In considering Susan Rice for running mate role, Biden campaign unafraid to relitigate Benghazi

Now Biden’s vice presidential selection committee is scratching at that old political scab by considering Susan Rice as a top contender to become his 2020 running mate.

Rice, 55, is being seriously vetted by the two-term vice president and the party’s apparent standard-bearer’s aides for November’s Democratic ticket. She’s high up on the shortlist along with Sens. Kamala Harris of California and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, according to the Associated Press.

Rice was Obama’s national security adviser from 2013 to 2017 after representing the United States as U.N. ambassador from 2009 to 2013. She boasts an impressive resume. But she’s also weighed down by political baggage, Ronald Reagan biographer and presidential historian Craig Shirley told the Washington Examiner.

“[Biden] should be afraid to relitigate Benghazi,” Shirley said. “The Trump campaign would hammer this into the ground, causing the Biden campaign to start on the defensive. And no presidential campaign wants to start a general election effort explaining or apologizing.”

He added, “If you put a dozen Democrats in a room and mentioned her name, most would not know her except to mention Benghazi, and does Biden really want to start in that hole?”

Instead, Shirley suggested Biden learn from previous nominees’ mistakes, particularly since Rice has never held elective office. He pointed to Barry Goldwater’s William Miller in 1964, George McGovern’s Thomas Eagleton in 1972, Walter Mondale’s Geraldine Ferraro in 1984, and John McCain’s Sarah Palin in 2008 as examples of what to avoid.

“I have to believe Susan Rice is a very, very long shot,” he said. “The smart nominees pick running mates who will mind their p’s and q’s, not embarrass them, and unify the party, and maybe appeal to a new constituency. I don’t see how Ms. Rice’s measures up using these metrics.”

Rice endorsed Obama early in his 2008 White House primary bid against then-rival Clinton, though she had served in the administration of her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

But Obama, Rice, and Hillary Clinton were on the same side of the political firing line over Benghazi.

Rice, for one, was targeted for allegedly lying about the events leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks.

Based on flawed CIA talking points, Rice claimed in five TV interviews the attacks spontaneously erupted from an out-of-control protest over an anti-Muslim short film, Innocence of Muslims. Similar demonstrations had broken out in the region. But as more information was uncovered, it became clear it was actually a premeditated assault by Ansar al Sharia. In fact, Hillary Clinton emailed her daughter Chelsea that night, telling her “an al-Qaeda-like group” was possibly involved. The Islamic militant group killed U.S. ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and diplomat Sean Smith and then CIA operatives Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods in two separate strikes on the compounds, hours apart.

Deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes wrote in an email two days after the attacks that Rice’s appearances were booked “to underscore” how the protests were “rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” Yet 10 investigations, including six led by Republicans, didn’t find any evidence Rice acted in bad faith or intentionally misled the American people. The political damage, however, was done. She later withdrew her candidacy to replace Clinton as secretary of state because her nomination would’ve ended in a Senate stalemate with the GOP.

Rice may be a foreign policy expert who advised Bill Clinton during his second term, and Michael Dukakis and John Kerry during their 1988 and 2004 White House campaigns. She may be a Stanford University graduate, former Oxford University Rhodes Scholar, ex-McKinsey & Company management consultant, and Brookings Institution fellow. But Benghazi isn’t her only political vulnerability.

If Biden chooses Rice, Republicans will skewer her “unmasking” several key Trumpworld figures, “red meat” to their base.

During the transition period after Trump’s election, Rice sought the unmasking of what ended up being Trump officials Steve Bannon, Michael Flynn, and Jared Kushner. Their names were originally concealed in intelligence reports about an undisclosed December 2016 meeting with United Arab Emirates Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed al Nahyan. Her actions fed rumors and innuendo that the outgoing administration purposely tried to tarnish the new one, known as “Obamagate.”

In that vein, Rice was summoned to a January 2017 Oval Office meeting with Obama to talk about Russian election interference. She was then asked to stay for a smaller confab with Obama, Biden, former FBI Director James Comey, and then-deputy Attorney General Sally Yates to discuss Flynn and FBI intercepts of his conversations with ex-Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Following White House counsel guidance, Rice memorialized the second meeting, emphasizing how Comey was “proceeding ‘by the book’ as it relates to law enforcement.”

But Flynn disagrees. Rice’s short-term successor as national security adviser pleaded guilty in 2017 to lying to the FBI about his Russian contacts. The retired U.S. Army lieutenant general was fired after 22 days, following classified leaks to the press regarding the FBI’s investigation into his calls. FBI emails from that January, however, indicate senior members of the bureau intervened to stop the Flynn inquiry from being closed, despite “no derogatory information” being discovered. Flynn now claims he’s innocent and that the government entrapped him. Last month, the Justice Department said dropping the charges against him was the “proper and just course.”

Tom Cochran, a partner at public relations firm 720 Strategies and a fellow Obama alum, downplayed Rice’s red flags. Yet he conceded her Benghazi connection was probably being taken into account, “but lower down.”

“She’s certainly highly qualified for the role and well respected. I don’t think anyone can accurately predict any choice backfiring,” he said. “They’re all great candidates, each with plenty of flaws to pick apart.”