Join the Team!

In 1993, Condoleezza Rice became the first African-American to serve as provost of Stanford University.  In 2001, Condoleezza became the first black woman to hold the position of national security advisor. In 2004, Rice became the first black woman to serve as U.S. Secretary of State. In 2016, Condoleezza Rice could make history yet again and become the first woman President of the United States.

            In order for Condoleezza to accomplish this goal she needs the help of the people.  Each and everyone of you is able to contribute to this goal. If you want to see America grow, and help make history then you need to join Condoleezza’s team! Volunteers are needed!!! We need people to hand out flyers, make signs, go to press conferences, work phone banks, etc. There is a job for anyone and everyone!

            Condoleezza would be able to improve our foreign relations, she could rectify the race issues going on in our country, and she would overall move America forward.  Condoleezza’s track record proves that when she wants something she works hard to accomplish her goals. She pushes herself to go above and beyond in every role that she has held, and I know she would do the same as president.

  If you want to help progress America, and see history made, join Condoleezza’s team! Every person is necessary for improving our countries future, do your part and make a difference!

Condoleezza in Recent News

            The majority of stories being written about my “candidate” right now are about the College Football Playoffs, which I just realized I did not properly capitalize “College Football Playoffs” in the last blog I mentioned it in. I think it is interesting that these stories are coming out, because it is no longer football season. You would think sports fans would be focused on baseball. You would think that people would be focused on Condoleezza’s thoughts on potential presidential candidates, not on her thoughts of how many teams should participate in the College Football Playoffs. The main types of media outlets covering this “issue” and my “candidate” the most are sports outlets, and also The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times.

            From what I have read, I would say that the media is definitely the ones generating the “news”. The majority of the articles disagree with Condoleezza’s position on the four-team system. I do not think that the media is writing in a way that would promote Condoleezza as a presidential candidate in 2016. The media is saying Condoleezza is wrong and she is making poor decisions as a committee member for the College Football Playoffs. If the media does not think she is able to make good decisions about football, I really doubt they think she can lead a country. Unless, the media’s position is trying to say, “This lady does not know sports, she should go back to national security matters or she could try running the country for a little while. Those things are obviously so much easier than deciding the number of teams that can compete in the College Football Playoffs”.

            I honestly think it is hilarious that so many people are fixated on how many teams Condoleezza thinks should be in the College Football Playoffs. She is a brilliant and inspiring woman and instead of asking about her thoughts on the candidates that have declared, they are asking how many teams should compete in the College Football Playoffs. I am sure Condoleezza has a lot of opinions about Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, and the most shocking candidate Juaquin Malphurs (Waka Flocka Flame).  Moving into the 2016 election season Condoleezza should be receiving more media coverage of her endorsing a candidate, and the media looking into Condoleezza’s opinion of “her” candidates opponents. I am not expecting Condoleezza to run, because of things she has said in the past. That being said, I would like to see her be more vocal about the candidates that are running and those she thinks should run.

I know you all love reading the sources of these blogs so below is a link to all of my sources. For those of you who are really concerned about the number of the teams in the College Football Playoffs, you should really read all of these articles. 

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/25151461/condoleezza-rice-larry-scott-prefer-to-keep-cfp-to-four-teams

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/wp/2015/04/16/condoleezza-rice-larry-scott-dont-want-to-expand-the-college-football-playoff-but-they-should/

http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-college-football-playoff-0150416-story.html

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12698084/condoleezza-rice-pac-12-commissioner-larry-scott-say-four-right-number-college-football-playoff

http://www.si.com/college-football/2015/04/16/college-football-playoffs-condoleezza-rice-larry-scott

Liberal vs. Conservative Media outlets

After doing some research, I found two articles about Condoleezza Rice that are related to the war in the Middle East. Although, both articles address the war in the Middle East, they are very different in substance and views. One is from what is to be considered a “liberal” news outlet and the other from a “conservative” news outlet.

The “liberal” article I found was from the New York Times, and was called Condoleezza Rice Testifies on Urging The Times to Not Run Article. This article focuses on how the Times was asked to not run a story involving classified information about a plan to disrupt the Iran nuclear program. Rice and other White House officials believed that the release of this information would be detrimental to our national security. The way the article is worded implies that they do not believe that White House officials should be able to stop articles from being published, and that they feel like Condoleezza Rice is in the wrong. “Ms. Abramson, who was the Washington bureau chief at the time, said recently that she regretted not pushing to publish it.” 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/us/politics/condoleezza-rice-testifies-on-urging-the-times-to-suppress-leak.html

The “conservative” article I found was from Fox News, and was called Brian’s Exclusive Interviews With Former Secretary Of State Condoleezza Rice. The interview covered a lot of different things, including the war in the Middle East and why Condoleezza feels we should have left forces in Iraq.  Condoleezza’s reasons for why we should have left forces in Iraq are that the different tribes trusted the United States more than they trusted each other, and having our forces leave made the military and political foundation fall apart. 

Written overview of the interview: http://radio.foxnews.com/2014/11/10/brians-exclusive-interview-with-former-secretary-of-state-condoleezza-rice/

There were two major differences I noticed; the picture used and the language. The New York Times used a hideous picture of Condoleezza looking very angry, and Fox News used a picture of Condoleezza looking like an average person. The language in the headlines alone tells you what kind of attitude towards Condoleezza they are portraying, The New York Times headline makes it sound like working with Condoleezza is impossible, and Fox News headline makes it sound like working with Condoleezza is an honor. 

Both articles accurately portray Condoleezza as a strong and powerful woman. I think Fox News was generous by not saying anything negative about the war in the Middle East and all of the issues going on over there currently. I think it was unfair of The New York Times to depict Condoleezza Rice as a bully that pushes innocent reporters around. If a person only saw the Fox News article they would love Condoleezza and wouldn’t see the negatives regarding the war in the Middle East and her involvement. If a person only read The New York Times article they would think Condoleezza is a bully, and they wouldn’t see all of the great things she has accomplished and done for our country.   

What Does National Security and College Football Have in Common?

            I wanted to find a negative or humorous representation of my candidate for this weeks blog post but I was unable to do so, which I guess is ultimately a good thing. I did find an article however, that represented Condoleezza in a new way. Not as someone who is making calls about national security, but someone who is making calls about the college football playoffs.

            This article describes Condoleezza Rice as a football fanatic, and a strong woman. Condoleezza received a lot of criticism when she was nominated to the college football committee, because what could a woman possibly know about football. All of the other committee members were men, but Rice refused to let the criticism and the female stereotypes get her down. She proved that she is a vital member of the committee. Not only is Condoleezza Rice well versed in football her ability to analyze data and make tough decisions, which was a major factor in her becoming a member of the committee.

            I believe this article is exactly in line with how Condoleezza Rice wants people to view her. The article represents her as a strong woman who is not going to let challenging situations and foreign territory frighten her. Condoleezza is use to people doubting her abilities, but she does not care because she is secure in her own abilities, and every time she proves those who doubted her wrong. The more articles I read about Condoleezza Rice, the more respect I gain for her. She plays by her own rules, and she does not allow for anyone else’s negative opinions hold her back. She is the type of woman that we should encourage all girls to be like. This article like every other article on Condoleezza Rice I have read depicts her as a determined and badass woman, which I think is exactly what Condoleezza Rice thinks about herself and wants others to see her as. 

I know that you all want to read how Condoleezza is defying gender norms, and scaring men around the world, so here is the link to the article I read from the New York times. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/21/sports/ncaafootball/rice-no-stranger-to-football-or-criticism-approaches-new-role-with-diplomacy.html?ref=topics&_r=0

Condoleezza Rice Advertisements

            My candidate has never run for a political office so finding political advertisements for her campaign was impossible. However, I was able to find advertisements with her in it endorsing different candidates.

            Condoleezza starred in Dan Sullivan’s advertisement during the 2014 Alaskan Senate election. Dan Sullivan used Condoleezza to give him credibility. Condoleezza provides credibility to his national security ability and high lights his military service. As the former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s opinion of a candidate carries a lot of weight. This ad is definitely candidate-positive. I think that it is both an image and issue ad.  The ad is building up the candidate’s image as well as addressing issues of national security. She mentions how national security is a major issue in our nation and how Dan Sullivan would fight to keep our country safe. The fact that Dan Sullivan is a marine and has fought to protect our nation already adds to his national security credibility. I think that using Condoleezza was not only because she is an influential person, but also because she is an influential woman. Having an influential woman supporting a male candidate is likely able to persuade women voters.

The Dan Sullivan ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MPj4F4dmI8

            In 2010 Condoleezza Rice supported California Governor candidate Meg Whitman. Unlike the more recent ad for Dan Sullivan, Condoleezza Rice was not the star of this advertisement; Mitt Romney and Jon Coupal accompanied her. Like the Dan Sullivan advertisement this is also a candidate-positive ad. This advertisement is also both an image and an issue ad. They are working to portray Meg Whitman in a positive light saying that she is a strong leader. They also touch on issues such as the financial crisis in California, and proposition 13. In 2010 there was a budget crisis going on in California, so finances and property taxes (proposition 13) were issues that were important to California voters. Condoleezza talked the least out of the three Meg Whitman supporters in the ad, which I think is because the other two supporters are more credible when it comes to budget and tax issues. Mitt Romney knows what it takes to be a Governor so his support of a candidate for Governor might hold more weight than Condoleezza’s support. Jon Coupal is the President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association so he is going to be more knowledgeable about budgets and taxes than Rice is, and his opinion on those issues is going to mean more to voters.  Although Mitt Romney and Jon Coupal are more experienced in the issues they are addressing, Condoleezza Rice is in this advertisement for a reason. I believe they picked her for this advertisement to show that women can also be powerful leaders. When they are all saying adjectives that describe Meg Whitman, Condoleezza says she is strong. I think they were trying to create some connection between Rice and Whitman, saying look women can be strong and influential too.

The Meg Whitman ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBbQB0YMNZo