In a short space of time many newspapers are engaging themselves in speculations about next presidential election in United States. Most thrilling amongst these qualified guesses is a contest run between two best known and most powerful women (“Forbes magazine recently ranked Condi as number one and Hillary as number 26 in its 2005 list of the most powerful women in the world.”), Hillary Clinton versus Condoleezza “Condi” Rice.

Or as today’s article in the Guardian put it:

“There is, perhaps, an inevitability to the clash: two highly accomplished women, partisans of opposite parties, media superstars and quintessentially 21st-century female leaders, have risen to the top of American politics. Each is an icon to her supporters and admirers. Two groundbreakers, two pioneers.”

The only visible difference between these two possible candidates is their willingness to enter the race. While Hillary Clinton wants to be next president Condoleezza Rice seems to prefer to go back to somehow quieter life far from the spotlights.

“Hillary Clinton has always wanted to be the first woman President of the United States. Shortly after her husband's election in 1992, the couple's closest advisers openly discussed plans for her eventual succession after Bill's second term. Things didn't turn out quite that way, but her election to the Senate in 2000 gave her the national platform she needed to launch her new image - the 'Hillary Brand' - and begin her long march back to the White House.”

“Condi's dismissals have been more emphatic. During an interview with the Washington Times in March, she said she had no intention of running for President. A denial, but a soft one: 'I have never wanted to run for anything,' Rice said.”

Of course it’s more than three years before next presidential election will take place but these three years can give Education Forum chance to discuss and speculate freely on Hillary Clintons and Condoleezza Rice’s abilities or shortcomings. Like the example I choose from the article:

“Condi's and Hillary's respective reputations in politics, too, are diametrically opposed. Condoleezza Rice has never been involved in personal or professional wrongdoing; Hillary has been embroiled in scandal after scandal, ever since she entered public life. She has always teetered on the ethical edge.”

The quotations are taken from The Guardians review article of the book “Condi vs Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race” and can be found at: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/stor...1592978,00.html

As someone who remembers only too well the horrors of the Thatcher era, I advise against hoping that choosing a right wing woman and hoping she'll be better than or different to a right wing male is is rather like hoping that a different brand of cigarettes will be better than another. The packet may look different, be marketed differently, but what it does will still kill you.

And both these women are right wingers...

If these two female monsters indeed become the 2008 candidates, all I can say is that the American sheeple will deserve it. And the sheeple will deserve whichever monster the powers that be decide to impose upon them through the usual electoral fraud.

The "Vulcan" Rice would seem to be the likely choice, but there may be an understanding that the Clinton crime family is to be given its final turn in the White House. What difference does it make?

Comments made by conservative writer Rush Limbaugh in Wall Street Journal about democrats and Hillary Clinton:

The real crackup has already occurred--on the left! The Democratic Party has been hijacked by 1960s retreads like Howard Dean; billionaire eccentrics like George Soros; and leftwing computer geeks like Moveon.org. It nominated John Kerry, a notorious Vietnam-era antiwar activist, as its presidential standard-bearer. Its major spokesmen are old extremists like Ted Kennedy and new propagandists like Michael Moore. Its great presidential hope is one of the most divisive figures in U.S. politics, Hillary Clinton. And its favorite son is an impeached, disbarred, held-in-contempt ex-president, Bill Clinton.

His article at http://www.opinionjournal.com/ac/?id=110007417 is actually about Republican Party but his description of democrats and Clintons is something I never heard my friends who are democrats to even think. On the contrary they always fiercely attacked Republicans with carefully collected cartoons and jokes they assembled from internet. Sitting together with them and debating current issues was like being moved back to communist Czechoslovakia during my childhood; the political situation was depicted either as white or black …… no compromise or understanding of the republicans was possible. Condoleezza Rice was black bitches to my friends and I still recall their bitterness after the lost election of 2000. The same goes probably for Limbaugh. No understanding, no bridge buildings…….

Do these two women have a chance to heal this division which causes so much bitterness?

When it's difficult to put a very thin piece of paper between the policies of two parties (ie Republican and democrat in US) teh only REAL differences they can work on are personal. The invective will get worse as teh 2008 election nears. If the two key personalities are Rice and Clinton there are two whole new angles to open up.

Is there already a subtle drive from some journalist from the media to demonize Condoleezza Rice? At least some people suspect that. One of them is Michelle Malkin. who compared two photographs of Rice. The manipulated one was published by US Today.

Compare for yourself: http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003780.htm

US Today is apologizing for what happened by saying “The photo of Condoleezza Rice that originally accompanied this story was altered in a manner that did not meet USA TODAY's editorial standards. The photo has been replaced by a properly adjusted copy.”
at: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...-congress_x.htm

Was this “mistake” accidental? Is the rallying of both sides for 2008 election in progress already? Is this one of the ways it should be done?

Richard Morris has written a book arguing that only Dr. Rice can defeat Hilary.

http://www.harpercollins.com/imprints.asp?imprint=ReganBooks

Just scroll down to see his book.

I heard Morris on C-Span. He made an interesting closing comment. How important, he noted, it would be for young black Americans if Dr. Rice was elected.

That is only one of the reasons why I strongly support the candidacy of Dr. Rice.

There are a lot of expectations and excitements about next presidential election expressed by the introducer of the book Mrs.President Dick Morris. One of them sound like this:

Hillary Clinton does not want any other woman to take what she regards as her just place in history. Yet, ironically, it is Hillary's candidacy that makes Condi's necessary and, therefore, likely. The first woman nominated by the Democrats can only be defeated by the first woman nominated by the Republicans. Were Condi and Hillary to face one another, it would be the next great American presidential race and one of the classic bouts in history: Hector vs Achilles; Wellington vs Bonaparte; Lee vs Grant; Mary, Queen of Scots vs Elizabeth; Ali vs Frasier. And now, Condi vs Hillary.



In the article I mentioned and quoted in my first posting Morris wrote:

And wouldn't a Condoleezza Rice candidacy change America? The very fact that an African-American woman could actually become President would send a powerful message to every minority child that there is no more ceiling, no more limit for black Americans in elective politics. The sky would now be the limit.

And he continues making interesting comparisons between the two “would be” contenders as far as US black community is concerned:

Condoleezza Rice can defeat Hillary Rodham Clinton. Were she to run, her candidacy would strike directly at the three pillars of the Democratic party's political base: African-Americans, Hispanics and white women. The Democrats cannot win without fully tapping all three sources of votes. A Hillary Clinton candidacy is particularly strong because of her appeal to all three bastions of Democratic power. Because of her husband's long identification with minority voters, her efforts to court Hispanic voters and her own gender and record of feminism, she stands to cash in on the support of all three groups in a huge way.
But Condoleezza Rice, also a woman and an African-American, blocks Hillary's built-in advantages. How would Condi fare among blacks? Would she crack the solid phalanx of African- American support for the Democratic party, something no Republican has done in 50 years?
A number of prominent black Democratic politicians think she could. Bill Clinton's former secretary of agriculture, Mike Espy, the first black congressman from Mississippi and a lifelong Democrat, thinks Condi would run well among America's blacks. Espy was one of two African-Americans in Clinton's first cabinet.
'They are two brilliant women,' Espy says, 'evenly matched, both well rounded, both with interests outside politics.' How would the black community vote? 'Their heads would be for Hillary,' Espy predicts, 'but their hearts would be with Condi.' And which would they follow? 'We often are emotional and follow our hearts. We would all like to have parents like Condi's - focused, encouraging, nurturing - and we'd all like to have a daughter like Condi,' Espy says.
When I pressed him for a numerical prediction, the former congressman thought for a while and then said: 'My guess is that the race [among African-American voters] would be pretty much even. Hillary may have a bit of an edge because of the hegemony of the Democratic party base, but Condi would run much, much better than any other Republican. My guess would be a 60-40 Hillary margin.'
Sixty-40! For a Republican to win four out of 10 black votes would mean a major realignment in American politics. If Rice should realise anything close to such a gain in the African-American vote - and do as well as Bush among the rest of the electorate - she would sweep to an overwhelming victory, a true landslide.

Those who shall live will see ………….

Thank you for the post. I believe that Dr. Rice is perhaps the best qualified person on the political scene to be president. It would be tremenduously important both for blacks and for the Republican Party to have Dr Rice become President Rice--and I think it will happen if she agrees to run.

It should be noted that blacks have held the most important Cabinet positions under Bush I and Bush II (or Bush 41 and Bush 43 if you prefer).

Tim, I understand that if Condoleezza Rice would choose to stand up for the president in the presidential race of 2008 that this act would have a tremendous impact around and inside black communities throughout United States.

But what do you think about her political platform …… what do you think she will fight for and subsequently she will fight against during the primaries and if elected, as the president?

Shortly, in what way will her policy differ from the political thinking of Hillary Clinton?

In the past days Hillary Clinton visited Israel. According to Haaretz News Hillary Clinton expressed her support for the much debated “concrete wall” build between West Bank and Israel:

Hillary Clinton is quoted as saying:

"This is not against the Palestinian people. … This is against the terrorists. The Palestinian people have to help to prevent terrorism. They have to change the attitudes about terrorism."

Furthermore Hillary Clinton is describing Israelis withdrawal from Gaza ordered by Ariel Sharon as ”courageous". Haaretz quote her saying:

"That was an incredibly difficult position for him to take, and it caused great distress within the Israeli society. …. But he did it as a means of demonstrating that he is committed to trying to get back into a process."

Isn’t this a future president candidate talking? Making visit to one of the “hot spots” in Middle East …….

Showing herself as a tough politician taking more care of the difficult American national security policy where John Kerry failed in his bid to be elected as the president?

Trying to give American voters basically the same policy but in democrat party’s package?

The whole article is at: http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/644798.html

In an interview with US Today Condoleezza Rice denies any further political ambition after her today’s post as Secretary of State.

She is quoted as saying "When I go back to Stanford in 3½ years, I can guarantee you I will probably oversee dissertations that look at" what went wrong and right in Iraq.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...1-28-rice_x.htm

Somehow I like to publish on this thread. Yes, it is a non question basically ….. the election of 2008 is still far away …..
But on the other hand it’s interesting to follow how this possible contest between two bright and politically successful women is commented by others …...

In Laura Bush Sees Woman President in Future at: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/13/D8F410V07.html
the presidents wife comments on a prospect of female president by words:

"I think it will happen probably in the next few terms of the presidency in the United States,"
And then she adds a few words about Condoleezza Rice too: "I'd love to see her run. She's terrific."


Many of such comments are probably made because the TV-show “Commander in Chief” aroused such a great interest in the question of female president.

But it is undoubtedly truth that the United States of America right now has two bright female politicians who occupy the opposite sides of the play ground of American political scene.

Rice is a board member of Chevron, which props up a corrupt Nigerian military government that suppresses Ogoni activists and killed the writer Ken Saro-Wiwa.

US TV program Democracy Now! covered the story in 2003.
click here

The report included the following:

"On the ground in Nigeria, there is an oil war raging. Villagers in the oil-rich Niger Delta are rising up, demanding an end to a system that keeps them in poverty as their government pumps Nigeria’s natural resources to Western nations, enriching itself and oil executives. In unprecedented acts of resistance, villagers have seized oil rigs, barges and helicopters belonging to transnational oil corporations.

"The oil companies are fighting back. Today, we’re going to take an in-depth look at one of these cases.

"In 1998, Democracy Now! revealed for the first time that Chevron played a role in the killing of two Nigerian villagers.

"The San Francisco-based oil company helped facilitate an attack by the feared Nigerian Navy and notorious Mobile Police (MOPOL).

"In a interview with Democracy Now!, a Chevron official acknowledged that on May 28, 1998, the company transported Nigerian soldiers to their Parabe oil platform and barge in the Niger Delta, which dozens of community activists had occupied. The protestors were demanding that Chevron contribute more to the development of the impoverished oil region where they live.
-----

"Soon after landing in Chevron-leased helicopters, the Nigerian military shot to death two protesters, Jola Ogungbeje and Aroleka Irowaninu, and wounded several others. The eleven activists were detained for three weeks.

"During their imprisonment, one activist said he was handcuffed and hung from a ceiling fan hook for hours for refusing to sign a statement written by Nigerian federal authorities.

"Nigerian activists charge that Chevron's oil operations pollute their land, severely hampering fishing and farming, their only means of livelihood. The U.S. multinational Chevron Texaco is the third largest oil producer in Nigeria. Oil money provides roughly 80 percent of the dictatorship's revenue.

"It is very clear that Chevron, just like Shell, uses the military to protect its oil activities. They drill and they kill," Nigerian environmental attorney Oronto Douglas told Democracy Now!."

It’s slightly surprising that Hillary Clinton referred to as a Democratic front-runner for the 2008 presidential election would criticize administrations policy on Iran and it’s nuclear program from the position to the right to Bush’s administration in the article published by The Daily Princetonian at

http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/...ews/14290.shtml

She is quoted as saying:

"We cannot and should not — must not — permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons."

"I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations."

And further down in the article interested reader can find a tough-talking Clinton saying:

"We cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons."

Will voters get two distinctive choices 2008 concerning foreign policy?

I suspect the corruption in the Bush administration will have a similar impact that it had during the Nixon administration. As long as they don't make a mistake in selecting the candidate, the Democrats will win in 2008.

But they will, John.

Andrew Sullivan from British The Sunday Times delivered a week ago in his article She's trying too hard to be a contender an interesting analyze of Hilary Clintons steps towards her nomination for presidential race 2008.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/commo...55E7583,00.html

IF there's a certain schizophrenia in the rhetoric of senator Hillary Rodham Clinton these days, it's intentional. There she was last week, at a predominantly black congregation, lambasting Republicans. She lamented that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives has been "run like a plantation ... And you know what I am talking about". Republicans as slave holders? Now that's inflammatory.

Then only days later we saw the other side of Clinton's split political personality, a neo-conservative one: "I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations. I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it and standing on the sidelines.

"Let's be clear about the threat we face. A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbours and beyond. We cannot and should not -- must not -- permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons."

Running to the Left of President George W. Bush and to the Right of him as well is not a feat most politicians are able to pull off. But Clinton has no alternative. And in that lies her dilemma. She has too liberal a past (and reputation) to be the Democratic Right's favoured candidate; and she's become far too conservative in the Senate to win over the Democratic Left.

Clinton's straddle between two political identities is, of course, temporarily shrewd. She knows full well that the Democrats' key weakness is the war on terror. They have yet to persuade the public that they can defend the West more effectively than the Republicans.

But Andrew Sullivan sees many weaknesses in Hilary Clinton’s personality and political views to be impressed by her. He ends his article with following unusual suggestion:

My own hope is that she doesn't run. She doesn't have the instinctive connection with people to be an effective national politician: she's too cold, too calculating, too distant.

Her speeches have been getting better but still make Gore seem like a good performer. And a repeat of the acrimonious culture wars of the '90s is about the last thing the US needs.

Besides, there is a perfect position for her in American public life, and it's not in the Senate, despite her eminently respectable record there. She belongs on the Supreme Court. She's a lawyer who wants to change the world. That's almost a job description for a liberal justice. But she'll need a Democratic president to put her there. Maybe some of the cash she has been raising will help bring that about.

It could fund far worse causes: Hillary's own presidential ambition, for one.

Depending on whom you talk to in Hollywood these days, Hillary Clinton is either too conservative, too polarizing, too famous, too stiff or — keep this to yourself! — too sexy.

And Hollywood we all should listen to, isn’t it so? At least in Sweden, newspapers like to quote what super stars of the white screen have to say about politics ….. Sean Penn I believe is most quoted actor here !!!!!

Whole article printed by Los Angeles Times could be read at:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/...adlines-entnews

Not as straightforwardly a black and white choice, as outsiders may have thought then?

Certainly Clinton is going to try to be seen to be both left and right of Rice and vice versa. Then they'll try to be more of everything than the other (Jewish, Irish, Catholic, Protestant, even Black). It doesn't matter what you say to get power, so long as you do, it seems.

This is why (republican??) newspapers can see Clinton as 'too much'.

The Guardian of yesterday printed an interesting article ... well a future scenario written by Timothy Garton Ash under the headline

“The tragedy that followed Hillary Clinton's bombing of Iran in 2009”

This article not only assumed that Hillary Clinton will be elected to the highest office after a tough campaign against (not Condoleezza Rice!!) but against republican John McCain .. but it assume also that the path chosen by today’s president will probably be followed by numerous future presidents mainly because the alternatives are not to be found anywhere around.


The article can be found at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1757027,00.html

John,

Yes, but nominating Hillary would be that mistake---which is why that may be what will happen. Who knows, the way things are headed right now we'll be able to have another presidential impeachment about this time next year---and on far more significant issues than Oval Office philandering with phat girls. It's funny (to me) though, how GOP supporters think Rice's candidacy would be so great: apparently they're not very aware of the social attitudes typical of the "Republican base" toward minorities and women; in other words, they're lucky that most of that base is unaware of the details of US presidential succession, and how close they are right now to having a black woman as President.

Do you think Bush will really be impeached? I do suspect that the CIA is currently trying to remove Bush from office. See the following thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6648

"Do you think Bush will really be impeached? I do suspect that the CIA is currently trying to remove Bush from office."

John,
That's a long issue to respond about in one question, and I try not to think too much since it's safer that way. But here's my angle: the Bush Administration and the President himself have proven unable to take the real responsibility for things despite tough talk to that effect; the main thing being "bad intelligence"---had nothing to do with wanting a certain type of intelligence (demanding it, even), had nothing to do with anything they wanted to do (like "regime change" in Iraq), had nothing to do with highest-level decisions, hubris, over-optimism, etc. It was all the fault of "faulty intelligence"---in other words, it's on them (the intelligence community), not us (the high potentates). That is demoralizing for anyone in the career professional business of working in the intelligence community. Same goes for career people in the diplomatic field. Also, not incidentally, a serious and similar issue about 11 September 2001 itself: just because the President spends a lot of time clearing brush out at the ranch doesn't mean he wasn't fully prepared to handle the job or didn't "know what it takes"; instead, the fault lies with lack of coordination and faulty lines of communication between and among the various components of US national security establishment. Again, an inherent or implied criticism (and responsibility!) of career professionals.

Now we've finally got military leaders standing up and saying enough is enough, asking for Rumsfeld's resignation (they might like to go higher up in the chain of command, but what they're doing is controversial enough). And then Gerald Ford gets dragged out of bed to make some comments about how dangerous or troubling that is in terms of civilian control of the military; funny how he gets dragged into so many situations (Warren Commission, presidential pardoning of non-indicted co-conspirators who aren't on trial). But anyway, it's a similar situation and far more serious one for military men. How can you expect men who command troops and have to take responsibility for sending men out to kill and die to feel about that when they recognize how incompetent the "real" leadership has been? Again, there's the primary issue of demoralization in general, but in a war zone with no apparent end in sight and no recognition of the reality of a civil war situation and no sense that the "leadership" knows where it's going or how to solve it.

And then, of course, there was the eerily familiar circumstances of the President being on "vacation" (actually, actively trying to drum up support for what is clearly his war) while disaster unfolded in the Gulf coast last year. So, to sum up, there's a lot of demoralization and a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction to go around. I have no comment on what the CIA is doing or wants to do or can do. I have faith in the basic common sense and decency of the vast majority of American citizens and I plan to vote my conscience along with the rest of them this November.

I see you still have a lot of nutters in the US who think that Hillary Clinton is a communist.

As the likelihood of a Clinton campaign becomes a reality, more reasons turn up that suggest why she could lose the nomination.
Interesting analyse about Hillary Clinton ambitions and chances written by National Journal at
http://nationaljournal.com/todd.htm

People who two years in advance (and after recent middle term elections) are interested of the approaching primaries the article “Hillary's Primary Problem” could add new knowledge and perspectives.

Too many of us have awarded Clinton the '08 nod too soon and too easily. The conventional-wisdom crowd is easily impressed by two things about her candidacy: money and her last name. There's also a dirty little secret that those of us in the media are leery to admit: She's good for business (particularly expense reports).

The article presents six reasons why the task of winning nomination could be insurmountable:
passion, Iowa, Iraq, gender, Bill Clinton, president Bush.

Read it!