Some Republicans may figure that putting Condi on the ticket would draw the pro-black and pro-woman votes away from Obama or Clinton. But the people who'd be likely to vote FOR a candidate for being female or minority are probably mostly Democrats or centrist-to-liberal independents -- not too likely to support right wingers like McCain or Rice. If anything, the Republicans, by putting a black woman on the ticket - to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency - would LOSE some prospective voters who otherwise might have been drawn to the polls specifically to vote AGAINST an African American or woman.

And if the Dems ran the right ads, reminding people of Rice's incompetence or duplicity as National Security Advisor before 9-11-01 and in the months following it, the bloom would be off that rose pretty quickly.


[[Also no one is talking about the gorilla in the room. The Clinton baggage that will bring out the Republican base, which is very demoralized this time, like no other factor can.]]
Heck, I've been talking about it for some time now.
Nothing would probably energize the disillusioned far-right-wing this year MORE than having Hillary Clinton be the Democratic nominee.

[[Diebold has a better chance of electing the next president than any candidate's performance in debate or general disposition.]]

That's exactly why Obama has a better chance of beating Hillary. I think the BEST Clinton can hope for is a ca. 51/49 percent popular vote split - and similar wins in some swing states.   That's way too close a margin to prevent the election from being tampered with again (by electronic voting tampering, caging, and other tricks to prevent Dems from voting).
Obama might possibly lose by a bigger margin than Clinton -- if there are a lot of voters who base their vote on racism and if the new prospective voters Obama has inspired don't show up at the polls -- but he has a good shot at a landslide victory over McCain.

[[The most proposterous* propoganda (*the more proposterous the more effective) out there is that McCain stands a 50 50 chance of winning.]]
Ah, but the talking heads on the mass media have so much control over our information feed that they can make that preposterous bit of propaganda into reality, I fear.
They can make the real winner of a debate look like the loser, by their camera angles, etc., and by selective editing and running their chosen clips over and over while hardly anyone gets to see the rest of the debate again. They can help McCain come off as lovable and avuncular by throwing him softballs and touting his amiable, trustworthy "maverick," "centrist" image (and the facts be damned).

Research shows most people's votes are based more on emotional connection than on how well a candidate's stance on the issues represents theirs. That's a major reason why a charismatic, cool (not hot-headed), down-to-earth, attractive, tall young man with a gift for inspirational speeches has a much better chance than someone who often comes off (in public appearances) as stiff, programmed, cold, or hard.   Hillary probably does get a bad rap where some of that image is concerned, but it's there nevertheless.