I think she could beat Hillary handily if the zealots of the Republican Right would let her out of the starting gate. That would be the problem, not whether she would win.

PS Many many people hate Bill and Hillary with an intense white-hot hatred. No one feels that way about Condi. Hillary can't win.

Condi + Arnold. I've been saying it for a year. Unbeatable.

PacRim Jim, it sounds good to me, too.

But...

Barring an ammendment to the Constitution that allows the foreign born to the run for the presidency, can Arnold run as veep if he's not eligible to assume the office of the presidency if something happens to Condi?

VP must be qualified to be President, Amendment XII:
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

She can't get nominated...

YET.
However she gets to be a shaper of events. If she can GET nominated, she can beat Hillary. The democrats largest single constituency would finally be in play. Think the fellas in Foley, Alalbama will vote for Hillary? Suppose she shepherds peace in Israel? Is there for an Egyptian election? Has Chirac grovleing for a glimpse of her power slip?

[smirk on]
Who knows, maybe she'd pick Trent Lott for VP...[/smirk of]f

Maybe she just DOESN'T WANT TO BE PRESIDENT!
It's possible y'know.

Could Condi beat Hillary? Of course. Most any Republican could beat her. But if Condi says she isn't running I'm ready to believe her.

A better question is "what red state could Hillary win?" OK, maybe she could win New Mexico — which isn't enough.

Could Condi beat Hillary? Yes. Could any Republican who has an outside chance of winning the nomination beat her? Yes.

On the other hand, could Hillary win? Yes.

The electorate has congealed to a relatively static electoral college picture that slightly favors the Republicans but is close enough that a small change could put the Democrats over the top.

But I am not convinced by any stretch of the imagination that Hillary would be the Democrats' toughest potential nominee. And I am also not convinced that she will be it, either. It depends on how willing the Kossack wing of the Democrats is to accept her move to the center for the next two years.

IF she were pro-life, I think she'd easily win the nomination. In 2000, Bush won the non-African American vote approx 60% to 38%. If Republicans can make any inroads to the African-American community, they win easily. So a lot of people want to see her get the nomination. But without strong pro-life support you can't win the Republican nomination, and even if you did, if the pro-lifers stay home you've got President Kerry. She might be viable VP material. Four years is a long time.

Condi will continue to look better and better as she and Bush bring order and freedom back to the world.

Hillary can only look worse as there are law suits working their way through the courts and her stolen FBI files will become even more dated.

It's likely Dean will complete the destruction of the left as it is today and by the next election cycle some new Democrat leaders will emerge who love our country and aren't rooting for the terrorists to win.

I'm a whisk[e]y drinker, and the vodka drinker in my household is so particular as to consider Ketel One marginal. I'll pass on the bet.

I will, however, mention that I am one of those who thought it would have been cool to have had a Bush - Rice ticket for the last go-round.

Sure, Condi would beat Hillary. The Dems can't win without 85-90% black support, and Condi would peel off enough black votes to make it impossible for any Dem to win.

Can Condi win a general election? That really might not have much to do with Condi.

If Bush is percieved as successful president in 2008, the Republican nominee will win unless he or she makes major mistakes. If he's precieved as a failure in 2008, the Democratic nominee will win unless he or she makes major mistakes. The eventual nominees will only have a big effect on the race if public opinion hasn't really made up its mind.

Can she win the Republican nomination? If Bush is percieved as successful by almost all Republicans in 2008, and he makes it clear that she's his designated heir-apparent, then it will be her race to lose. Otherwise, she'll have a lot of problems.

Condi is saying that she's not running now because she doesn't want the resultant hoopla to cause any distractions now to her boss and current job.

i hope she does run, and i wish people would get over arnold already. the man can not run for president, and i'm completely against modifying the constitution so that he can.

okay -- let's be realistic.

condi rice is not "mildly pro-choice."

condi rice just knows better than
to admit to her true beliefs under
this republican's regime. . .

read anything she wrote on the
topic while she was at stanford.

she is firmly pro-choice.

so, unless she runs as a democrat
[and, i doubt dean & co. would have
her -- given her penchant for pre-
varicating about WMD's], i guess
i'd say she can't get the nomin-
ation from THIS regime of republicans.

though, a democrat-left, repub-
right, ON ONE ticket -- condi-
hillary as running mates -- would
be a great push-me, pull-you
bully-pulpit show, no?

p e a c e,

-- tae, out.

Maybe she just DOESN'T WANT TO BE PRESIDENT! It's possible y'know.

In my eyes, this makes her an even more desirable candidate.

You need someone who will try to do the best job possible, not enjoy a personal power-trip ([cough]Kerry[cough]).

It's always hard to predict how well non-politicians will do in a run for office; some do surprisingly well, some do poorly.

Given that she doesn't have a large public speaking background either, I expect she'd have trouble if she did run.

Also, a lot would depend on teh progress over the next 2-3 years (for the nomination; 4 for the election). If things go swimmingly well, with peaceful democracies in some more Mid East countries, better conditions in Iraq, and no new, ongoing conflicts involving U.S> troops (a Syrian civil war, for example, would be bad, but not 'hurts Rice's chances' bad in the way continued or escalating violence in Iraq would).

Thw "white hot hatred" many Republicans have for the Clintons, could actually help Hillary. Such hatred (see: Left vs. Bush; Right vs. Bill Clinton) has multiple flaws: it turns off moderate voters; it runs the risk of obscuring moderate criticisms of the candidate that would be more successful; and it encourages the party to select candidates that aren't good enough campaigners because "anyone should be able to beat that guy", which often isn't true (see: Lazio, Rick).

News flash: Most Republicans are mildly pro-choice, too. I think most Americans are, and I also think most Americans on the left are not the type to get out to rallies and support abortion on demand in any trimester and the barbaric practice of partial birth abortion. The older I get, the more I'm pro-life, but I'm not ready to see Roe overturned for a myriad of reasons. While it's still legal, I will say I'm thoroughly disgusted by the woman who has had three abortions. There is common ground...legal but extremely rare. I'm digressing, sorry....

I think it's correct to say Condi would have a serious fight to get the nomination in the primaries because of this one issue. Unfortunate, but true. Personally, I'd love to see a Guiliani-Rice ticket (or vice versa), but Rudy isn't the second-fiddle type and he's pro-choice, too.

And, tae, call off the helicopters. You sound childish and paranoid when you engage in the "this regime" type rhetoric. This "regime" is no more secretive, manipulative, or (dis)honest than the Clinton (or Reagan or Carter or Nixon or Kennedy or Taft or Adams or Lincoln or Jackson or Pierce or Jefferson or Wilson...you get the clue) Administration. It's Washington, DC, and it's the nature of the beast. Grow up.

What makes you think Condi would run AGAINST ol'Hillary? The Bush's and the Clinton's have been buddying up alot lately, could make for an interesting team in 2008. Nothing in the laws about two women running together. Both of thier pro-choice views are about dead on with each other.

look, ivan --

i won't de-rail this thread, here,
but i don't remember the clinton
administration trampling the geneva
convention, torturing detainees, or
lying about WMDs -- but i do remember
travel-gate and zipper-gate, and
white-water. . .

to be fair, i don't think one
can compare 1,500 dead u.s. troops
to gropes in the bathroom off
the oval office -- but i am kinda
nutty that way.

c h e e r s.

we now return you to your thread
on why condi rice won't ever
be nominated by THESE republicans.

p e a c e,

-- tae, out.

I don't buy the idea that the Republicans won't nominate a pro-choice candidate. I think the opposite is demonstrably true: the Democrats have purged their ranks of any and all pro-lifers, and many former pro-life Dems have had to switch.

What do y'all think?

Just an aside, but now that the NYT has come around and admitted that WMD machinery and possibly stockpiles were looted from Iraq in the weeks following the fall of Baghdad, can certain folks now drop the "Bush lied" lie?

P.S. Go Condi! 44!

I will crawl across broken glass to vote against Evita.

Arnie isn't a contender. In Costco's year in review roundup, they reprinted all their 2004 questions/polls.

1 ? was should we chage the Constitution so people like Arnie can run.

Overwhelmingly - no.

As a poster wrote somewhere, he's a CA solution to a CA problem.

I'm mildly pro-choice, too. The majority of Americans can live w/3 months. 30 years of polls, IIRC, have been amazingly consistent.

We don't like it, we won't pay for it, but we won't tell you what to do. But med tech advancement has made this issue moot.

It is extremely unlikely that she can be elected President, or perhaps more importantly, win the nomination, without first winning an election to a lesser office. As impressive as her resume is, it ain't Dwight Eisenhower's.

I am gonna go out on a limb here and predict that IF she runs, she will be nominated and she will kick Hillary's butt. Feel free to write it down and call me on it in 2008.

Oh, I do reserve the right to change this prediction should the Bush Administration really screw something up so that the Democrats are destined to win -- but that is something I am not very worried about.

MHO: She won't run in 2008, because she said she won't. She is, after all, trusted confidante of the prez who ran on "I say what I'll do and I do what I say" - how could she reconcile a straight-out statement like "I will not run for president of the United States" with that, when she's in the pseudo-incumbent position?

I wouldn't rule out 2012, though (or VP in 2008, prez in 2016). And if she keeps on the way she's been keeping on, my Lord. What a formidable candidate she could be.

Seconding Ivan and Sandy P, most of the Republican electorate would be OK - ranging from grudgingly accepting to fine - with "mildly pro-choice"/first trimester only.

I sure am glad Tae, or whoever is playing the role of ridiculous moron, has followed LaShawn here to Vodkapundit. Since I don't visit the "Bush lied about WMD/trampled the Geneva convention/etc." sites, it's nice to be reminded of why Gore and Kerry lost from time to time. You tell 'em, Ivan.

I hear that lound and clear Rob.

She will run if it looks like a cakewalk. The reason Ronnie was unique for a politician was his honesty. Both sides lie all the time. 2 prominent exsamples:
1. The liberal who told us 12 times an hour in Oct 1988 "Read my lips. No new taxes!" then gave us the biggest set of tax hikes and new taxes in American peace time history.
2. His sucessor who said "I never had sex with that --- woman!"
I think even "honest Abe" lied about the 250 Indians he killed; probably only killed 12.

Make it Grey Goose and you're on, Jeralyn--assuming they both get nominated, which may or may not happen.

The only big-name pro-choice Republican I can see having a serious run for the nomination is Giuliani. He's got more star power than Condi does, and could maybe pull it off.

Hillary, for her part, has been tacking towards the center lately, and one can only assume that she'll continue to. This will make her vulnerable to a left-wing insurgent like Dean. But then, Kerry survived Dean, so who knows?

I still say Condi would beat Hillary head to head, but if it winds up being Hillary and Rudy, do we still have a bet?

a Jeb/Condi ticket...Hmmmm
or perhaps Jeb/Colin...Haven't been hearing much from Senate Republicans in support of the current administration so I suspect the likelihood of a candidate for '08 coming out of the senate will be low.

Doug F.

Ok, Grey Goose it is. I know lots of people who prefer Grey Goose but for me, Ketel has a cleaner taste. I wonder if they took a poll of conservative vs liberal vodka drinkers, whether there'd be a difference.

Unfortunately, we can't run the poll here because there aren't enough liberals or at TalkLeft for the opposite reason.

I dig both Ketel Vun and the Goose is Loose, but have to recommend Three Olives. It's got an incredibly smooth finish- probably because they filter it 11 times through Liv Tyler's stockings. Or something. And it's made in England, unlike Grey Goose, which is... not.

Anyway, I have some extremely drunken funtime friends who are seriously into the vodka, and they have spurned all but Three Olives. You guys should check it out. Until you discover bourbon. Zing!

Jeralyn, in Vodka's archives is a post he wrote about Evita a few years ago.

That's how I've felt about her for ohhh, a decade now.

I'm a tail-end boomer.

She set womens' rights back 50 years.

She has destroyed so many gains we made and is a %)i*_%+%(_*()%*$%
HYPOCRITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'll take that bet - but if (when?) I win, I want the Costco size Crown Royal. Reserve.

My dog could beat Hillary. Hillary goes over in the South like a turd in the punchbowl - greygoose, or not.

Cool. So it's a bet.

I really like Grey Goose. It's a little too expensive for my liking, though, so I usually drink Finlandia. But if Jeralyn's buying...

Just so we're clear, if YOU win, do you want the Goose or Ketel?

This is great. It's like Publisher's Clearing house, only instead of "You may have already won ten million dollars," I may possibly win a free bottle of vodka in a little less than four years.

Sure, it's a longer wait than the PCH, but the odds are better.

I think the bigger obstacle is Condi's lack of elected office experience, not her abortion position.

"Against all abortions" is incorrect. I believe the "hard-line" abortion position should be phrased as "against all abortions, except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the mother's life." There may be a few people who only believe in abortion to save the mother's life, but ask people who are against abortion, they will probably say they are willing to allow abortion in these three cases.

It's the Democrats that have the abortion problem, when they don't want to allow any restrictions on abortion, including dilation and extraction for elective abortion, publicly funded abortions, and abortions for minors without parental or judicial consent.

Condi is saying that she's not running now because she doesn't want the resultant hoopla to cause any distractions now to her boss and current job.

I really hope this is the case.

Cheney's not running, Arnie's not eligible, Rudy's got a bit more mud stuck to him that his fans want to admit, and Rumsfeld's too old.

So who do those of us who hope to see Bush's foreign policy achievements in the ME completed have left to turn to? Condi Rice is by far the most prominent of the contenders, and is immune to the assorted 'former leftist/neocon/whacko' accusations many of the others at State and the Pentagon are vulnerable to.

Combine the prominence with the demonstrated trust and respect of W, her gender, and yes, her race, and the total package is very, very appealing to a Republican who 1) wants someone smart enough to do the job, 2) wants the ME liberated and free, 3) wants to drive a stake through the heart of the old "Republicans are sexists and closet racists" slur, 4) is, like Ms. Rice, mildly pro-choice, just not to the point of supporting abortion-on-demand until the baby crowns, and 5) would be delighted to finally have a President who has described herself as a 2nd-A absolutist.

I don't care if she's running or not, I'm going to the primaries, and if her name isn't on the ballot, I'm writing it in.

Come the general election, I may wind up voting for NotHillary... but I really want to have a candidate I can vote for, instead of one I have to vote against.

I'd like to add my support for Three Olives vodka. A fantastic British vodka. Who woulda thunk it?

Do it get snooty if you don't serve it at room temperature?

Ms. Rice has more relevant experience than any candidate we've seen in many years. She's shown that she has a clear vision for a better future. She's shown a sense of duty to her nation, the gravitas to face down bitter opponents, and the endurance to press onward despite the clamorings of strident critics.

I oppose abortion. I believe that a fetus is a human being. Such a child has a right to life as sacred as any of ours and to kill it is an abomination. But the U.S. isn't a monarchy. Even Pres. Rice' powers will be subject to our system of checks and balances. If she is pro-abortion I will respectfully disagree with her.

Otherwise she has thoroughly proven the content of her character. I expect she'll earn my vote. In the meantime I'm grateful for the service she has already put in.

Jeralyn, I'm amused at your assumption(?) that we all read The Spectator. A silly attempt to provoke us by lumping all commenters together? ;^)

assuimng that the spectator is read/well thought of speaks of being ill informed, given that the speccy is on the wrong side of history (opposing iraq war) due to some old-toryism... very weird since it was so good so recently...

erh -- "l o u n d. . ."?

-- g-dub, lound? mmmmmkay.

indeed -- rob, and g-dub. . .
quite soon enough, i'll
be gone from here again, and
the echo chamber will be in
full-fun-effect. until the
week is out, though, i'll be here
to remind all of you that bush 43
claimed the moral high ground as
his main platform -- then promptly
violated every moral precept he
earlier claimed to support.

deal. wit. it.

or scroll on by.

-- tae, out.

ps: when i'm right, and hillary is
living again at 1600 penn., i'll
take my pay as a double-thick, malted,
extra-quick, with banana,

c h o c o l a t e -

milk-shake, sans
hooch -- it is for the dead -- or,
for the nearly so. . .

Condi Vs Hillary? I'll take that bet, and I'm a beer drinker!

Condi takes it without so much as scuffing her long black boots!

I don't think Hillary can win against any competent candidate - save Bush's 2nd term going South.

I do think she can get the nomination, as her central/moderate efforts will be read as simply political manovering, not a manifestation of her real beliefs.

While that will keep in the good graces of the Left, it will also marginalize the value of her efforts as those on the right and the center will see the fakeness of her efforts.

Simply, you love-her or hate-her. There isn't much middle ground for her to work with, and I think the hate-her's have the numbers.

In addition, I suspect there are elements of the DNC that don't want the Clintons back on top.

Condi on the other hand has a neutral to love-her sort of effect. I don't think there are many/any aside from the extreme left that actually hate her, and they don't count since they'd vote Goofy if he had the D after his name.

I think the main issue with her is the lack of campaign experience as a candidate, and for that reason I think as a VP canidate she is stronger.

I think in a one-on-one debate, Condi's logic,intelligence, and clarity of thought would leave Hillary a drooling mess of gobbly-gook.

On the topic of a Women President: It will be a rare women to win the Presidency, it will happen, and it will be a Republican - it may not be Condi, but when the the day comes, there will be an R behind that name. That goes for a non-white Pres as well.

BK

The question is, could Condi run to the right of Hillary? I think Clinton is going to propose putting public schools under the UCMJ any day now...

Anybody who wants to be President so badly that they're announcing (or worse, visibly campaigning) almost three years before the primary season is necessarily unfit to be trusted with high office...that one or any other.

Exhibit A: Hillary. 'Nuff said.

Announcing this early would take Condi down several steps in my esteem. I'm glad she hasn't...she's got a lot of work to do in her _current_ job. If she changes her mind sometime between now and 2008, I'll be thrilled to cast my first vote ever for a Republican for president.

Ooh, I'm all tingly. Not only does Good Mr. Goldstein agree that Three Olives is the vodka of vodkas, but Tae (or whoever is playing the part of weirdo-obsessed-with-Lashawn) actually responds to my earlier dismissal of his relevance (existence?).

This person is very clever, though; first, they make light of G-Dub's typo in a hilarious manner- hey Tae, you sound like Mr. Mackey from SP! Do I get it? I think I do! Funny, funny stuff from the Tae-dog. Here's one: Heeeeeeyyy! It's the Fonz, Tae-boo.

Then, he/she reminds me that they are here to remind me! Of how Bush has lost the moral high ground to Ted Kennedy or something! So now I must 'deal wit it'. It might take all day, but I'm determined to deal wit it.

Lastly, Tae informs all of Vodkapundit's readers that alcohol is 'for the dead, or nearly so.' Dang, Tae, once again you have convinced everyone to switch sides, and renounce our love of spirits. I'll be sure to order your chocolate banana malted thing the next time I'm out with friends at the bar. Should take the edge off nicely.

Doesn't Tae-Tae remind you of the kid in school with the unicorn shirt that would stand on the periphery of a group and occasionally shout "My Mommy says I can get a pet snake!" while everyone else was talking about girls?

-- Rob, out.

Errr "lound"...umm must have bean the Wiskeee!
Clever though, very clever.

> Condi is saying that she's not running now because she doesn't want the resultant hoopla to cause any distractions now to her boss and current job.
> Anybody who wants to be President so badly that they're announcing (or worse, visibly campaigning) almost three years before the primary season is necessarily unfit to be trusted with high office...that one or any other.

Both comments are perfectly true ... CR cannot even minimally hint at ANY interest in being POTUS without destroying her ability to be trusted domestically and internationally.

As it is, everyone will be watching agog to see if she seems to be doing "positioning"-y things ... like dramatic standout clothing or getting her position on abortion known years ahead of time so there's no last-minute-surprises in 2007 to 2008.

HOWEVER: there are several potential paths this can go:
1) CR has to resign as SecState to run ... partially harms her standing ... messy.
2) VP Cheney resigns with heart probs, she does the JackRyan and moves to VP, then can run for POTUS while in office, no resigning, and that eliminates the "never in office" problem ... and GWB seemed awfully coy/chipper about her in 08 ... plans may be afoot.
3) JackRyan scenario ad finitum : everybody please go look up the fate of presidents elected in years ending in xxx0 ... and remember, Reagan was technically dead and was brought back to life after that assassination attempt ... CR might end up running as the incumbant ... how many insane lefties, jihadis, etc hope to get GWB?

Oh: one other thing ... RudyG will be old news 7 years after 9/11 ... and 7 years after leaving office ... and this mess with Kerick(sp?) whom RudyG pushed to run DHS may well be the axe held ready to freeze a RudyG 08 run.