Dick Morris' new book says outright that the only way Republicans can win the White House from Hillary in '08 will be to run Rice against her, because 1) It will nullify Hillary's female voter advantage, and 2) it will at least split the black vote (the common wisdom being that no Dem can win a presidential election without 90+ percent of blacks).

In light of that article, I find the idea of running Condi for identity politics reasons fairly distasteful.

Personally, I'd vote for her on the merits. She has impressive administrative experience and a record of admirably solid principles.

But it would signal a dissapointing turn to run her because of the perception that that's the only way to get the black vote. For one thing, it would be depressing that the republicans would stoop so willingly to enagage in that kind of racial posturing. But even worse, if it works, it would be doubly depressing to realize that blacks are so blatantly wedded to racial politics that they'll vote for anyone with their color of skin.

Yeah, that's nice...but was it John Nance Garner who said a candidate should at least have run for dog-catcher at some point? It really does make a difference when the candidate has to run that gauntlet--for better or worse you see what they're made of.

To me she's an apparatchik. And is she really that great a diplomat? Do we really know this yet? I ask because there is a lot of buzz, especially among women, in the Republican groups I hang with. And many of the men also think her gender will indeed nullify Hillary's..this is not the way I like to pick candidates though. This is too much of a shortcut.

And add to this, she's unmarried, no kids. That's always a strike against. Hillary had the presence of mind to squeeze one out didn't she? These are all political considerations as I have nothing against Condi personally.

OH I forgot, the race card too. Republicans always want to play the race card--SEE we're not bigots after all, do you all love us now? I think we're at our best when we stick to principle.

Cassandra,

Well, obviously, I share your reservations about picking Condi based on pigment and the contents of her nethers, but I disagree with your perception of her merits.

First, by all indications she has been a very effective Sec State, putting out all kinds of fires that don't make page one. And she has gotten high marks as an administrator of one of the more unwieldy and resistant-to-change government agencies. Hillary, on the other hand, has never managed anything bigger than a 100-person Senate staff.

Second, I don't think experience in a campaign isn't that big a deal. It certainly doesn't confer on one any superior ability to actually do the job she'd be elected for - it merely translates into being better at campaigning itself. While I wouldn't discount the importance of being good in a campaign for becoming president (duh), Condi is a great, forceful and clear communicator, and she can be quite genuine. She's got the raw goods - the handlers can do the rest.

Third, I think calling her an apparatchik is somewhat off-base. The thing that makes her unique is that she operates (as far as I can tell, anyway) from a sense of duty rather than a sense of ambition. There have been people like that in the past who became president, and they similarly did not have any prior elective experience. They essentially had to to be "drafted" to run.

Super-secret message for Bill: Away on short business trip, can only listen to incoming e-mail via phone. Got your message: Cool.

This comment will self-delete in 5...4...3...2...1...

ionolsen21 Hello Jane, great site!

ionolsen24 I am really impressed!

ionolsen40 Great website! Bookmarked! I am impressed at your work!