Condi Talk

Well, managed to have a relatively stable audio stream for a most of the hearing, though I missed most of the first half-hour intro by Rice to her 911 Commission Hearing testimony.

(I had the CNN.com screen up there. The picture of the story kept changing, from Condi Smiling to Rice Glowering to long shot of the hearing chamber. The headline kept changing, too.)

Overall, I thought she handled things pretty well. Some of her answers were obviously prepped, but some flowed fairly naturally. There were some clear sensitivity to certain implications being made, to some of the press and Clarke accusations, and to issues of classification. And, yes, there’s possibly some defensiveness over what wasn’t done that should/could have been. I don’t think there were any smoking guns lying on the floor afterwards, for what it’s worth.

As for the questioners, I spent less attention to them than (i.e., who they were) than the answers. The questions, though, seemed to be half-split between folks who were asking for info, and folks who wanted to make speeches (from both partisan sides). It was a bit better than I would have expected, but it was still disappointing that there were folks there who either (a) wanted to nail Rice, or (b) beatify her.

Sum total? I don’t think anyone will be changing their minds, only convinced of what they already believed. Certainly those who think Bush was guilty of negligence (or complicity) won’t be reassured. And those who think otherwise won’t have been disillusioned. Or, as this post sums it up …

Overall, Rice supporters will describe her performance as: “a home run,” “putting doubts to rest,” “answering all the questions,” “showing Clarke to be a liar,” and/or “letting us get on to the people’s business”; bonus (if they are really partisan) “refuting the demagogues on the other side”
Overall, Rice detractors will describe her performance as: “raising more questions than it answers,” “a missed opportunity to inform the American people,” “vindicating Richard Clarke,” and/or “raising troubling questions about this Administration”; bonus (if they are really partisan) “you’re the demagogue” (followed by: “am not!”; “are too!”; “am not!”; etc.)

I don’t expect to hear any (new) calls for impeachment, nor do I think the testimony will have any significant effect on the November elections. Heck, not even much to disqualify her from the Veep Sweeps, should that still be on the table. And so it goes.

UPDATE: Text of the testimony is here.