Condoleeza Rice vs. Hillary Clinton in 2008

Condi Feb. 15th 2005
With the recent confirmation of Condoleeza Rice as Secretary of State, the question began brewing in my mind. Why did the Bush administration push so damn hard to have her confirmed?

I mean sure, she is close to the president, and she definitely has the qualifications to do the job. But being that she was one of the chief architects of the disaster in Iraq. One would think that the commander in chief would try to find someone a little less controversial for the role… I dunno, maybe someone like the guy who was already doing the job.

IMHO Colon Powell brought a certain balance to the shrub white house. He was a moderate voice in the Neocon cabinet, and generally respected in the global community.

So why the shift?

Before I give you my reasoning on why I think this is playing out the way it is, I want to take a look at what's happening on the other side of the fence.

It's become almost painfully obvious that the Democrats despite getting their butts handed to them in November) seem to be moving in even further from the center. The recent promotion of Howard Dean to chair of the DNC is proof of that.

The next (quite illogical, but increasingly unavoidable) step is to
nominate Hillary Clinton in 2008 for president.

So what could the right wing offer to combat such a "forward thinking" move?

Nominate Condoleeza Rice as the Republican candidate.

Think about it, why stop at electing the first female president? When you could also be electing the first African American president at the same time! I hate to say it, but its brilliant. Essentially they would be 1-uping the Democrats at their own game, devious.
|