Considering conservatives are up in arms about Bush's nomination of Meier, considering conservatives are not happy with Rick Santorum for abandoning his pro-life principles in backing Arlen Specter, I fail to see how Condi Rice comes out of the GOP primaries, especially if anti-life candidates like Rudy and Pataki, as well as other moderate hawks like McCain are splitting the vote. Condi may pick up the voters that Morris mentions but she also loses more than her share of the Republican base who will either go fishing or flock to some conservative who makes a third party bid. Condi's nomination just ain't happening.

Looks like the "grass-roots" effort for a Rice run is already underway in Iowa!

No way will she run, and no way will she get nominated if she does run. She's never been elected to anything, she's socially liberal (maybe fiscally liberal too for all I know), and there's an iciness to her that I don't think enough people have remarked on (although Hillary is the queen of icy so maybe that one's not such a big issue). Also she's shown no interest in the job.

She does look good in leather boots, though. I mean, really good.

The Republican nominee will be a governor and he will win. Senators cannot win national elections. Who that governor will be, I don't know.

Nobody ever heard of Carter, Clinton or Bush until 18 months before the election. So I am not worried we do not have a name now.

Condi is out. Morris' attempt to remain relevant on Hillary is going down in flames. Maybe he'll have to go back to talking about Pirro...

Hmmm...Carter...he's still constitutionally viable, eh?

Jake is right on the money. Niether Rudy, Pataki, McCain or Santorum have any shot with conservative primary voters. Santorum sealed his fate with the S.P.E.C.T.R.E. endorsement. The GOP nominee will be a governor. Mark Sanford of SC could be viable, as could MSs Haley Barbour.

How would the vote be affected if someone like George Allen were to get the presidential nomination and Condi is selected as vice president?

Considering her inability to mediate the State-DoD feud that crippled initial post-invasion efforts, and the current still-Arabist tilt at Foggy Bottom, hasn't Condi failed in each of her high-profile jobs already?

Someone, by your criteria there hasn't been a successful NSA Director or Secretatry of State since, well, ever. So mu.

Von Beck, your analysis ignores the fact that Condi is hot!

Mark, interagency sniping and State's paleo coloring have been secondary issues in the past. Now, it's hugely important, and stuff that should have been on the top of Rice's agenda since 9/11.

Goss is doing a much better job at CIA than Rice at State.

State nearly can't be straightened up in less than a generation because what needs to happen is a wholesale housecleaning, and there aren't enough 'Stans to send people to in lieu of firing them, which is for all intents and purposes impossible.

What Rice does very well is articulate the foreign policy goals of the Administration, and presents them on a world stage in a no-nonsense fashion. In short, she's a better James Baker than James Baker, and Mme. Albright wouldn't be fit to be Rice's Administrative Assistant.

NSC: smaller staff, different mandate. Besides, I'm not really sure what you would have had Ms. Rice do differently. Was it her job to get State and DoD on the same page? Don't know. Neither report to the NSC, as I recall, so again, I think you're setting an artificial standard for success.

Don't know what's happening at CIA, frankly, but it strikes me that CIA employees can effectively be ruined just by tinkering with their security clearances, so I suspect Goss has a bit more leverage. (And for that matter, head of CIA isn't supposed to be a flagship position, i.e. highly visible, where SecState is).

I don't buy into this worldview very often, but I really think Rice is held to a different standard for success than others, simply because so many people are affirmative-action shy. It seems to me she's earned her way to where she is, and she's done a good job everywhere she's been.

In other words, put her on the ballot and I vote for her. It's that simple.

Mark, I mainly make the arguments because I don't see anyone else putting them up there. People talk about her lack of elective office or domestic positions, but seem to take for granted that her foreign policy work has been all good. I agree she's done a good job in her personal State capacity, but that seems to have overshadowed everything else. (All those 'image' fluff pieces...)

At NSC, she allowed State/CIA and DoD to veto each other's postwar plans (ultrareductively, ex-Baathists v. exiles) without getting either of their own put in. I recall accounts specifically pointing to her indecisive role here. So we ended up with the minimalist Garner mess, tons of bad PR, and 6-12 months delay on lots of transition issues. (Mind you, anointing Pachachi could have done our interests more long-term harm than short-term good, but that's another story.)

At State, you may be right on relative difficulty, but the fact that the paleo squealings I read are from current instead of recent employees seems to me a sign she's not using the leverage she's got. Being exiled to nowherestan is surely at least as effective as a threat as it is as incapacitation.