[I wrote this essay six years ago. I knew even then that Rice wouldn’t run for president — she’s much too smart for that. Too bad, though. She would have been a great president, a great argument for everything America can be. I don’t see this promise in Barack Obama — much the contrary — and I hope to Christ I’m wrong. Nota bene: Many of the links will be broken by now. –GSS]
The Los Angeles Times has an article (registration required, alas) speculating on the prospects for a 2008 presidential match-up between Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice.
It’s not a brand-new idea. I first heard of it from Andrew Sullivan. And the Times article is following-up on, without mentioning, a recent public address by William Safire.
I am in love with this idea, and not just because I have publicly and repeatedly declared my enmity for all things Clinton. I would love to see Hillary Clinton get trounced at the polls by Condi Rice, but, truly, I would love to see Hillary get trounced at the polls by just about anyone.
And I’m not changing my spots to become a Republicrat this late in the game. Everything I’ve heard about Rice suggests that she is the least objectionable sort of mainstream politician — pro free-trade, pro second amendment, anti big government. And like that other bright light of black conservatism, Justice Clarence Thomas, she seems to be driven by firmly-held principles, not will-o’-the-wisp polling results. But it remains that she is a mainstream politician, a decidedly small-L libertarian.
Nevertheless I want her to run and I want her to win. I want what she stands for to win.
And by “stands for”, I mean what she stands for as a symbol. This is completely unfair to her, I confess. It was unfair to Justice Thomas, too. And as much as I regret what was done to him for all the things he stands for, both in his principles and as a symbol, nevertheless I am glad that he was stout enough of heart and spirit to withstand his torment. He conferred upon America a gift Read more
