But I don’t think either Rice or Clinton will be their party’s nominees in 2008.

Hillary is fading, just as Bill Clinton is fading. Under the great sun that in George W. Bush, their legacy (doing nothing about terrorism or Social Security or taxes) is shriveling away.

Rice is building an impressive resume, but nominating an executive branch officer, other than VP, is unheard of.

By 2008, 4 of the past 5 men elected president will have been former or current Southern or Western governors. This is where the nominees will come from. They may be people we’ve hardly heard of now.

With Bob Shrum on the Democrat side, the Republicans don’t have to.

Ridge-Rice in ‘08

Rice-George P. in ‘16

Schrum is what ? 0-7 now ?

I’d give Rice a good deal less than a 50/50 chance of being #1 on that ticket, a one in five chance at best, realistically, and that assumes she performs well at State. On the other hand the lack of political seasoning didn’t impede an Eisenhower. Obviously, that situation was different in many respects, still, it helps to show that the lack of political seasoning per se doesn’t need to be the impediment that some seem to be inferring. (Also agree that HRC is not more than a 50/50 possibility herself.) So at this early stage it’s little more than a bit of fun to consider a Condi Rice/HRC matchup – yet it has an instructive side nonetheless.

Condi is a rising star born of real world accomplishments, gravitas and capable of holding to a vision that combines a realism with sustainable ideals. I.e., a rising star reflecting substantial qualities.

HRC, by contrast, is a fading red dwarf whose shine always was more a result of able handlers, PR and a supporting cast of MSM friendlies. I.e., a PR-enhanced, status quo politico whose veneer and gloss belies backward looking ideological group-think and the crutch of old-school MSM/DNC collusions.

At this point a bit of provocative fun only to consider the matchup, but instructive nonetheless.

You have given voice to my vague feelings on HRC in ‘08. Hillary is a bogeyman to fearful Republicans and a nostalgia-based savior to desperate Democrats. However, all the political factors point to someone else. This fear and nostalgia are based on one myth and two conditions.

First, lets deal with the myth. Bill Clinton did not defeat Bush-41 in 1992. H. Ross Perot beat Bush while Clinton became President as an afterthought. [One should properly say that Bush beat Bush in 1992...read my lips...] In reality Bill Clinton did worse then Michael Dukakis. A two-way race would have been a Bush blow out.

Now lets talk about the two closely related conditions. Close cooperation between the Clinton campaign and the Iran-Contra special prosecutor over the Weinberger indictment tipped the plurality to Clinton during the last weekend of the campaign. The indictment would have been quashed because the statute of limitations had run out and the case was non-existent. It was a political indictment designed to damage Bush. If Bush had won I suspect there would have been an investigation of Walsh for misconduct. The Weinberger indictment was really a ploy to exploit the DNC/MSM connection. Without MSM support the charge would have had no legs. This is important. The MSM has been neutralized as an effect propaganda agent for the DNC. In the next election cycle the MSM will either have become neutral or operate as an open agent of the DNC. In either case, the MSM will have lost the ability to successfully manipulate the news to favor the Democrats.

Thatís the good news for HRC. Now lets look at the bad news. The country is undergoing a political ìred shift.î For the past two decades the Democrats have relied upon the minority rainbow to underpin their coalition. However, two thirds of the rainbow is either evenly split [Hispanics] or already Republican [Asians]. This leaves them with only the African-American block as reliably and safely Democratic. Given this fact the defection of just another 10% or so of the black vote to the Republicans probably turns California, Michigan and Pennsylvania into red states. California may shift red even without a substantial change in the black Republican vote if sufficient Hispanics shift red. The DNC rainbow will consists of African Americans, Jews and gays. When you throw in the Urban sophisticates New York is the only big state that is a guaranteed win.

HRC is the quintessential blue state candidate. By 2008 the only safe blue region will be New England and the Pacific Northwest. She is unelectable and by 2006 every political pro will know it. I suspect Hillary and Bill will know it too. She will enter the campaign because it is in her nature to try but somebody else is going to get the nomination.