Here’s a reason to fear for our country: the comprehension level of many here, not to mention that the reactionaries seem to be among the number who don’t get it. (”It” being what was actually said.)

News flash: effective reading is a conservative “principle” also.

baldilocks on August 9, 2008 at 5:46 PM

Wow, you can say that again. Unbelievable.

Condi: America will be fine under President Obama

On the contrary, I rather think we’ll be taxed.

Condi, if you haven’t anything worthwhile to contribute to the GOP, stfu while you pack your bags preparing for your one-way ticket to Berkeley.

I’m a-leavin’ on a jet plane.
I don’t know when I’ll be back again.
…Oh, babe. I hate to go.

News flash: effective reading is a conservative “principle” also.

“Look, I’m a Republican, all right?”

Sure you are Condi. And five will get you ten you’ll be voting for Obamessiah.

Sen. McCain is a fine patriot, and … he would be a great president. But… ”

And that “but” cancelled your previous statement.

It’s “the vision thing”.

chasdal on August 7, 2008 at 10:43 PM”

Dear Liar-Lover: You have no business, if you can’t recognize a lie when Allahpundit writes one.

And,as of the pulishing of this post, Allahpundit is offically a LIAR.

A lie, is a lie, is a lie, is a lie – no matter how much you hate Bush, Condi — or love liars like Allahpundit.

I’m not excited – just stating the facts.

As near as I can tell, the world economic conditions are headed for a global economic collapse that will make the 1930’s look like a Sunday school picnic. When it finally happens, diplomacy will be moot. Governments around the world will be overwhelmed with their own internal, domestic problems. As the problems grow worse, border skirmishes will break out. Ultimately, the squabbles over food and and other resources will spread, and the entire world will be engulfed in war. Starvation will become pervasive and nearly ubiquitous. There’s a good chances that genocide will once again rear it’s ugly head, but this time, in more than one place around the globe.

I agree with Baldilocks. It’s ALL about the culture. We have arrived at the precipice of disaster (or the cliffs of insanity, if you like) because of our lack of self-discipline, our inability to curb our own appetites, and our ignorance and callous disregard for both the material and spiritual needs of our neighbors. We are selfish – and we are going to pay a price for that.

As Baldilocks pointed out, slavery and Jim Crow were oppressive and caused untold misery. But what we face in the future may be far worse. It may be closer to the genocide that was carried out against the native Americans – only this time, the misery and death won’t be confined to a single ethnic group.

Just thought I’d brighten up everyone’s day.

My collie says:

CC, aren’t YOU just a ray of sunshine!

I must remain true to my world view.

Who said blacks are not racist? Well well well I know the answer and I know a lot of people know why blacks are voting for Obama – was it 92%?

mariloubaker on August 7, 2008 at 6:48 PM

Bad line of reasoning here. Blacks tend to vote Democrat by 80 to 90%. Why is it now racist for them to vote Democrat by a slightly larger block?

That isn’t to say that blacks can’t be racist, but that’s the worst line of reasoning you can use. Maybe it would have worked during the primaries, but it’s stupid to try and use it now.

You only get one first Black President of the United States of America. Are you sure this is the guy ???

silverfox on August 7, 2008 at 7:07 PM

I’m not black, but that’s how I’ve felt for the last year, about Obama and about Hillary.

I would love to have a black president and/or a woman president. Firsts are always exciting.

However, if we just rush to elect a specific gender or ethnicity and elect someone who isn’t qualified, what will that show? If anything it could set us all back a hundred years the way Gov. Blanco set back feminism (in my opinion) in her response to Katrina. She was indecisive and crying, displaying every negative stereotype against women.

That device is not honest; it is the technique that most of us object to when reporters cherry pick details in their stories.
onlineanalyst on August 8, 2008 at 9:22 AM

In addition to the headline, and the printed story, you could watch the video (second link from the top) and get a better context of this question and answer. Hear with your own ears and see with your own eyes.

Such as, the ‘new blood’ comment came first, in reference to a new presidency, such as McCain not needing her in his administration as VP. Followed by ‘will you feel safe with a president obama’ and her response, ‘oh the united states will be fine.’ Not “better” or something like that. Becoming the president, and getting the daily briefings,(that we never see) being surrounded with career employees in the government and military tends to help mature a political candidate for the job of president.

Not that this would work with everyone, such as Dennis Kucinich, or some other nutball like Mike Gravel.

After all, its Condoleeza Rice we’re talking about here. A supposed member of the neo-conservative Zionist cabal. Her endorsement can’t be good, can it? Unless . . .

(Uh-oh. They’ve got to Obama and are brainwashing him as we speak, that he may become their sock puppet.)

Wah ha ha. ;)

Too bad you’re also dumb as a post. I guess we all have our, hmmm, less-than-stellar moments. This is one of yours. His economic, tax and spending ideas will shove our economy straight into a real recession.

If we’re lucky, we’ll avoid a depression. I’m not so hopeful.

On the other hand, Dr. Rice’s response is somewhat ambiguous. This is probably part of the territory necessitated by her position requiring that she be apolitical. I have heard enough of her interviews in audio to know that she is quite savvy in handling minefields. Diplomacy requires that capability.

However, the ambiguous response (without context) opens itself to the preferred interpretation of the listener. Therein lies the problem that leads to blog frenzies on either side of the issue.

While it would be inappropriate for her to comment on Obama’s fitness to be president, I am bothered by her implication that America will be “fine”. We thought that we were fine on September 10, 2001, too.

Do you mean like where the Muslims get 76 Virgins, all of whom look like Helen Thomas, when they behave like Mohammad?

MB4 on August 8, 2008 at 7:42 AM

No. Instead of 72 virgins they get one 72 year old virgin.

Bad news: They all look like Helen Thomas.

HOw many sarcastic psots over the past 8 years have been made about Helen Thomas?

Hilts on August 8, 2008 at 7:16 AM

Do you mean like where the Muslims get 76 Virgins, all of whom look like Helen Thomas, when they behave like Mohammad?

MrLynn on August 8, 2008 at 7:29 AM

Are you Clueless Condi’s dad?

Maybe Ed could provide a correction?

American Jews are safe unless a dictator rises to power here, Tejas.

That’s why they’ll never vote Republican.

alphie on August 8, 2008 at 1:57 AM

They will never (however check with the Orthodox) vote Republican because they are socialists at heart.

There is no chance that John Bolton could change the State Department. He did not change the UN did he?

In fact when he was there Israel got into it with Lebanon and he was the one who worked on the much hated and derided peace deal that was worked through the UN.

Condi Rice is being gracious in this comment. If people are not able to see that, then there is no point in trying to explain it to them.

Terrye on August 8, 2008 at 6:47 AM

Actually the one responsible for the diplomatic fiasco in Lebanon was the vacuous Foreign Minister (and Israeli version of Condi Rice) and possibly next Prime Minister Tzipi Livni. I mentioned Bolton as Sec. of State not that one man alone can clean up State or the CIA but he would not likely have gone “native” nor would he have
went against the “Bush doctrine” which was announced in Oct. 2001. Rice has totally shredded that alleged doctrine in the Middle East. She has been singularly unimpressive as Sec. of State and yes I was only be sarcastic when I suggested that the only reason why such a failure remains at Foggy Bottom was that she was fooling around with Bush.

I’m whole-witted, hon. I’ve said right here in this thread that I didn’t think that she was a poor choice for SOS and I managed to do it without saying that she was sleeping with another woman’s husband. Which is more than you’re capable of, apparently.

baldilocks on August 7, 2008 at 11:47 PM

Oh for Christ’s sake this site is for comments and sarcasm and if you cannot tell that I was being sarcastic then forget it hon! HOw many sarcastic psots over the past 8 years have been made about Helen Thomas?