirs Memories of Tsongas” and National Review, “The Tsongas Problem”)  Paul was Bill Clinton’s Democratic Party primary rival who made the contest a real “horse race,” until he suddenly dropped out.   Like Tsongas, Thompson returned to politics to run for President after a stint in the Senate.  Also like Tsongas, when he entered the race, relatively positive prognoses were stated by the candidate, his staff, and a variety of “experts.”   What’s not known is whether the parallels between Thompson and Tsongas include the deceptions (or the gentler description “lack of clarity” used by Tsongas) made by the 1992 Tsongas campaign regarding his recurrence of cancer and his prognosis.  (Red State, Fred Thompson’s Statement, “What you need to know — Facts about my cancer”

Nobody on his deathbed ever said, “I wish I had spent more time at the office.”   Paul Tsongas   Could Fred have shared this sentiment with Paul and then have left the Senate for an acting career?

Interestingly, Paul Tsongas died January 18, 1997, in what would have been the final days of his administration had he won the 1992 election.  (If this would have happened in the Clinton administration, think of how many pardons he never could have sold, er… granted.)  Does anybody doubt that Tsongas’ ability to govern effectively would have been affected during the final months of his administration as he was dying?  Could the same thing happen to Thompson?  Granted, the statistics on survival of patients diagnosed with Thompson’s relatively rare form of lymphoma are encouraging, but what about patients’ subjected high levels of stress - you know, like serving as President of the United States?  That’s where the theory of Fred’s “Magic Carpet” comes in to play.  (Jeremy D. Mayer at Politico.com, “Is Death on the Ballot in 2008?”)

The closer Fred Thompson gets to the nomination, the greater attention will be paid to his VP choice — especially in light of the Wall Street Journal/NBC poll just released (Rudy 30%, Fred 23%, McCain 15%, Romney 10%, Huckabee 4%).  This is the so called “magic carpet track” into the Oval Office, the Vice-Presidency on a ticket with a partner that has a fair chance of not completing their term in office.  At anytime, a future President Thompson (or Giuliani, a cancer survivor himself) could declare that he is unable to carry out his duties and elevate the VP to the Presidency.  Is this a likely scenario?  We think so.

Another issue for the Thompson campaign is his “gender gap.”  In the WSJ/NBC poll, he only had a little more than half the support among Republican women, 16%, than he showed among Republican men, 29%.  This gap is made even more urgent by Rudy’s strong support among female Republicans in the same poll (25% male, 35% female).  If Fred is the eventual nominee and doesn’t take decisive action, we suspect that this gender gap would grow larger during the general election.  Although a female VP choice is a possibility for either candidate, this makes us think that Thompson would be more likely to choose a female VP than Rudy.  For Fred, it is absolutely essential that he improve his support among women for the primary and the general election.  Is Condi on Fred’s “short list?”   Or someone else’s?  Makes one wonder, doesn’t it?  (Interesting Trivia: Both Condi and Fred are native Alabamans.)

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.

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

The Democratically-controlled House succeeded in doing what Speaker Pelosi said it would.  In “voting to end the war” (It would seem by any means necessary, even surrender, or worse, “starving” our troops in the field for critical funding.), she is trying to accomplish what, up until now, al-Qaeda, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and all the Islamic terrorists combined have been unable to do —  force a retreat (euphemistically called “redeployment”) by US forces in the War on Terror.  And all she had to do was bang her Speaker’s gavel to have almost all of the Democratic congressmen (and congresswomen) line up like pigs at the feeding trough as she poured out a mere $642 million dollars of taxpayer cash in order to get them to forget about our troops.  These are pigs that even an Ayatollah could love.

In spite of the mainstream media in full spin mode, the American public will see this for what it is — a betrayal of our military men and women, their families, and ultimately the entire country.  This vote and the pork barrel spending required to make it happen are going to “fatten up” these Congressional “piggies” for electoral slaughter in 2008.  So, in recognition of your legislative “victory,” Nancy, here’s a “Mission Accomplished” banner just for you!

If you want to use this image on your website, or blog, feel free to do so.  (Although, we would appreciate a link back to us.)  Just be sure to copy and save the image to your own server in order to protect our website’s bandwidth.

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.”

Regardless of your political philosophy, party affiliation, psychosocial milieu, etc. there is one core principal upon which the vast majority of Americans can agree: The US Presidency is not, or at least should not, be “for sale.”

Oh, for sure, many of us constantly complain that “it’s all about the money.”  We see presidential hopefuls spend endless hours pursuing campaign cash and reporting “the take” to the media (and the FEC and IRS) as a way of “keeping score.”  But at the end of the day, whether you’re a Communist, a Klansman, a Democrat, a Libertarian, or a Republican; everyone’s participation in the presidential political process every four years confirms that, at some level, we all, for the most part, believe that the US Presidency is “up for grabs” and not “for sale.”  While cash is important, there is still the underlying belief that issues and ideology play, at least, some role in selecting our next chief executive.  Otherwise, why bother participating in the process at all?

The authors of Freakonomics are practitioners of the “dismal science,” a.k.a “economics.”  While their conclusions have certainly come under very close scrutiny and criticism, from the Left and the Right on a variety of issues (most notably abortion and its relationship to crime), these authors provide a unique perspective on the world around us.  While we don’t agree with all of the conclusions, or lines of reasoning, promoted by Freakonomics, there is one of their observations about campaign spending and the outcome of elections that caught our interest.

In our travels around the nation to a variety of political gatherings, we have been the target of those critics who seem to take great joy in pointing out that Dr. Rice isn’t a “serious candidate” because she hasn’t “joined the $100 million dollar club” or reached some other arbitrary benchmark of campaign finance.  Perhaps, these individuals are just trying to relieve their own insecurities about their “candidate of the day.”  Does anybody remember the presidential aspirations of the former Senator George Allen?

We provide the following audio excerpt from Freakonomics as an antidote to these “disciples of dollars.”  (Click here to listen to the Windows Media audio file.)  In the Information Age with more of us getting our political news from so-called alternative media, we believe that there are millions of Americans who are still able to make, and will make, the decision about who will be their next Commander in Chief based upon the candidate, their record of achievement, their judgment, and who is most in agreement with their positions on a broad range of issues. 

So, to answer our own rhetorical question: “No, the Presidency isn’t for sale.”   Of course, cash can determine the style in which a candidate travels on their own “Road to the White House,” but whether she arrives at Pennsylvania Avenue in a Gulfstream V, or a repainted campaign bus - the point is that she “has arrived.”

So, the next time you hear, “Condi can’t be our next President.  She doesn’t have (fill in the blank) millions of dollars.”  Refer them to this audio excerpt of Freakonomics.  (audio)

(Freakonomics is available in a variety of formats: Hardcover: Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Books-a-Million, Audio CD: Amazon, Books-a-Million; Large Print: Amazon, Barnes & Noble; Español, Spanish-language paperback: Books-a-Million; downloadable audio at Audible.com)

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.

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.

Robin Williams is Candidate Tom Dobbs

The concept of a female president is increasingly finding it’s way into popular culture. Robin Williams, while promoting his new movie Man of the Year, a comedy about a comedian that runs for President and wins, spoke about the race in 2008 during an interview with Susan Wloszczyna, of USA Today.

The comic believes that 2008 could bring a female candidate into the presidential race. And who better than Oprah Winfrey.

“It would be great to see her in a debate,” Williams says. “It would be a pay-per-view debate, her and Condoleezza Rice. And once the Stanford stuff drops …” He holds out his hand, as if halting traffic. ” Girl, I tell you, mm, mm.’ Two brilliant black women going at it. It would be amazing. And if they have a talent section, I know Condoleezza would win that because of the cello. No one has seen Oprah do an interpretative ballet.”

(Interviewer) Yes, but she could do a scene from “Beloved.”

(Williams) “It would be great if she did a scene from “Beloved” while Condoleezza played the cello. You could pay for the whole election that way just with the CD, DVD, ancillary rights - and the sweater.”

Official movie website, Universal Pictures website, opens this weekend, Friday, October 13, 2006. (Isn’t that supposed to be bad luck?)

November 14th is a very special day: the birthday of Condoleezza Rice. We at Americans for Dr. Rice would like to make it one to remember.

Condi was born in Birmingham, Alabama during the segregation era. She had to endure domestic terrorism as a child : church bombs, Klan attacks, and police brutality. She persevered through it all. Her parents convinced her that she could grow up to be President of the United States, as she states in her biography. We believe her parents were right.

On November 14th, we’d like as many Condistas as possible to plan a get together, whether it be inviting friends over for coffee and a discussion about Dr. Rice or a reception with their local Republican club . You could discuss a book about Dr. Rice, recent news articles about her, or some of our blog posts. The objective is to get the conversation going. Begin a national discussion on the possibility of a Condi candidacy. If you send us photos and info about your party, send them to us. We’d love to post them on our website.

On November 14th in Chicago, we are having a Condi 2008 reception at a local pub by Wrigley Field called “The Red Ivy” from 7-9 p.m.. We will be having some hors d’oeuvres and watching video clips of AFDR being featured on national newscasts. We’ll also be showing our Power Point presentation. I’ll be talking about why Condoleezza Rice is the best candidate for President. I’ll also be highlighting her views on domestic issues, like abortion and the Second Amendment.

Whether you plan a large or small gathering, let’s give Condoleezza Rice a great birthday present. Let’s give some momentum to the “Condoleezza Rice for President” movement!

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!

The Republican leadership of the House, and especially Speaker Dennis Hastert, need to seize the opportunity to resign their leadership positions NOW. Their replacements need to be thrown “into the breech” as soon as possible so that they can maximize their effectiveness prior to the midterm elections. In doing so they can dramatically illustrate the differences between Democratic and Republican leadership. It would help make the case to the American voter that Democrats make excuses for misconduct, even embrace misconduct and endorse it. (Although, this in NO way excuses Mark Foley’s, or anybody else’s, bad behavior.)

Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) endorsed Gary Condit (D-CA) after his affair with an intern was exposed. (SF Chronicle)

Barney Frank (D-MA) housed a homosexual prostitute who based his pimping operation out of the Massachusetts Congressman’s DC apartment. (WaPo)

Bill Clinton pardoned former Congressman Mel “crazy about young stuff” Reynolds in the final hours of his presidency. In spite of his marriage and three children (who ended up on welfare after his conviction), Mel had trysts with an underage campaign worker. Tapes of his conversations with her, trying to arrange a m�nage � trois with another underage female, helped lead to his conviction. So what type of career opportunities do you have as a convicted, but pardoned, sex offender? Goat herder in the Aleutian Islands? No, how about a job with Jesse Jackson’s Operation PUSH? And thanks to his pardon, he doesn’t even have to register as sex offender. (World Net Daily)

In contrast, by resigning NOW, Republican House leaders involved in this matter can show that Republicans take responsibility for misconduct when it occurs, reject it, and take the lead in working to make sure it doesn’t happen again. If they drag their feet and appear to have been “forced out,” an important opportunity to recover from this scandal will have been lost. Prolonging this political disaster so close to the election, will only put “arrows in the quiver” of our political adversaries. Unless there is some, heretofore, unreleased evidence that unequivocally exonerates those in positions of responsibility; the “smart” political move for them is to take the “high road” and resign their leadership positions immediately, keep their House seats (if they can) to maintain GOP control, and groom their successors for 2008. This would then shift some of the focus onto those who may have delayed the release of this information for maximum political advantage, but in doing so needlessly endangered more underage congressional pages in the meantime.

Why is this important for supporters of Dr. Rice in 2008?

If the Democrats control the House; the Bush administration, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as part of that administration, will be hauled in front of politically-motivated “kangaroo Congressional hearings” designed solely to paralyze the last two years of the Bush administration and “bloody the political nose” of any members of the administration, including Condi, prior to 2008.

Hearings, and more threats similar to those made prior to the airing of The Path to 9-11, will be made against media outlets in preparation for 2008.

In the event of a closely contested 2008 presidential race, the final result could be determined by the House of Representatives.

The loss of even a single congressional seat could be crucial in November, and later in 2008. Get active in your community, drive other like-minded voters to the poll. Volunteer, get active, talk to others about your hopes for Condi 2008. If you can afford it, take election day 2006 off from work. (Or if you plan on staying up on election night at your local party headquarters, maybe take off the following day!) If you live in Central Florida, help Joe Negron (quickly recruited by the Florida GOP to take Foley’s place) get the message out that a vote for Mark Foley is a vote for him and not Foley. (Florida law does not permit changing the name on the ballot at this late date.) Negron is a Florida State Representative that dropped out of the race for Attorney General — leaving him with over $1 million in the bank that he can now use to try and keep Foley’s seat as a “safe” Republican district. We’ll post a link to his campaign website as soon as possible. (Tallahassee Democrat, Guardian - UK)