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.

Are rumors that our Secretary of State is a lesbian true? Is this the reason that she is so reluctant to run for the Presidency? In order to broach these subjects, the Sunday Times reporter, Tony Allen-Mills, used the fig leaf of a National Enquirer article, “Who’s Gay and Who’s Not,” to denigrate the progress, however modest, made at the Annapolis Middle East summit in his December 2nd article, “Gay rumours eclipse Condi’s glory moment.”

This article brings up some interesting points.

• Is it an insult to call someone “gay?”
• Is someone’s private sex life a legitimate campaign or political issue? Most us would answer “no,” but notice the use of the word “private.” For example, marriage is a state-sanctioned institution, so marital infidelity is both a public and private matter, especially for those in positions of public trust – as an indicator of one’s propensity to violate one’s serious commitments. (Lying under oath about such infidelities is in no way excusable using the guise that it is strictly a “private” matter.) Likewise, public solicitation of sex in public bathrooms is not part of an individual’s “private” sex life. Additionally, salacious comments made by senior leaders to subordinates, especially interns, with whom they have come into contact in the course of conducting public business, while not always necessarily criminal, are certainly inappropriate and a matter legitimate public concern. (Apologies to Messrs. Clinton, Craig and Foley.)
• Tabloid articles are becoming “trial balloons.” If a story appeals to a particular journalist, for whatever reason, the tabloid story can become the basis for an article in a more mainstream publication. Allen-Mills described the motivation for such practices as a way for so-called mainstream publications to spice-up their content and compete with the Internet and tabloids.
  

  The steady flow of salacious and often thinly sourced sex-related stories is causing headaches for US newspaper editors, who have been bludgeoned by shrinking circulations and internet competition yet are still clinging to values….The drift towards internet-fuelled sensationalism was deemed to be so serious earlier this year that the Columbia Journalism Review, a bastion of US media elitism, convened a panel of top editors to consider whether the government should step in to subsidise serious newspapers…

  The reporter himself seems to have employed this “thinly sourced sex-related” strategy with the following anonymous quotations pulled from the National Enquirer article – not to mention the article’s title.

  According to the buzz among political insiders, it’s an open secret that . . . Rice is gay. The piece quoted an unnamed “in-the-know” blogger as saying that during her years as provost of Stanford University in California, Rice was “completely out as a lesbian…”

  The one fact that is used to corroborate the story is that Dr. Rice and a female friend bought a home together in 1998. Well, that’s certainly conclusive evidence! This morsel was uncovered by Glenn Kessler, a Washington Post correspondent, who is hawking his recently released book about Condi, The Confidante: Condoleezza Rice and the Creation of the Bush Legacy. (Do you think that he might have some small personal agenda? Or that he might just have some small, infinitesimal elements of bias?) If purchasing property with a member of the same sex is proof positive that one is homosexual, then there are a lot of us that need to become card-carrying members of Log Cabin Republicans. (website) Randy Bean, the woman with whom Dr. Rice purchased the property in question, has been interviewed in Radar magazine, in that publication’s “DC Confidential” column.

  “Condi and I have been friends for 25 years,” she told us. “We co-own an investment property in Palo Alto. We do not share a home. Bean, who now works for Stanford University, told Kessler on his radio show that she was buried in medical bills, and Rice helped her buy the home along with another acquaintance, Coit Blacker, a Stanford professor who is openly gay.

Unless someone makes their sexuality a public issue by personal choice or public misconduct, then it should remain private. Once private sexuality becomes “fair game” for politics, we are in danger of having political discourse in our nation truly degenerate. Do we really want to have candidates for high offices asked about their private sex lives? For example, how many aging male politicians would like to discuss the intimate details of their treatment for prostate cancer and how it has affected their private sex life? Spouses and ex-spouses will asked about the use of sex toys, whether they’re multi-orgasmic, etc. It wouldn’t be long until Jerry Springer would be moderating presidential debates as accusations and innuendoes fly. Do we really want this?

The tabloid press does uncover important news items from time to time. Then again, a broken clock is right at least twice a day. Does anyone remember this Globe cover? (Or our blog post?) So which is it? Is Dr. Rice a lesbian, or a home-wrecking seductress? (We can already see where this is heading! We predict that the next time you see Condi on the cover a tabloid that she’ll be bisexual!) Enough is enough. Mainstream outlets should exercise extreme caution when citing the tabloids, lest they seek to join their titillating colleagues in the checkout line.

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.

The Annapolis Middle East Conference, scheduled to begin tomorrow, has already accomplished something that has been difficult for the US to achieve in the past.  It has managed to irritate Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hamas! 

The often bellicose Ahmadinejad has been whining to Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah by telephone about the kingdom’s participation.  Hamas, an Iranian client organization and terrorist proxy, has announced a “counter-conference” in response to Annapolis.  (Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and a few of their sympathizers are going to sit around for a couple hours and blame all of their problems on the US, Israel, and the International Zionist Conspiracy.  We suggest that an Arabic translation of It’s my party, and I’ll cry if I want to be used as the event’s theme song.)

(Agence France-Presse, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, al-Bawaba)

Yesterday was a “bad news day” for Iranian President Ahmadinejad as news of the 30,000 lbs “bunker buster” bomb became common knowledge with the funding requests to produce and deploy a weapon that has been under development for years. (Well, seriously under development since Clinton left office, when the term “penetration” resumed its primarily military, rather than sexual, significance when discussed in the Oval Office.) In a defense “supplemental” budget item, the B2 bomber would be retrofitted to deliver this weapon. Having a credible conventional weapons capability that could destroy underground nuclear facilities could be the “big stick” that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice needs to jump start serious negotiations.  (Fox video Special Report)

The Iranians are not a state I think that will change its behavior….just through talking to them.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Oct. 24, 2007

Naturally, the Democrats, and Ron Paul (R?-TX), are already complaining about this weapon and threatening to “defund” it. Why? Because, they are the Party of Defeat! Anything that could potentially contribute to a US victory in the War on Terror is an anathema to virtually every major Democratic Party leader, with the possible exception of Joe Lieberman, who was forced to run as an independent when challenged by a left-wing fringe candidate from within his own party.

This new weapon system would provide “strategic and tactical flexibility” for political and military leaders according to sources familiar with the capabilities of this “unconventional-conventional weapon.” There will be no need to “go nuclear” in order to terminate, or seriously degrade, Iran’s nuclear ambitions once this weapon system is deployed. It may even help our spineless European “allies” rapidly evolve into vertebrates with regards to their dealings with the religious dictatorship in Tehran. After all, an armed strike against Iran’s apocolyptic facilities would almost certainly degrade Iran’s ability to export oil. “Junkies” can become quite compliant when their “supply” is threatened.

While a single weapon system may not represent a military solution to the Iranian theocratic dictatorship’s intransigence in negotiations to end its nuclear weapons capability, it could certainly be the “catalyst” that results in a “paradigm shift” in our dealing with the current Iranian regime.

Oh, by the way, this is also a weapon that is rumored to be increasing UBL’s “pucker factor.” It’s hard to enjoy paradise with 72 virgins while you are entombed for eternity in a collapsed cave.

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?

Secretary of State Rice’s and Secretary of Defense Gates’ recent visit to Russia was widely reported as confrontational and as having made little, or no, progress.  (See the links in our post, “Putin postures, Condi walks the line.”)  There were even reports of a new “cold war.”  But after the international press corps packed up and left Moscow, a different picture is now emerging.  Once again, the mainstream media’s reporting may be ”accuracy challenged.” 

Russia Profile has a series of columns today, in their “Weekly Experts Panel“ introduced by Vladamir Frolov and entitled: A New Opening in U.S.-Russia Relations?  The German news agency, DPA (Deutsche Presse Agentur), also released an op-ed today: “Russia says US suggestions on missile defence are ‘interesting’.”  Compare it to the Russian News Agency’s, Novosti, article.  They are well worth the clicks.

Although peace in the Middle East has been elusive for decades, will Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s “spiritual passion” be the catalyst that begins the long, arduous march towards that long sought after goal? Even the Washington Post is reporting on the possibility. (link, “Rice Draws on ‘Spiritual Passion’ in Push for Peace”)

With the Blackwater investigation still going on, there is no shortage of mainstream media misinformation.  For an interesting perspective on the issue with historical background information of just how contracted security forces developed, checkout Strategic Forcasting’s (Stratfor) new blog by Dr. George Friedman, Friedman Writes Back and his posts: Geopolitical Foundations of Blackwater and Further Thoughts on Blackwater.

Much has been made of the Cheney-Rice “split” within the administration over the Israeli attack on Syria and how Secretary Rice held back the Israelis until they just couldn’t wait any longer — as if this is some type of astonishing revelation.  (MSNBC, Sunday Times, Jersalem Post, Al-Ahram, NY Times, Internat’l Herald Tribune, ) By definition, the Secretary of State is the chief diplomat of the nation.  So naturally she has more “invested” in diplomatic solutions.  What’s interesting, if the recent reports are to be given any creedence, is that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates — who, by a priori reasoning, would have more invested in military options — is on Condi’s “side.”

 What doesn’t follow is that after being criticized for a lack of aggressive diplomacy, by “Monday morning quarterbacks” ranging from Nancy Pelosi to Newt Gingrich, is that anyone would be surprised that Dr. Rice is doing just that — actively pursuing diplomatic solutions.  You can’t make some people happy — especially when they’re pursuing their own political agendas, whether on the right or the left.

Other concerns may be figuring into the SoS’s diplomatic and political calculus. 

1. She doesn’t want to repeat Secretary of State Colin Powell’s experience (Remember his UN WMD presentation?) of making a very public pitch for administration policy only to have poor intelligence damage her credibility at home and around the world.  So, of course, she would press the Israeli’s for “rock solid” intelligence, which apparently they obtained, before “signing off” on anything.
2. Diplomatic efforts in the Middle East and Asia would come to a screeching halt if our chief diplomat were viewed as a proponent of the “Sick’em, Israel” policy.  Who let the Dogs out? doesn’t translate well into Chinese, Arabic, or Russian.
3. Whether intentional or not, the “Good Cop — Bad Cop” negotiating technique is in play.  Secretary Rice can honestly say to whomever she is speaking, “Look, you earnestly need to negotiate with me now, because Lord knows what they’re cooking up while I’m out of town.  And if I go back ‘empty handed’ who knows what could happen…”  Since the Left and the Democratic Congress have taken the “Big Stick” out of Condi’s hands, “speaking softly” isn’t as effective as it used to be.

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.)

Reporting on a clear demonstration of support for Condi, an item in today’s New York Post appeared in Richard Johnson’s “Page 6″ column, Keen on Condi.

There were so many (limos)…some CEOs actually had to walk a couple of blocks to get to the New York City Partnership power breakfast with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice…”No one left early,” said one participant.

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.)

In an interesting bit of speculation — albeit from the Left — Democrats.com in a post by Bob Fertik wrote yesterday that the motivation behind John Negroponte’s move to State was to lay the foundation for Condi to resign as Secretary of State and start her 2008 campaign.  Intriguing, but we’d hardly characterize such a move as a “Hail Mary” pass as did Fertik.  Furthermore, Dr. Rice is an accomplished football strategist — thanks to her father, the coach — and we doubt that she’d call a play to “throw the long bomb” when it’s “first and ten.”  Then again, the best time to pass is when your opponent least expects it.

Ben Cardin, the Democrats’ $4 million man (and that’s just the primary)

In an example of Party discipline that would have made Stalin’s commissars proud, the Maryland Democratic machine recruited and nominated Congressman Ben Cardin to defeat Kweisi Mfume, a former congressman and past president of the NAACP, who - in the opinion of many political pundits - would have been a stronger candidate. Cardin and the party spent almost $4 million in order to deliver a very public “political payback” to Mfume. Moreover, during the primary, before Lt. Governor Steele locked up the Republican nomination, there were rumored to have been “more than a few” Maryland Democrats who felt that a white nominee would be the smart move since the “black vote was in the bag” no matter who their Democratic nominee was. (Another fine example of overpaid, political hacks being wrong, yet again - as evidenced by Steele’s growing support across racial and political lines.) In anticipation of potentially controlling the House or Senate with razor thin margins after the 2006 election, the Democratic leadership feels that strict Party discipline is paramount — so much so that it may end up costing them control of the Senate. What did Kweisi, a Democratic leader for years, do to provoke the wrath of the Democratic Party power structure?

In Maryland, he’s the Republicans’ “Man of Steele”

(Washington Times)

Beltway rumor has it that Mfume’s fall from grace from the Democratic Party of Howard Dean and Hillary Rodham Clinton, both of whom are enthusiastic fundraisers for “their man” Cardin, began with his outreach to (gasp) Republicans while NAACP President. This was viewed as a threat to the Democratic stranglehold on the black vote and a dangerous signal that rabid partisanship was no longer a prerequisite to rising in the Party hierarchy for black Democrats. Kweisi has been quoted, “Not every Democrat is your friend and not every Republican is your enemy.” This is heresy in the Democratic Party.

Kweisi Mfume: betrayed by the Democratic Party after a lifetime of work

The “nail in the coffin” for Mfume’s future as a Democrat was his 2003 decision to nominate Dr. Condoleezza Rice for the NAACP President’s Image Award. How dare he praise Dr. Rice on national television? In retaliation, Julian Bond, NAACP chairman nominated Boondocks cartoonist Aaron McGruder, who would later call Dr. Rice a “murderer” for her role in Iraq.

(more…)

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!

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.

Air America bankrupt?

Not so fast. We barely had finished our party planning for this weekend to celebrate the demise of Air America. However, this may NOT be a “done deal.” It could be just another stunt to soak millions from wealthy liberals by convincing them to invest in the “Little network that never could.” It is rumored that the cash-strapped network is threatening to “close the doors on progressive talk radio forever” unless their “marks” — or “investors” — come up with the cash. “The pitch” which, according to an anonymous source who claims to have been the audience for one of these presentations, apparently has been made to even a few “moderates.” (Blog Editor’s note: I wonder what it takes for Al Franken, or Janeane Garofalo, to consider someone a “moderate.”) It goes something like this: “American democracy is in your hands. Only you can keep (if talking to a liberal) the progressive agenda on the air.” If they’re a “moderate,” the presentation is altered to “Only you can keep ‘balance in the media.’”

What happened, Janeane?

A “deal sweetner” for any potential last minute rescuers will be that more than a few conservatives started the celebration of Air America’s demise prematurely.

The radio business lives and dies by audience market share, cold numbers that cannot be manipulated easily. Media hype can only go so far. Eventually the fact that you don’t have many listeners kills your advertising revenues. In an effort to promote the network last year, HBO even produced a movie, Left of the Dial, where many of the actors were those actually involved in launching the network. It was so popular that it was out on DVD within a few months.

Janeane Garofalo & Al Franken appeared in this HBO movie.

Here’s the Drudge review after he saw an advance copy of the “director’s cut” last year.

In the event that the network really does declare bankruptcy, the Left is already working on how to “put lipstick on the pig.” For example, the blogger Wonkette posted this about the reports of the pending closure:

shocking new developments today suggest that the lefties may be slightly less susceptible to jackasses screaming on the AM radio.

and the original ThinkProgres.org article was quick to point out:

The right wing is sure to seize on Air America’s financial woes as a sign that progressive talk radio is unpopular. In fact, Air America succeeded at creating something that didn’t exist: the progressive talk radio format. That format is now established and strong and will continue with or without Air America. Indeed, many of the country’s most successful and widely-syndicated progressive talk hosts — Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller, for instance — aren’t even associated with Air America.

Radio giant Clear Channel is so committed to progressive talk radio that, this week, it will announce a partnership with the Center for American Progress and MSS Inc. to conduct a nationwide search for the next Progressive Talk Radio Star.

Even if Air America fails to get some deep-pocketed sucker to pony up the cash in time, and Clear Channel doesn’t come through; there’s already another left-wing radio network in the US that liberals can financially support. It’s not as shrill as Air America, but it does have nice coffee cups and tote bags for donors. It’s called “NPR.”

As of this morning, the website quoted by Drudge and NewsMax that was at the center of this controversy, ThinkProgress.org, would not respond, perhaps due to heavy traffic, but no further updates have been forthcoming from them, or any other major media sources. The NewMax article from Wednesday afternoon quoted Air America spokesperson Jamie Horn:

“If Air America had filed for bankruptcy every time someone rumored it to be doing so, we would have ceased to exist long ago. It may be frustrating to some that this hasn’t happened. No decision has been taken to make any filing of any kind. We are not sure of the source of these rumors.”

So, we’ll have to wait and see about our party this weekend. Meanwhile, there’s also another left-wing presence appearing on the airwaves, and one of its founders has definite opinions about Condi. We’ll have a post about it later today.