Why ABC's "Commander-in-Chief" is a Condi Rice clone

bump

Thank you. :)

As this plan would eliminate from the presidential pool the entire political class), it probably wouldn't fly.

The next best thing would be to rate president-wannabe intensity, and have a cutoff point, perhaps at the silly Biden-Frist level, but certainly at a level that would include the pathological level of Gore or the clintons (taken one at a time).

What I think happened on this thread: the typical approach-avoidance conflict playing out in real time. ;)

thanx. and good luck. :)

perceptive. editing and compressing a bit more. thanx. :)

LOL...... that is funny. Certainly people who talk about wanting to be president when they are right out of the sand box should be suspect! ;-)

By the way, I don't know if you ever kept this stuff for your use

********

Hillary is the FREAK she is for a few reasons, but a guy by the name of Rev. Don Jones is one major reason. He was the young "hip" youth minister at her First Methodist Church of Park Ridge (Illinois) who influenced her greatly.

From Gail Sheehy's book Hillary's Choice ---

Another important older man entered Hillary's life that same year (1961), when she was hovering between thirteen and fourteen on the cusp of adolescence. He was a tall, blond, blue-eyed man who wore a crew cut and white bucks and tooled around town in a bright red Impala convertible. He was young and all the girls thought he was good looking. But Don Jones was also a true intellectual- Hillary's type. Twenty-six and fresh from divinity school at Drew University across the Hudson River from New York City, he succeeded three youth ministers who had been safe and traditional. Jones represented a radical change for the sleepy First Methodist Church of Park Ridge.

"New ideas were frowned upon in our community," says Patsy Henderson Bowles. "We hadn't been exposed to diversity. Don wanted us to think about where other people were coming from and to understand their problems."

Jones was the only alternative reality in town. On Sunday evenings in September of 1961, he would offer Hillary's church youth his version of the "University of Life" program. He had been outside the sterile world of suburbia and could offer a window onto the more exotic worlds of abstract art. Beat poetry, existentialism, and the rumblings of radical political thought and counterculture politics that were eventually to explode under the smug slumber of even the good gray burghers of Park Ridge."

If you haven't yet read 'Hillary's Choice', it's very helpful in understanding from where Hillary is coming.

******

Also:

If she throws herself into the race in 2008, the following paragraphs may go a long way to explain to your neighbors and friends who she really is and keep her out of office. Make some copies of it please, or save it for the future, because it goes right to her very inappropriate, controlling, socialist personality and plans. If she ever dives in, the lamestream media will go along and gladly paint a very positive picture of the "woman". Look for instance how Viacom removed the thunderous boos of the police and the fireman and their families at the 9/11 Concert in New York. This type of thing goes on every day to her benefit and at the same time to the injury to the country.

In the event she runs in 2008, you and I owe it to the country to hand this out to our friends and neighbors who are on the election fence, and try to help explain to them who Hillary Clinton really is.

She will continue to be a real threat as long as a substantial proportion of the media is quite willing to protect and promote her as in the past.

Educating your friends and neighbors is ultimately important, and it will work if it is done in each neighborhood and town in this country.

**********************

In the early 70’s Hillary, through Marian Edelman was hired as a research assistant by the Carnegie Council on Children, a blue ribbon panel of eleven ‘experts’ assembled by the Carnegie Corporation. Its mandate, in part, was to respond to the concerns of sociologist Uri Bronfenbrenner, who had compared child rearing in the Soviet Union and the United States, and found the United States wanting. The Council’s book-length report, 'All Our Children', is MUST reading for anyone who seeks to understand Hillary Rodham’s plan for the future of American families.

The Carnegie panelists started with the assumption that the triumph of the “universal entitlement state” was an inevitability, and the best thing Americans could do for their children was to hasten its arrival. Just as families in an earlier era turned their children’s education over to the public schools, the report argued, so in the future should government assume responsibilities for many other areas of children’s lives. This being so, there was no reason to feel guilty about or harbor concern for the rising rate of divorce. The decline of the nuclear family need not be worrisome, because “schools, doctors, and counselors and social workers provide their support whether the family is intact or not. One loses less by divorce today because marriage provides fewer kinds of sustenance and satisfaction.”

More significantly, 'All Our Children' offers a blueprint for undermining the authority of parents whose values the authors consider outmoded. The chapter entitled, “Protection of Children Rights,” the section on which Hillary worked, observes that “it has become necessary for society to make some piecemeal accommodations to prevent parents from denying children certain privileges that society wants them to have.” The report goes on to advocate laws allowing children to consult doctors on matters involving drug use and pregnancy without parental notification, and preventing schools from “unilaterally” suspending or expelling disruptive students.

But this is just the beginning. The Carnegie panel further calls for developing a new class of “public advocates” who will speak for children’s interests on a whole range of issues, from the environment to race relations: “In a simpler world, parents were the only advocates for children. This is no longer true. In a complex society both children and parents need canny advocates."

The report goes on to suggest that “child ombudsmen” be placed in public institutions and some sort of insurance be introduced to enable individual children to hire “decently paid” private attorneys to represent their interests. The possibilities for child advocacy would seem to be endless. For example the report says, attorneys could bring class-action lawsuits to hold corporations liable for FUTURE damages their businesses might cause to TODAY’S children.

This is the voice of people who think they know all the answers and want to use children as a tool to impose their will on others. Is it really time for the government to take even more control and responsibility for your children? I don't think so, and I don't think the majority of you, your friends, and your neighbors feel that way either. That is why it might be good to make this available to them if Hillary jumps in.

In 1972 Hillary spoke at a Democrat platform meeting in Boston. Hillary Rodham testified in favor of a platform that would extend civil and political rights to children. Her position went even beyond that of the Children’s Defense Fund or the Carnegie Council. In an article published in November 1973 in the Harvard Educational Review, she advocated liberating our “child citizens” from the “empire of the father.” This was good feminist reasoning for which the rationale can be found in the writings of Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre. (“There is no good father, that’s the rule,’ Sartre said. “Don’t lay the blame on men but on the bond of paternity, which is rotten.”)

In Hillary’s own words, “The basic rationale for depriving people of their rights in a dependency relationship is that certain individuals are incapable or undeserving of the right to take care of themselves and consequently need social institutions to safeguard their position…….. Along with the family, past and present examples of such arrangements include marriage, slavery, and the Indian reservation system.”

On last night's addition of the entertainment news show "The Insider," they had a poll. Who would you vote for as President in 2008 if the candidates were:

Condi Rice, Hillary Rodham-Rodham, or Oprah Winfrey.

Well, Condi won the poll.

~Scott~

sandbox ambitions

Certainly people who talk about wanting to be president when they are right out of the sand box should be suspect!--beyond the sea

Perfect.
If not their sandbox presidential ambitions, certainly their documented abuse of women--specifically, their rape of Juanita Broaddrick--and their willful, utter failure to confront terrorism, would, in a normal world, be automatic disqualifiers.
In a normal world, the clintons would be laughed off the stage. At a minimum.
As for their "for the children" demagoguery:

For the children?
the clintons ARE pornography downloads

by Mia T, 7.14.05

How cheerfully he seems to grin,
How neatly spreads his claws,

And welcomes little fishes in
With gently smiling jaws!

~Alice's Adventures in Wonderland

LUCINDA FRANKS: I think you're wrong because, after about two years of -- of working on this, you know, on and off, I think the president -- that the teenage culture caused the president's behavior in the way he behaved in -- with the oral sex.

BILL O'REILLY: I think you're crazy, Ms. Franks, with all due respect.

Fellating Kids and clinton Degeneracy: The Revisionism Begins

f missus clinton
is serious
about keeping
pornography downloads
from our kids,
she
and that... husband... of hers
will upload themselves
straightaway
to
Chappaqua... or wherever...
and stay clear of
the Oval Office
--and the public square--
forever.
LUCINDA FRANKS: I think you're wrong because, after about two years of -- of working on this, you know, on and off, I think the president -- that the teenage culture caused the president's behavior in the way he behaved in -- with the oral sex.

BILL O'REILLY: I think you're crazy, Ms. Franks, with all due respect.
Fellating Kids and clinton Degeneracy: The Revisionism Begins

"Be Liberal, Live in Ignorance and Servitude"
by Gail Wynand

Liberals have always had problems figuring out causation. They believe for example that because people who smoke (sometimes) have higher rates of cancer than people who don't that smoking CAUSES cancer, worse, they believe that if people get cancer it is the fault of the "tobacco companies" (i.e., caused by the manufactures of tobacco products). They further believe that the remedy for this fault is that billions of dollars in "damages" should be transferred from the wealth of stockholders in tobacco companies to a handful of plaintiffs lawyers including the First Lady's relatives and others closely associated with the Democratic party. And they believe, apparently, that if young people are now experimenting with sex at early ages and with more profoundly explicit practices than in past years, and that if the President of the United States decides to enroll a young intern in rendition of such services to his middle aged libido resultantly staining both her dress and America's reputation, that a spontaneous wave of teenage sex experimentation, sucked (sorry) the poor middle aged chief executive into its vortex.
Deducing causation in most events takes deliberate, focused, thought, insight, and a disciplined intelligence that doesnt skip foundational indoctrination (aka actually studying in school). Causation of the diseases associated with cancer is highly complex and to a large degree still unknown. That smoking is probably not healthy for you is well known. That a middle aged chief executive, Yale Law School graduate, former professor of Constitutional Law and State Attorney General should be responsible and accountable for his own actions including HIS perjury and obstruction of justice would seem axiomatic to all but a liberal who has the capacity to adopt causationally convenient theories based solely on tangential proximity to the event under examination rather than through any rational analysis of the importance or significance of the asserted cause to the event. Thus, "guns" are used in some murders therefore, to a liberal all "guns" should be either banned or kept in locked safes with trigger locks so as to disarm the law abiding public and eviscerate their legally recognized right to effective self defense.
Quite simply, one has to be pretty stupid or very corrupt or both to be a liberal, at least and for sure to be a Clinton supporter. But it is worse than that, one also has to deny the importance of human consciousness and free will. That is, a Clinton defending liberal apparently believes that childhood psychic trauma, teenage sex trends (remarkably and largely only rampant among the social classes targeted by liberals for social intervention for the past 40 years) and the power of "addiction" which used to be considered merely "habituation" in more stalwart times, are more significant than free will in determining human conduct.

Clearly someone should notify America's founders that they have erred... men are not deserving of self-government, because clearly self-government is nothing more than the aggregation of all our psychic traumas and libidinal confusions.. and look where that has gotten us...one Clinton leaving the white house and one aiming for the US Senate for the State of New York... perhaps the liberals ARE onto something? But no, study the last two Clinton elections carefully... this most shameless and shameful American President is the product of plurality (less than majority) votes obtained through the gile and intrigue of an elitist cabal of intellectually impaired and ethically corrupt media manipulators aligned in effect with the electoral tampering of one man, H. Ross Perot, who although he occasionally gave a good speech was still intelligent enough to know his only role was to twice deny the conservative majority of American voters a first choice for President. And now even as Evita determinedly grasps for the Security Power and Influence of the Senate seat, one sees in her early campaigning the overriding awareness that her only hope is the sowing of confusion and ignorance... the demonization of a long time public servant whose accomplishments are towering, the pandering to the lowest and most depraved and corrupt anti social organizations and figures (no not the mob, the teachers unions and Mr. Sharpton). Arm in arm this body of liberal enthusiasts march forth to assure that America continues to be contaminated and disabled by their control of government into the 21st century... arrogantly and in complete disregard of truth, rationality, or the notion of liberty... they pound at the very gates of freedom, threatening to burn (redefine to mean the opposite of what they say) the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address and replace them with their own Orwellian Banners of "community" "children" "education" "fairness" and all the other focus group tested liberal-illogicisms. But the translation exists and when the alien identifying sunglasses are donned all of their slogans can be seen to read "Be Liberal, Live in Ignorance and Servitude"

The Wall Street Journal

EDITORIAL
October 18, 2000

Did he rape that woman, Juanita Broaddrick?

thanx to WorkingClassFilth for the video
special thanx to Jim Robinson

The closest... Clinton has ever come to answering allegations... he raped an Arkansas woman in 1978 is a distance measurable only in light-years.
After Juanita Broaddrick made the accusation in 1999, [Clinton]'s attorney, David Kendall, alone answered, saying any such charges were "absolutely false."
Of course, attorney Robert Bennett believed... Clinton when he said he hadn't had sex with Monica Lewinsky and defended the president then on no toss sturdy grounds.
Thus while lawyers can spare Mr. Clinton awkward moments at the podium in which he has to say, "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" or "I did not fondle that woman, Kathleen Wlley" or "I did not rape that woman, Mrs. Broaddrick," their comments are, in effect, non-denial denials.
Given the silence from the West Wing, Mrs. Broaddrick this week sought answers from Hillary Clinton, whose telescopic feminism apparently sees injustice to women everywhere except the kind which occurs closer to home.
.In a letter to Mrs. Clinton recalling their meeting shortly after the reported assault occurred, she wondered about the significance of Mrs. Clinton's words to her at that time. Thank you, Mrs. Broaddrick says Mrs. Clinton told her, for "everything you do for Bill."
"What did you mean, Hillary?" her letter continued. "Were you referring to my keeping quiet about the assault I had suffered at the hands of your husband only two weeks before? Were you warning me to keep quiet?"
The not-so-subtle implication of the letter is that Mrs. Clinton is, in fact, her husband's enabler. Dealing with her husband's promiscuity and worse might keep her from dealing with the important issues facing the people of New York, namely her candidacy. One might call it a Faustian bargain except that even Mephistopheles might not lower himself to sign such a deal....
EXCERPT
COMPLETE ARTICLE

In the event she runs in 2008, you and I owe it to the country to hand this out to our friends and neighbors who are on the election fence, and try to help explain to them who Hillary Clinton really is.

She will continue to be a real threat as long as a substantial proportion of the media is quite willing to protect and promote her as in the past.

Educating your friends and neighbors is ultimately important, and it will work if it is done in each neighborhood and town in this country.

beyond the sea

You make a critically important point. We must inform the electorate on a one-to-one basis. But I would not limit it to the undecideds. Democrats, by definition disinformed, misinformed and uninformed, are ripe for conversion.
Just the other day I was at the bank conducting business, speaking to an officer of the bank. Politics came up and I segued to the clintons. I told her about Broaddrick and the other women, told her about the terrorism failure. In detail. As we continued to speak, it was clear that this new information had changed her thinking.
I would also suggest choosing targets for these one-to-one talks strategically to maximize benefit. For example, I have in the past informed in great detail a very bright Latino gentleman about the clintons and the democrats. I chose him because the GOP needs the Latino vote and because he was very bright, ambitious and was a leader in his community. The last criterion is very important. As it turned out, he went on in '04 to flip a number of voters in his community from Kerry to Bush.
If each of us would flip, say 3 Democrats, can you imagine the landslide?
I am launching deletehillary.com specifically for this purpose. Not much there yet. Just the homepage image (the links aren't active yet) and infinitely looping quotes about the clintons. You might want to take a look.

CORRECTIONS/ADDITIONS

On last night's addition of the entertainment news show "The Insider," they had a poll. Who would you vote for as President in 2008 if the candidates were: Condi Rice, Hillary Rodham-Rodham, or Oprah Winfrey.
Well, Condi won the poll.
~Scott~

...offering support for the Condi clone theory. ;)

Below is a corrected version with additions.

Why ABC's "Commander-in-Chief" is a Condi Rice clone

by Mia T, 9.28.05

ommander-in-Chief" Mackenzie Allen is a carefully crafted Condi-Rice clone. She is not hillary clinton. Indeed, she is specifically antihillary.

This can mean only one thing: hillary clinton and her agitprop machine have determined that missus clinton, the construct, is unelectable.

Because ABC is part of the permanent clinton agitprop, because the "Commander-in Chief" head writer is a veteran of clinton campaigns and hillary's press office, because the show has been perfectly positioned to desensitize the electorate to the notion of a woman president just in time for hillary, because of all of the above, one would not expect ABC to model the show's protagonist after hillary clinton's infinitely more qualified potential rival.

So why has it done just that?

"Commander-in-Chief" is electoral legerdemain. It is yet another clinton two-step intended to fool the voters. It is designed to:

desensitize them to the concept of a female president, using a highly qualified exemplar, the Condi-Rice clone

NB: The critical importance, post-9/11, of the relationship between America and the patriarchal islamic culture presents an insurmountable hurdle for any woman presidential candidate... with the exception of Condi Rice.
bait and switch; conflate the highly qualified, electable Condi-Rice clone with the highly unqualified, unelectable hillary clinton

ALL HILLARY, ALL THE TIME...

This is not to say the series isn't ALL about hillary. You just don't SEE hillary.

You don't see hillary's looming presence.

You don't see her smallness. Her haughty distain. Her flat affect.

You don't see her corruption. Her ineptitude. Her banality.

You don't see her rage. Her coldness.

You don't see her abusiveness. Her vulgarity. Her stridency.

You don't see her extremism. Her balkanizing. Her lust for power.

You don't see the harridan. You don't see the Hildabeast.

SHELL GAME

What you do see is Condi, Condi in a President Allen "shell."

You see a President Allen who is idealistic, is accomplished in her own right, does not crave power, has a nonpartisan streak, is an intellectual, was plucked from the chancellorship of a great university, speaks with a quiet strength.

You see a President Allen who even looks like Condi Rice. The strong bone structure, the wideset intelligent brown eyes, the full lips, the brunette, retro flip, (aka 'power flip' post-Condi), the great figure. And perhaps definitively, the legs.

It would be naive to think that this wasn't a precise clinton calculation, what with her main man the lead writer 'n all.

At first I thought it was a feint. If "Commander-in-Chief" is a too-transparent hillary infomercial, ABC's agenda will certainly backfire. Perhaps that was the initial reasoning and explains why, for example, gorgeous Geena Davis and not some squat bottle-blonde matron, was cast in the lead.

HOLLYWOOD-DC RATIONALE

But in the end, there are, in my view, two reasons for the Condi shell, (corresponding to the two relevant cities, Hollywood and DC).

The first is that Hollywood typecasts. Condi is presidential and hillary is a fishwife.

And the second is the thesis, above, that hillary clinton and her agitprop machine have determined that missus clinton, the construct, (missus clinton, "as is,") is unelectable, and so they will desensitize and bait and switch.

They will desensitize the electorate to the concept of a female president, (using a highly qualified exemplar, the Condi-Rice clone because they have determined that a hillary exemplar would be rejected, that, indeed, given the post-9/11 realities, Condi Rice is perhaps the only female exemplar that would work.)

Then they will bait and switch; conflate the highly qualified, electable Condi-Rice clone with the highly unqualified, unelectable hillary clinton. Indeed, the clinton conflation ploy to make hillary acceptable to the voter is already a clinton standard operating procedure, witness missus clinton's address to the Democratic Leadership Council in Columbus, Ohio in July.

SCHEMA PINOCCHIO how the clintons are handling the hillary dud factor by Mia T, 8.03.05

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE) MAD hillary series #5 WHY MISSUS CLINTON IS DANGEROUS FOR THE CHILDREN FOR AMERICA FOR THE WORLD

They turned our bridge to the 21st century into a tunnel back into the 19th century. Back us out of that Republican tunnel, fill it in, go back across the bridge.... We'll have a giant celebration when we come back to Columbus in 2020. There's nothing more wonderful than making dreams come true.

hear hillary clinton
address to the Democratic Leadership Council
Columbus, Ohio
7.31.05

issus clinton is a dud.

I could say she has all of bill clinton's baggage and none of his charm, except I don't find bill clinton charming. What she lacks, in my view, is lubricant. Snake oil. She grates.

It's more than simple dislike. You don't want to see her; and you definitely don't want to hear her.

Missus clinton is everyman's worst nightmare: ex-wife, fishwife, frigid wife, mother-in-law; worse, the abusive Nazi commandant in the Lina Wertmuller masterpiece. When she humiliates, which is always, she dons the military-issue undershirt, she grabs the whip.

The clintons are clearly aware of this problem and are attempting to mitigate it with veneer.

Their first ploy is to pushpoll to artificially jack up missus clinton's numbers; this is a relatively easy task, given a compliant press. This illusion of electability is intended to fool the voters, activate the herd mentality and ultimately fool the smart money of the David Geffen-Harold Ickes stripe.

It won't work. Missus clinton has 100% name recognition. Any vote she doesn't already have, she won't get. Conversely, many voters have 0% information on the clinton abuses of power and utter failures. From this it follows that many votes she has today, she won't have tomorrow.

Their second ploy is to conflate "bill" and "hillary." "The clintons" become a single construct. Missus clinton arrogates bill's "bridge to the 21st century " as "theirs." And, by lifting the lyrics straight from Pinocchio, she becomes "the man from 'hope'."

The danger here for missus clinton is that with the bridge and the hope come the abuses and the utter failures.

AFTERWORD:

Who in heaven's name is writing missus clinton's speeches? They make her sound like a cross between Pinocchio on Halcyon and a clueless tourist from Park Ridge, Illinois driving into Manhattan during rush hour. Oops.

And the plagiarizing... I mean, the clintons are shameless. And it isn't only Pinocchio.

In 2002, I wrote that the bridge to the 21st century was, arguably, clinton's most delusional conceit, that it overshot the mark by at least 1400 years.

To be fair, missus clinton's 19th-century reference is to that <yawn> retrograde 'retrograde Republicans' cliché, whereas my 7th-century reference is to the retrograde-in-fact islamofascist terrorists, whose jihadi declarations and acts of war against us the clintons willfully ignored for eight long years--allowing al Qaeda to grow exponentially in strength and reach, setting us up--very nicely, thank you--for 9/11 and its cataclysmic aftermath.

: link to movie
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
CONDOLEEZZA RICE USED POWER OF DIPLOMACY TO END COLD WAR STRENGTHENED AMERICA PROMOTED WORLD PEACE HILLARY CLINTON ABUSED POWER, PROXIMATE CAUSE OF TERROR WAR UNDERMINED AND WEAKENED AMERICA FOMENTED DIVISION AND HATRED THE THREAT OF TERRORISM IS AS CLOSE AS A CLINTON IS TO THE OVAL OFFICE

NANO-PRESIDENT
the danger of the unrelenting smallness of bill + hillary clinton

by Mia T, 7.31.05

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
MAD hillary series #4
WHY MISSUS CLINTON IS DANGEROUS
FOR THE CHILDREN
FOR AMERICA
FOR THE WORLD

Ian Hunter recently observed that our leaders are shrinking. "From a Churchill (or, for that matter, a Margaret Thatcher) to a [pre-9/11] Tony Blair; from Eisenhower to Clinton; from Diefenbaker to Joe Clark; from Trudeau to Chretien -- we seem destined to be governed by pygmies."

Mindless rhinestone-studded-and-tented kleptocracy
Mia T, November 1999

ur leaders are inexorably shrinking. According to current mathematical models, they are shrinking at a rate of 6.7 per linear dimension per election cycle per terrorist attack. At this rate, most leaders will be nanoleaders by the 2020s.

The leader-shrinkage function is discontinuous for
1992 =< t <= 2000 and continuous for all other t.

The 1990s saw in America a sudden, discontinuous drop in leader size, a drop that retrospectively, post-9/11, has been theorized to be its greatest lower bound.
(Can anything be lower than a clinton?)

"Two for the price of one," the clinton pitch in '92 -- (Did the clintons understand at the time that one was not enough?) -- only made matters worse. Missus clinton in the West Wing actually added to this discontinuous decrease in leader size.

History will record, therefore, that the clintons--the twofer, (1992-2000), were America's first nano-president.

The clintons continue to imperil virtually every sector of society, indeed, continue to imperil America and the world, with their exponentially increasing facility in manipulating electoral/policy matter and energy at ever smaller scales. Their "school uniforms" of the '90s became "nanotech uniforms" today; both are proxies for "fight terrorism," which the clintons have neither the stomach nor the know-how to do.

The twofer construct, transposed to circumvent the 22nd Amendment, is now poised to retake power. A self-replicating, Constitution-specific pathogen, the clinton nano-presidency, post-9/11, is a danger that we cannot -- we must not -- abide.

SEE ALSO:
SCHEMA PINOCCHIO
how the clintons are handling the hillary dud factor

The Hotline also polled on some questions concerning 2008. In their poll, Hillary Clinton has a positive approval rating of 48 to 44 percent.
By contrast, Condoleezza Rice has a 59 to 25 percent approval rating.
By an overwhelming percentage of 85 to 9, respondents said they would be comfortable supporting a female candidate for the White House. And by a greater margin, 86 to 4 percent, participants said they would vote to support an African-American candidate who was well qualified.
Rice also strongly outpolls Clinton on all national security questions: who is stronger on national security issues, ability to handle an international crisis, ability to protect the U.S. from a terrorist attack, ability to manage Iraq and ability to be a "strong and decisive" leader.
For more on Rice, please check out my NRO piece today.
The Power of Rice (Condi vs. Hillary, 2008)
National Review Online's The Buzz | June 14, 2004 | Eric Pfeiffer

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
November 16, 2004

President Nominates Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State
The Roosevelt Room

President's Remarks
listen

12:33 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon. I'm pleased to announce my nomination of Dr. Condoleezza Rice to be America's Secretary of State. Condi Rice is already known to all Americans, and to much of the world.
During the last four years I've relied on her counsel, benefited from her great experience and appreciated her sound and steady judgment. And now I'm honored that she has agreed to serve in my Cabinet. The Secretary of State is America's face to the world. And in Dr. Rice, the world will see the strength, the grace and the decency of our country.
Both Condi and I have been proud to serve with our friend, Secretary of State Colin Powell. He has been one of the most effective and admired diplomats in America's history. Secretary Powell has helped to rally the world in a global war, has helped to resolve dangerous regional conflicts; he's helped to confront the desperate challenges of hunger, poverty and disease. He has been tireless and selfless and principled, and our entire nation is grateful for his lifetime of service.
I'm also grateful that Steve Hadley has agreed to become my new National Security Advisor. Steve served Presidents Nixon, Ford and Bush before me, and he has done a superb job as Dr. Rice's deputy during these past four years. Steve is a man of wisdom and good judgment. He has earned my trust and I look forward to his continued vital service on my national security team.
When confirmed by the Senate, Condoleezza Rice will take office at a critical time for our country. We're a nation at war; we're leading a large coalition against a determined enemy; we're putting in place new structures and institutions to confront outlaw regimes, to oppose proliferation of dangerous weapons and materials, and to break up terror networks.
The United States has undertaken a great calling of history to aid the forces of reform and freedom in the broader Middle East so that that region can grow in hope, instead of growing in anger. We're pursuing a positive direction to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, an approach that honors the peaceful aspirations of the Palestinian people through a democratic state, and an approach that will ensure the security of our good friend, Israel.
Meeting all of these objectives will require wise and skillful leadership at the Department of State, and Condi Rice is the right person for that challenge. She's a recognized expert in international affairs, a distinguished teacher and academic leader, and a public servant with years of White House experience. She displays a commitment to excellence in every aspect of her life, from shaping our strategy in the war on terror, to coordinating national security policy across the government, to performing classical music on stage. Above all, Dr. Rice has a deep, abiding belief in the value and power of liberty, because she has seen freedom denied and freedom reborn.
As a girl in the segregated South, Dr. Rice saw the promise of America violated by racial discrimination and by the violence that comes from hate. But she was taught by her mother, Angelina, and her father, the Reverend John Rice, that human dignity is the gift of God, and that the ideals of America would overcome oppression. That early wisdom has guided her through life, and that truth has guided our nation to a better day.
I know that the Reverend and Mrs. Rice would be filled with pride to see the daughter they raised in Birmingham, Alabama, chosen for the office first held by Thomas Jefferson. Something tells me, however, they would not be surprised. (Laughter.)
As many of you know, Condi's true ambition is beyond my power to grant. (Laughter.) She would really like to be the commissioner of the National Football League. I'm glad she's put those plans on hold once again. The nation needs her. I urge the Senate to promptly confirm Condoleezza Rice as America's 66th Secretary of State.
Congratulations. (Applause.)

DR. RICE: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. It has been an honor and a privilege to work for you these past four years, in times of crisis, decision and opportunity for our nation. Under your leadership, America is fighting and winning the war on terror. You have marshaled great coalitions that have liberated millions from tyranny, coalitions that are now helping the Iraqi and Afghan people build democracies in the heart of the Muslim world. And you have worked to widen the circle of prosperity and progress in every corner of the world.
I look forward, with the consent of the Senate, to pursuing your hopeful and ambitious agenda as Secretary of State. Mr. President, it is an honor to be asked to serve your administration and my country once again.
And it is humbling to imagine succeeding my dear friend and mentor, Colin Powell. He is one of the finest public servants our nation has ever produced. Colin Powell has been a great and inspirational Secretary of State. It was my honor to serve alongside him, and he will be missed.
It will, of course, be hard to leave the White House, and especially to leave behind the terrific NSC staff who have served their President and their country so ably in this most challenging of times. Yet, I can leave confident in the knowledge that they will be led by the consummate professional, a man I know and admire, my colleague and friend, Steve Hadley.
Finally, let me say that in my 25 years of experience in foreign affairs, both in and out of government, I have come to know the men and women of the Department of State. I have the utmost admiration and respect for their skill, their professionalism and their dedication. If I am confirmed by the Senate, I look forward to working with the great people of the Foreign Service and the Civil Service. And one of my highest priorities as Secretary will be to ensure that they have all the tools necessary to carry American diplomacy forward in the 21st century.
Mr. President, thank you again for this great opportunity, and for your continued confidence in me.

THE PRESIDENT: Good job. Thank you all.

END 12:40 P.M. EST

Are you saying that the liberal TV execs will ride the GOP wave and condition viewers to rally up behind Condi? Then in the final stages of the 2008 Presidential election campaign, remove Condi euphoria and insert the Hillary Rodham-Rodham game into the race?

Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm- sounds like B.F. Skinnerism and "Applied Behavioral Analysis" to me.

Thank you,
J. Scott Davis, B.S. 98'

Skinnerian operant conditioning is central to all sales pitches.

hillary and ABC had no choice. A hillary exemplar would be laughed off the stage. So how then to condition the electorate?

Condi. I can think of no other woman who would work as an exemplar for post-911 America.

The only alternative explanation for Mac being modeled after Condi is that ABC wants Condi to be president, which is absurd.

I believe their going with Skinnerian operant conditioning. How else would they get Donald Sutherland to play a GOP role? Sutherland was in many anti- Vietnam War protests.

Prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom, I was building needed contacts in Hollywood for my own career. Since then, contact has dropped off considerably for me. Tell that to Ronnie Earle when he tries to enforce the law!

~Scott~

bump