Good evening again, Douglas! Douglas Friedman wrote to Frank Reichert...
Most of what you wrote tonight I can at least agree with as sound logic on your part, and probably reserve some personal judgement on. However, this paragraph does give me some problems. Here's what you wrote:
If Hillary is the Dem nominee then the Republican, whoever he is, will win in a landslide or near landslide. Dick Morris underestimates how much hatred there is for Hillary. And if Rice were the GOP candidate, then the Dem share of the black vote might drop from 85% to as low as 80%.
I don't believe we ought to assume as much, honestly. I believe that a black candidate, and a woman candidate combined into one candidate would command a giant of a revolution that BOTH groups would have to take a long and hard look at. Imagine that. The Chief Executive of the United States of America, first as a woman, and secondly as a black woman American! Admittedly, I believe a proportional segment of the black community, such as it is, might not be comfortable voting for her. But you seem to miss the larger picture that a lot of black voters aren't really dedicated liberals. A lot of the black people I have worked with and known over the years really don't have any axe to grind, nor do they necessarily support left wing causes.
Most of the black voters who vote Democratic do so because they believe that the Democratic Party is most likely to represent some of their interests in terms of Affirmative Action, and other areas in which they are particularly sensitive. Rice would ispell some of that obviously if she were the GOP standard bearer.
(Bush got only 10%, but that was below historical Republican
levels.) IOW, Rice would not be seen as a black president by most blacks. They would assume she was just a figurehead being manipulated by whites (probably Jews). I can't see what Rice would do that would end or even diminish racial divisions.
I understand why Bush was able to only garner plus or minus 10 percent of the black vote. He was Republican, and the GOP has not especially endeared itself with black voters for several decades. Another issue here is where I have to take exception to your rational over the issue of whether Rice would be seen by black voters as manipulated by whites! Actually, historically based, she has done the opposite. Her history, as such as is known, shows and demonstrates that a black woman can achieve success by hard work and determination even in a white driven society. There are other parallels to this, but that isn't especially my point.
There is absolutely no evidence that I have found that she might be tainted by the Jewish lobby either. I find this hard to believe that you would surface that particularly as an argument here. And, even if that were the case, black voters would likely not see that as an issue anyway, it would mostly be radical right-wing wild eyed extremists who might even raise that as an issue. Certainly black activists such as Jesse Jackson wouldn't dream of conjuring up something like this!
Look. I am not suggesting here that I like Condi's performance in the mid-east issues as posited by the Bush administration, and I am not really fond of her internationalist credentials either. But you seem to be trying mix both domestic and international issues as if black voters resonated between the two... and usually they do not. What black voters might be faced with is a reasonable choice on domestic issues that are most important to them, and I doubt honestly if Condi would be seen in that light as a negative vote for a great percentage of black voters.
I am no fan of Rice. I think she has been totally inept as Secy of State. I think she would be a totally incompetent, clueless president. Would I vote for her against Hillary? Of course. I'd vote for Ctulhu before I'd vote for Hillary. (At least in a Hillary-Ctulhu race, the battle would be for the greater of two evils.)
I differ with you here a bit also. I think in terms of foreign affairs, that Condi is far, far more intelligent and informed than her boss is! On internal and domestic issues, she is admittedly an unknown quantity. But she has voiced some views that seem to put her in the mainstream in domestic issues as well.
I guess I'm playing this as the devil's advocate. But one factor to consider is which issue is really most important to America right now... ending this tremendous racial divide that has somehow created this sordid mess of bifurcating people of various races against each other, and even to the point where race become an issue insofar as choosing which political Party ought to be paramount in considering who one chooses to vote for.
If Condi Rice were President of the United States, I seriously doubt she would contribute to any more damage that the present regime we current have in power today. I think she would be an effective administrator, and obviously surround herself with people in economic, social and foreign patterns that would probably resemble pretty much what we already have in place. Her history certainly shows that she is NOT an incompetent administrator.
I'm sure the media would love Hillary vs. Condi. I don't think that will be the race though.
Maybe not. But what GOP male candidate on the immediate horizon will be able to defeat Hillary Clinton? I haven't voted for a GOP Presidential candidate in years, usually opting out and voting Libertarian. In a tough race between two women for the top slot, with Condi Rice probably bringing to an end most of the racial divide in America, even I *MIGHT* consider changing patterns and voting for Condi Rice. And, aside from your meagre assumption that black voters wouldn't opt out for Hillary in favour of Condi Rice, I believe many of them would do so.
Aside from the racist bigots out there, I don't see anything here except perhaps a real choice in direction between the radical liberal left [white woman] and a genius of a real [black] woman who has fundamental conservative principles that can honestly defeat Hillary Clinton.
I don't think Condi Rice would bungle up anything worse insofar as her current boss has already done, and the polls show it. But I can't support, and wouldn't either, her obvious choices in terms of putting into place the US State Department under her leadership.
The point is, Hillary Clinton would probably do pretty much the same thing in terms of foreign affairs and the State Department. Where things would likely change is in perception and reality. The reality of a black woman as the Chief Executive of the United States. In my judgement, we probably need to consider now whether or not that might be a higher priority in this country, rather than world-wide globalism as a foreign policy priority, which admittedly is obviously a total disaster.
Kindest regards, Frank _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
