The presidential election 2008

[Dalibor Svoboda]

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

Edited October 19, 2005 by Dalibor Svoboda

[Ed Waller]

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...

Edited October 16, 2005 by Ed Waller

[Ron Ecker]

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?

[Dalibor Svoboda]

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?

Edited October 19, 2005 by Dalibor Svoboda

[Ed Waller]

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.

[Dalibor Svoboda]

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?

[Tim Gratz]

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.

[Dalibor Svoboda]

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.

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.

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 ………….

Edited November 3, 2005 by Dalibor Svoboda

[Tim Gratz]

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).

Edited November 5, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Dalibor Svoboda]

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?

[Dalibor Svoboda]

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

[Dalibor Svoboda]

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

[Dalibor Svoboda]

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.

[Derek McMillan]

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!."

[Dalibor Svoboda]

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?