Cheney out in '04; Condi vs Hillary in '08

[John Mace]

O’Reilly was touting this as a real possibility on Tim Russert’s Meet the Press this weekend. He sees the path to this by:

- Cheney steps down as VP choice for Bush in ’02 as he has no presidential aspirations and Bush needs to give the GOP a natural heir for ’08.

- Condi* gets tapped-- she’s smart, experienced and might help the GOP’s image with the minority community. Strong on International issues, where Bush has traditionally been seen to be weak. (This also assumes Powell is [b]not[b/] interested in the job.)

- Condi becomes the top contender for the GOP nomination in ’08.

- O’Reilly (and some others) seem to assume that Hillary has the ’08 Dem nomination if she wants it, and she does.

This will then result in a VERY interesting ’08 presidential race. I certainly agree with that, but don’t see this as a realistic scenario.

Firstly, I’m not sure about the whole Cheney thing, but I do believe he [b]should[/] step down if, in fact, he’s not certain he’ll run in ’08. Whether he will or not, I don’t know. Secondly, there have to be a lot of other Republicans in line in front of Condi. Frist, for one. As for whether or not Hillary is a shoe-in for the Dems, I also don’t see that. I may be biased, as I don’t care for Hillary one bit, and am perhaps unable to see her appeal. Hey, they let her carpet bag her way into a NY Senate seat, afterall.

Any other thoughts on this? I thought it an interesting proposition, even though it’s so far in the future as to make predictions extremely difficult.

I actually find the whole “Cheney should step down in ‘04” thing to be the more intersting part. Aside from the obvious snide remarks from “the left”, he really needs to be pretty darn sure he’ll run in ’08 if he intends to stay on as VP in ’04. The GOP needs to groom their ’08 candidate. Does anyone know where Cheney stands on seeking the ’04 nomination?
Perhaps his primary task was to give Bush credibility in ’02, and now he (Bush) can run on his own polularity. And whether you like him or not, you can't deny that he’s currently pretty popular.

*Condoleezza Rice, in case anyone was wondering

[december]

Rice has expressed some interest in running for Governor of California.

I don't think Bush will select her as VP, although I'd be happy to see him do so.

If she were selected as Bush's VP (and they won in 2004), she would never have won an elective office on her own. This would be a big limitation to her running for President in 2008 IMHO. She'd be much stronger in 2008 or 2012 if she were elected Governor of California and did a good job.

She does have administrative experience as Provost of Stanford University, but that's not close to being President.

[Sam Stone]

Cheney has said he has no plans for stepping down, and Bush has said he has no plans to replace him.

Condi Rice has said she has no interest in being president - her stated dream is to be commissioner of the NFL. But frankly, I think that's just her little joke.

That said...

Things change quickly in politics. If Bush is seen as being even remotely vulnerable in '02, they may consider a replacement for Cheney, if Cheney doesn't want to run. I qualify that because by all accounts Bush is fanatically loyal to his friends and associates. So I doubt he'll turf Cheney unless the idea comes from Cheney's camp first.

Would Condi Rice go for it? I say yes. The one thing Rice doesn't want to do is become a legislator. She has no interest in becoming a Senator or a Congressman. She's said exactly that in an interview with Tim Russert - her personality suits being in an executive position. So my guess is that if she were asked she would jump at it.

But here's another factor - if the Bush administration were in serious risk of not being elected, who would they pick as VP, all else being equal? No contest - Colin Powell. He still polls as the most popular politician in the U.S. And it's not that far-fetched. Bush likes surrounding himself with opposing viewpoints. Powell as VP would blunt any charges of hawkish imperialism towards the White House as well. And, they'd also pick up serious black votes. A Bush/Powell presidential ticket would be almost unbeatable.

Then Condi becomes Secretary of State, and in '08 we have the Powell/Rice campaign. Can you imagine a black president, with a black vice president, and they are Republicans? That'd give the Democrats fits.

Of course, all this is wild speculation. As is the idea of Rice becoming VP. But it's certainly a possibility.

As for Hillary - She's got a real shot in '08. She is a masterful politician. And like Madonna, she's capable of re-inventing herself as circumstances require. And I don't mean that in a negative way. Look at her stance since 9/11. She knew she was vulnerable on the military question, so she became a hawk. She was one of the strongest Democratic supporters of Bush's Iraq policy - that looks like a damned shrewd move now. And she's done a good job for New York. She also knew she was vulnerable to charges of being a carpetbagger using New York as a stepping stone to the White House, so she has hunkered down and worked her butt off for her state. She's stayed out of the major ideological conflicts like Trent Lott's gaffe.

Never underestimate Hillary. She's very, very smart. Would she beat Condi Rice? I don't think so. For all Hillary's brains, Condi's smarter. And Rice has better foreign policy credentials, although Hillary has done much to close that gap by getting herself on the Armed Services Committee. Don't be surprised to see her on the Foreign Relations committee next time around, either. She knows what she needs to do.

Her main problem is going to be her high negative ratings among Republicans. A Hillary candidacy will mobilize her opposition like nothing else could. That's a big problem in Presidential elections.

[Dewey Cheatem Undhow]

The Republican Party nominating the first (1) black and (2) female candidate for the presidency would make the heads of the race-card wing of the Democratic Party explode.

I think the interesting questions about a Rice nomination would be (1) would the nomination make heavy inroads into the minority and female vote, not traditionally a Republican stronghold and (2) could Democrats continue to successfully paint the Republican Party as hostile to minorities? What would Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc say in the face of such a nomination?

It probably won't happen, though. Condi's dream job is NFL commissioner.

(Are you sure it was Meet the Press? I don't see any mention of Rice in today's transcript).

[Frostillicus]

Of course, this all assumes that Dubya wins re-election in 2004 against the Democratic nominee, Al Sharpton.

[Sam Stone]

Dewey: The interview with Rice was at least a month ago.

[Governor Quinn]

First problem: Rice is going to run for Governor of my home state (California) in 2006, not for President in 2008.

Second problem: The Republican VP nominee in 2004 will be Tom Ridge, and, if the Reps win, Ridge will be the 2008 Rep nominee.

Third problem: Hillary has to run for re-election in 2006. George Pataki, the Governor of NY, will probably run against her, and we must remember that Andrew Cuomo has interests in obtaining high office. There's a chance she won't even run for re-election in 2006.

Fourth problem: Even if she is re-elected, that still doesn't mean that she's a lock on the Dem nomination. 5 years before an election is too long to make an accurate selection as to who will win the presidential nomination.

[John Mace]

Sam: I thought that Powell made it very clear that he does not want to run for pres. Maybe that's changeable, I don't know. I like the Powell/Rice ticket (I set that up as a hypothetical in a thread about a month ago). I like it a lot. But again, can the GOP risk a VP candidate who isn't absolutely sure that he or she will run for pres? Note that I said "absolutely sure". If they're only half committed, they shoudl be out. Can't waste the VP spot on someone like that. But if Powell is cool on the presidency, I agree that Condi going to State, then VP for Powell is a real possibility.

Quin: Condi might try to run for gov of CA, but she'll lose the GOP nomination to Arnold (as in Terminator). Ridge as VP in '04? Could be. Yeah, 5 years is a long time to look into the future, but I find this speculation intriguing. For instance, we have a real possibility of 2 women, one of whom is black, and one man who is black on the ticket (of a major party) at the same time.

Dewey: Not sure if it was MtP, but the interivew I'm talking about was Russert interviewing O'Reilly, not Condi.

[Dogface]

Powell/Rice.

Now that's the kind of old-fashioned careful conservativism I can get behind. Too bad the neos would kill it in the cradle.

[futureman]

I love how O'reilley is talking about 2008 like 2004 is locked up. I see the dems being completely mobilized this time, and the fact that the least amount of terror funding per capita is going to the two most important states *should* be a big deal for the dems in 2004. Hillary? I think she has a lot more to proove, plus Hilary hating was a profession once, and can be again.

I think a key aspect that we are forgetting is how the 2000 election played out. Gore and Bush were both extremely clumsy politicians. Bush was probably better than gore, because he had the advantage of being the new guy. But now bush will have to defend his policies in a debate. I can't wait to see that. Any one of the dems will look better than he will.

But I couldn't see Cheney taking one for the team. But of course it all depends on how much favor they have with Bush. It is very hard to tell because he is very secretive.

[John Mace]

Futureman:

Yes, a lot of this assumes that Bush wins again in '04. If the election were held today, he certainly would. You can postulate all kinds of bad things that will happen between now and then, but it's unclear why bad things, as opposed to good things, will be the order of the day.

Making anti-terror funding a key part of a campaign is going to go right over the heads of the electorate. Unless there were to be a new terror attack, it'll be meaningless. If there is a terror attack, then all bets are off on both sides of the aisle.

And it won't be up to Cheney to "take one for the team". It's up to Bush and the rest of the GOP. If they don't want him, he's out. Period.

[lander2k2]

My predictions:

Cheney will go back to his old job at Haliburton
Rumsfeld take the VP spot in ‘04
Wolfowitz will move up to take Defense Secretary
Rice will run off to be Governor of California in 06
the ‘08 presidental race will feature Rumsfeld (with Jeb Bush - currently Florida's Governor - as the VP)
in ’16 Jeb Bush will run for President with Barbara Bush (George W’s daughter) as his VP running mate
in ’24 Jeb Bush will hand over the reigns to Jenna and she will be the first female president and will inaugurate the 25th consecutive year of republican control of the Whitehouse
in ’32 the senate will pass legislation ending presidential elections and anointing the Bush family as America’s first royal family

Please don’t take this as a parody of the debate you all are engaged in. I just thought I’d take the opportunity to have a little fun.

[John Mace]

Lander:

Well, it appears you have assumed "W" (aka, little twit) wins in '04. Perhaps you are beginning to learn something afterall.

[Koxinga]

Originally posted by lander2k2
My predictions:

Cheney will go back to his old job at Haliburton
Rumsfeld take the VP spot in ‘04
Wolfowitz will move up to take Defense Secretary
Rice will run off to be Governor of California in 06
the ‘08 presidental race will feature Rumsfeld (with Jeb Bush - currently Florida's Governor - as the VP)
in ’16 Jeb Bush will run for President with Barbara Bush (George W’s daughter) as his VP running mate
in ’24 Jeb Bush will hand over the reigns to Jenna and she will be the first female president and will inaugurate the 25th consecutive year of republican control of the Whitehouse
in ’32 the senate will pass legislation ending presidential elections and anointing the Bush family as America’s first royal family

Please don’t take this as a parody of the debate you all are engaged in. I just thought I’d take the opportunity to have a little fun.

I've always thought that the Bush dynasty's best third-generation hopes lie in George P. Bush.

[lander2k2]

Originally posted by John Mace
Lander:

Well, it appears you have assumed "W" (aka, little twit) wins in '04. Perhaps you are beginning to learn something afterall.

Perhaps I have merely assumed that it doesn't matter which corrupt idiot wins in '04 and thatI was just having a little fun. And perhaps you'll never learn.

[CyberPundit]

I think that Rice would be a strong candidate for the VP ticket if for some reason Cheney isn't in the running. From her pov. , assuming she wants a shot at the Presidency, it would be a smart move and would leave her as a leading candidate in 2008 regardless of the 2004 result.

However I don't think Hillary stands much of a chance of winning the nomination in 2008. The Dems know she would be the kiss of death in the South and without winning at least one or two states in the South it's difficult to win the Presidency. If Edwards doesn't win the nomination in 2004 I suspect he will be in a good position in 2008.

"but it's unclear why bad things, as opposed to good things, will be the order of the day"
Nothing bad has to happen; the artificial war boost to his ratings will inevitably fade and the race will become a lot tighter. Even in 2000 Bush enjoyed a massive lead in the polls initially which faded away..

[Marley23]

I've never heard anything about Hillary not running for the Senate in 2006, and I'd be surprised if she didn't run for re-election. She's not really popular anywhere, so I can't see her trying for President.

Cheney wants to run in '04, and given that he's the administration's major strategist (and some might say the man in charge), I think he will. Rumsfeld is much too polarizing, I think: you don't have to be anti-war to marvel at the way he shoots off his mouth and offends EVERYone.

[futureman]

John Mace,

Okay, you do have a point. Assuming that things will go bad isn't fair. However, from my knowledge of the middle east, we are setting ourselves up for disaster, and that is why I assume bad things. But I supppose we can't do that.

But we have to consider several things. Where's the economy going and will that or something else be a big deal. Don't underestimate the terror funding deal.

Anyway, here is the weird thing that I think will be in play. For some reason, Bush hasn't had to be held accountable for anything since 911. Nobody is asking the questions right now. And the ones that do get asked aren't being answered. For some reason, we don't know yet why we failed at 911. The administration hasn't been very forthcoming and was opposed to the independent investigation IIRC. In many ways, Bush doesn't like discourse. Remember when he didn't want to debate Gore? He knows that his strong point is having other speak for him and through media campaigns, etc. That is smart of him.
But this election will be different from all those before it, I believe. The democrats will be especially encouraged to get bush out, and the reps. will be as encouraged to keep him in.

I just wonder if he can actually dodge the important questions rather than address them. I don't know, honestly. I've read a lot of things about 911, but the administration has never actually really addressed what exactly went wrong (as a result of a study) and how they can fix it. Also there is the WMD thing and how it will go down. Plus the tax cut situation where most americans favor increased spending in health-care rather than tax cuts. Americans don't agree with the cut. And they think that the rich pay too little tax. So why would they want a tax-cut for the rich?

This isn't the place to debate the validity of these points that I am making. I am just putting them up there to say, "Will these questions get asked? How would Bush react to them? Answer them? Sluff them off? And if he did just sluff them off, what would the dems do?"

Why assume that the bad things will happen? Well, if the economy picks up and Iraq turns out okay, then Bush will cruise through 2004. No questions here. But if nothing happens or bad things happen, then that is where it gets interesting.

I would like to know more about the Bush campaign plans. There are things he did last time that I don't expect him to get away with last time. Bush was pretty much record free. Sure he was governor of TX, but that didn't give the opponents much room to pick at him. Now having been one of the most active and secretive presidents ever, I'll admit that it gives the Dems many "Actions" to criticize or question. Bush had the advantage last time in that department.

Anyway, my main point is that the political skills of the last election were pretty weak on both sides. Clinton would have cleaned house, obviously. Al gore was just repugnant, and W seemed more honest. How will he face against a more skilled political opponent like Kerry or anyone else other than Gephart or another boring Dem.

[E-Sabbath]

I think people here are drastically underestimating the domestic side of things, from Ashcroft to the economy. I'm in New York, and I've been listening, and I've been hearing things coming, not from the Democrats, but from the moderate Republicans, that sound like the furor against Clinton by the conservative Republicans.

(As far as the Pubs cosying up to the Jewish community... not a chance in hell as long as Bush keeps mentioning his God every thirty seconds.)

Condi's got talent, she's got a good, projective personality, and an apparent actual grip on the issues. The lady is going to be president one day. Almost no question about it. But this election is going to be a bit more brutal than a lot of people think... this and the next are going to be the last gasp of the WWII generation in power, I think. No, not running, I mean in the political parties. McCain is going to be a really harsh challenge to Bush, Rummy or Ashcroft is sure to step on someone's neck...

And the Dems may have one or two good challenges when he survives that.

Yes, I like McCain, but I don't think he has a great chance of winning. I do think he may cripple Bush, though. The last election was an abberation, two non-entities winding up fighting each other. Especially in the debates.

[John Mace]

Futureman: Very good points. In one sense, I guess I'm jsut assuming in the OP that Bush wins in '04, and I'm really talking about the grooming of the next GOP VP candidate, assuming that Cheney is out. So even though you've made some really good points, I'm not too keen on debating them here. Sorry. Don't want another "will Bush win in '04 thread"... Wouldn't be prudent.... Of course if Bush loses in '04, all the other things we're debating here can come into play as well, it's just that Condi (or whoever) doesn't have the VP momentum to run with.

Is anyone knowledgeable about the Powell situation? I always hear that his wife will leave him if he runs for PoTUS, but that has a certain "urban legend" sound to it, and I don't know how serious to take it. Assuming the issue is being a potential assassination target, I guess that is a real issue.

[bayonet1976]

Well, if it happens I predicted it!!! So I want credit, nothing special, just my due. Say, a golden statue in the center of DC, where young women will leave roses and their phone number every day.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

There are a number of problems with O'Reilly's little fantasy. For one thing, there is no reason to believe that Cheney is willing to step down. He's way too vicious and evil to leave on his own and he's already on record as saying he has every intention of staying on the ticket for '04. The main issue a while ago was his health but he hasn't dropped dead in like two years now.

I also don't buy that Cheney doesn't want to be POTUS. Every politician wants to be POTUS, no matter what they may say publicly.

Another problem is that Condie Rice is pro-choice. That alone would torpedo any chance she would have of getting on the ticke. A Powell/Rice ticket would be an all pro-choice ticket and that will never happen in the GOP, unfortunately.

The biggest problem with O'Reilly's scenario, though, is that Shrub is going to lose in '04. The next POTUS will be Howard Dean. You heard it here first.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
Then Condi becomes Secretary of State, and in '08 we have the Powell/Rice campaign. Can you imagine a black president, with a black vice president, and they are Republicans? That'd give the Democrats fits.

Except, for one thing, in 2008, Powell will be 71. The age thing would definately be a factor.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Then Condi becomes Secretary of State, and in '08 we have the Powell/Rice campaign. Can you imagine a black president, with a black vice president, and they are Republicans? That'd give the Democrats fits.

Can you imagine two pro-choicers on the GOP ticket? Neither can I.

[ElvisL1ves]

Is this more of the same personality obsession spawned by the same "observers" who were adamant that Giuliani would beat Hillary handily for the NY Senate seat? Really, it does seem that her prospects are far more discussed by the partisan right than by the moderates or liberals she is assumed to be one of. Same goes for Ted Kennedy, too, although less than in the past.

Time to recognize when you're being sold a bogeyman, people.

[John Mace]

Elvis:

You lost me. When did Hillary run against Giuliani?? She hasn't yet, but I'd bet my next year's salary that she'd lose that one.

DTC:

"He's way too vicious and evil to leave on his own ". You're right. He hasn't had a chance to boil any babies yet, so he won't give up. I was wondering why we always see him rubbing his hands together and muttering "hee hee hee hee heeeee" under his breath.

But you do have a good point on the pro-choice deal. I'm not sure how firmly entrenched they are in a "pro-choice" stance that they couldn't, what is the word, "triangulate"?

[futureman]

Originally posted by John Mace
Elvis:

You lost me. When did Hillary run against Giuliani?? She hasn't yet, but I'd bet my next year's salary that she'd lose that one.

Don't you remember how she ran against Giuliani before Rick Lazio came in? I forget why he backed out.

[E-Sabbath]

The prostate cancer, futureman.


No way in heck she'd win a race he could pay full attention to.

[BrotherCadfael]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
As for Hillary - She's got a real shot in '08. She is a masterful politician.

Bill Clinton -- whom I neither liked nor voted for -- was a masterful politician, with a true gift for connecting with the votors. Hillary, in contrast, has a political tin ear, and a rare talent for irritating people. There are many who will vote for her because they like the postitions she espouses, but very few because they actually like her.

[ElvisL1ves]

BC, seems to me she only "irritates" people who wouldn't seriously consider voting for her anyway. That reflects on them more than on her, wouldn'tja say?

[John Mace]

Elvis:

Politicians almost always need to draw some votes from outside their base. When you have really high "negatives" like Hillary, that's hard to do. I think that's what BC was referring to.

Somehow, I see a conservative woman president before I see a liberal one. I'll have to think about how I'd articulate my reasoning for that, though. Maybe later.

[Marley23]

The prostate cancer, futureman.
No way in heck she'd win a race he could pay full attention to.

That race was neck-and-neck when Giuliani left. He might've won, but "no way in heck" isn't supported by the way things were going.

The Republican Party nominating the first (1) black and (2) female candidate for the presidency would make the heads of the race-card wing of the Democratic Party explode.

Democrats nominated a woman for Vice President some 20 years ago, just for the sake of noting it. And as for the "race-card wing" jive: a black Republican ticket vs. Democrats would be interesting from a sociology perspective, but there are black Republicans now - prominent ones like Clarence Thomas and J.C. Watts, plus obviously Powell and Rice - and few black voters seem to accept the notion that Republicans have their best interests at heart, given the percentages at which they normally vote Democrat.
It'd take QUITE a trick for a party that is actively opposing affirmative action in 2003 to run a black candidate in 2008 and not be accused of, at the least, pandering. And in addition, black voters are not going to vote for a candidate JUST because he/she is black. Give some credit. Likewise, women will not necessarily vote for a female candidate.

On another note, my personal suspicion is that Powell - remember how much speculation there was prior to September 11th that he'd quit his job? - will be done with politics of this sort after Bush is out of office.

[Marley23]

Oh, and another (perhaps trivial) point: Republicans were ALL OVER Hillary in 2000 because she was running for the Senate and had never held any other political office. (Of course, I think Mike Bloomberg here in NY has the same distinction.) So running Condoleeza Rice, who despite the importance of her current job has *also* never been elected to political office, would be more than a bit hypocritical. Not that I don't expect hypocrisy in politics, I'm just pointing it out.

[ElvisL1ves]

John Mace, I'll actually agree that the first woman and the first black elected to the White House are more likely to be Republicans, not Democrats, but I don't think it's hard to see why. Only Nixon could go to China, because someone with a less hardline background couldn't afford the criticism for blatant pandering and selling out. Only a party not known as progressive could seem to act progressively in such a symbolic way and still get votes, even if it is only symbolic.

I know what BC meant - I don't think you'll find those "high negatives" outside the demographics that simply won't vote for her anyway, as I stated. That situation could backfire and work to her advantage as well nationally as it did in New York, though, under the theory used by many voters that you can tell someone by their enemies.

Even Eleanor Roosevelt had a large cadre of haters, and for many of the same reasons, but they're not who is remembered today, are they?

[Dryga_Yes]

Originally posted by John Mace
Somehow, I see a conservative woman president before I see a liberal one. I'll have to think about how I'd articulate my reasoning for that, though. Maybe later.

Oh, it's quite obvious. There'll be a few people who agree with the party and will vote for you no matter what, but in order to actually win you'll have to convince a few people from the other camp as well. Since it'd be easier to convince open-minded liberals than misogynist conservatives to vote for a woman, a conservative president would have an easier time.

No, I'm not very serious.

[BrotherCadfael]

Originally posted by ElvisLives
BC, seems to me she only "irritates" people who wouldn't seriously consider voting for her anyway. That reflects on them more than on her, wouldn'tja say?

In any political contest you have the people who will never under any circumstances vote for Candidate A, and you have those who under no circumstanced would NOT vote for Candidate A. The contest is about those voters who lie between the extremes.

And this is where Hillary runs into trouble. She has, as I said, a political tin ear, and has a tendancy to say just the wrong thing. This won't change any votes amongst the "never-evers" or the "committed", but can and does tick off the undecided.

One example was a statement she made when asked about whether the Clinton's health care plans were too ambitious for small businesses to afford. Her reply was to the effect that she "wasn't responsible for undercapitalized companies." Regardless of the merits of the plan, this clumsy response seriously damaged the efforts to promote it.

Bill Clinton, on the other hand, had an instinctual feel for how best to address any particular group, and almost never put a foot wrong.

Note that this has nothing whatsoever to do about how well she is able to serve once elected, or about the policies she favors or not. Whatever you may feel about her merits or demerits, she is just not the masterful politician her husband is, which may or may not be a bad thing, after all.

[John Mace]

BC:

There is a lot of merit to what you say about our gal, Hillary. But she's a quick learner, and I would've never thought she'd get elected in NY, so who knows? Of course, the whole NY thing was complicated by Giuliani having to drop out, so maybe she had some dumb luck there. And she's redefined herself a bit, esp in her support of Bush and the Iraq war.

Hilary against another woman, and a black woman at that, would have a tough time winning. While not many women or blacks would vote along strict gender/race lines, enough would be swayed by gender/race if they weren't terriblly thrilled with the oponent. So Hillary doesn't get the "gender" vote, but Condi gets the "minority" vote, in that sense. Both Hillary and Condi would have a lot of appeal to many women and minorities in this country.

[plnnr]

The great unwashed won't elect a black woman to national office in our lifetime, no matter how smart and well accomplished. You're all giving the electorate way, way, way too much credit.

[ElvisL1ves]

In the same sense that Clarence Thomas "got the minority vote"? You don't get the gender/race/whatever vote by appearing to be going after it, but by showing a genuine commitment to the causes that they support. It always seems to come as a surprise to those who see the world in terms of demographics to be paternalistically manipulated to hear that they're actual people with actual concerns, and not monolithic supporters of whatever policy they're supposed to be for. Bill Clinton understood that and it worked beautifully for him. No question Hillary does, too.

My recollection of the NY polls was that she had pulled about even with Giuliani already, even before he had an excuse to bail out coming up. It's easy to forget how unpopular he had made himself up to 9/10, with the NYPD racial shooting cases and a ludicrously messy affair/divorce among other things, and that played a role in the election, too.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The problem is that Condie will not be accepted by the right. Is the GOP going to suddenly change it's position on abortion?

And John Mace, I think it's a hugely premature assumtion that Rice would automatically get the minority vote just because she's black. As Chris Rock said, "All the black people who voted for Bush are both in his cabinet."

Ther isn't going to be a huge migration of African-American support for Bush just because he puts a black woman on the ticket.

[Marley23]

It's easy to forget how unpopular he had made himself up to 9/10, with the NYPD racial shooting cases and a ludicrously messy affair/divorce among other things, and that played a role in the election, too.

Thank goodness SOMEBODY remembers this besides me.
Actually, that's a bit of an overstatement, a lot of New Yorkers do remember the real Rudy (the one who *selflessly volunteered* to stay in office after his term was supposed to be up. ).

As Chris Rock said, "All the black people who voted for Bush are both in his cabinet."

I'm trying not to draw too much attention to myself from laughing. Rock is one of the most insightful comedians of our time.
In the unlikely event that one or both of them ended up running (I don't think Powell would do it for a lot of reasons; avoiding this awkward situation would be one), I don't know that black voters would vote for a candidate who wouldn't support most of the things they did JUST because s/he looked like them. That's not giving anybody a lot of credit.

[John Mace]

Elvis and DTC:

I thought I was clear about what I meant by "getting" the minority or gender vote, but I guess not. Here's what I was getting at:

Firstly, I do not believe that any old minority candidate will get the minority vote. But if one candidate is a minority, and another isn't and both candidates have some appeal to the minority, then those minority voters on the fence will likely go with the minority candidate. Pls note the condition in bold. That is key to what I mean by "getting" the minority vote. Sorry if I was unclear in my earlier post.

In the Hillary/Condi case, this is a lot more clear cut wrt to gender than race (for obvious reasons).

And, yes, Chris Rock is a comic genius. Especially when you see him, uncensored, on HBO.

[John Mace]

Oops. Should've been "wrt race than gender".

I am proposing that the "fence sitting" women can't say "Well I like both candidates, so I'll go with the woman" since they're both women, but "fence sitting" minorities might say "Well I like both candidates, so I'll go with the minority".

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I don't think too many inorities, especially black minorities are really sitting on the fence. The African-American vote is pretty solidly with the dems, and they're not likely to switch for a woman who is number two on the ticket unless the GOP can promise some pretty major policies changes to go with it.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

I think it'd be brilliant for the Republicans to run two pro-choice black people in 2008. They'd cut so deeply into the liberal vote they might revolutionize party alignment in this country permanently.

[Mac Rame]

plnr
While I fear you are correct, I only hope that the unwashed masses are a part of the majority who do not vote (only 39.3% turnout in 2002).

I originally thought that Condie would be up for the nod in 2008. Now, I'm pretty convinced that she'll head back home to CA. I only hope that the local party officials see fit to support her over Ah-nuld as she actually has a chance. It would make sense, too, for the Republican Party nationwide to support Condie in CA as she may assist in turning the electoral votes back to the right.

The presidency is certainly in her grasp if she plays her cards right, but 2008 is a touch too soon.

[John Mace]

"I only hope that the local party officials see fit to support her over Ah-nuld as she actually has a chance."

After what Davis has done, the GOP might be able to run Donald Duck against him or any other Dem and win. Can't say I agree with your assessment of Arnold's chances. It wouldn't be a slaughter like Dem vs Arnold in celebrity death match, but I thing Arnold would still win overall. I'd hate to go up against so popular an icon.

[Mac Rame]

John: Agree with your assessment on Gov Davis. Just one nitpick: us Californians will not be subjected to Davis anymore as he is currently serving his second term. Whether or not he finishes term two is up to the results of the recall proceedings.

You're right on Arnold in terms of broad market appeal. Additionally, CA has a precedent of electing famous actors. My thinking is that CA has been a launching pad for numerous presidential candidates...and Arnold, being foreign born, may be DQ'd by the Republican kingmakers. Condie, OTOH, could run.

[John Mace]

Mac: Good points all 'round. I forgot Davis was already a two-fer.

[Mac Rame]

JohnGlad to be of assistance. I often forget about how long we've had Davis, too...or at least trying to do so.