Welcome to Gaia! ::

Tough to say.

I could easily see Hillary running for the presidency as she has more of a political background. In regards to Dr. Rice though, I see more similarities between her and Dr. Kissinger then her as a politician. Both her and Dr. Kissinger come from academic backgrounds, both have served as advisors to presidents running for office, and both have served more towards the top levels of the appointed executive bureaucracy both having served as National Security Advisors and Secretaries of State. I guess the kind of vibe I get from Dr. Rice is that she will probably return to the academic world, go in to business consulting, or in to the business world myself.

I could possibly see Hillary doing well in the Democratic primaries: many of the professional operatives in the Democratic party have a good deal of reverence for her husband and his strategy has been mimiced by recent Democratic candidates (although unsuccessfully). I don't see alot of other high profile candidates on the Democratic side who have alot of experience and have put in their dues to make it through the primaries. Her linkages with her husband would prove a powerful asset among Democratic faithful in the primaries I think.

Her real problems would come along in the presidential elections, where her linkage to Clinton could be a major liability. There was an interesting article in the January/February The Atlantic that discussed the political tactics of President Clinton and how they might be inappropraite to future Democratic candidates. Attachment to Clinton was a liability in the 2004 election for other Democratic candidates. The article notes that of the candidates for whom Clinton campaigned for, all eight had lost their races.

Her status as a Senator could also be helpful in a primary but a liability in a presidental election: Senators have a voting record. That is something that can help if appealing to the party faithful in a primary but hurt when appealing to a larger audience. Governers usually don't have this liability when they run. The effects of their governance are usually only felt at the state level and as governers are an executive position in state governments they don't have a voting record attached to their name.

I don't think having a female for president right now would be a wise choice. I very much agree with what you have previously stated. Basically, the main problem is many of the countries who we are not "necessarily" on good terms with do not respect women. Even some nations we are allied with do not treat women very fairly. Therefore, at this time, it would not be a wise decision, the world is just not ready for a powerful woman leader.

no better way to cahnge pepoles minds than by provin g tehm wrong anywyas.
oh man im totaly gone

Well i know for sure Hilary is going to run for president and will have a tons of supporters, and she will have tons of money for her campaign, But i have heard lots of rumors of her from the internet sating she is a homo, well the second those rumors get out about her its over, even if they are not true, no one in this country who is straight will risk having a homo, as a president. Then for Condolezza, her only chance of winning is if texas, and california go to her, because not one northern person will vote for her, the only reason i say texas, and california is that tons of imagrants,(mexicans) live there, and are becoming US citizens. which want the US to be run by mexicans, there is my point of view
alos if we had a women president, all the countries in the middle east, will be EXTREMLY MAD, because the think of women as slaves

Hillary won't make it past the primaries, because the Democrats loathe her. Just watch them dance around the topic of her.

My only fear would be if she did somehow make it - this is because most likely she'd get a good deal of ignorant votes just "because she's a woman", and with her as president? She'd set women back years. She's INSANE.

i think maybe hiliary

but im hoping alan keyes runs, thats my boy, hes awsome