Hillary Clinton does not want any other woman to take what she regards as her just place in history. Yet, ironically, it is Hillary's candidacy that makes Condi's necessary and, therefore, likely. The first woman nominated by the Democrats can only be defeated by the first woman nominated by the Republicans. Were Condi and Hillary to face one another, it would be the next great American presidential race and one of the classic bouts in history: Hector vs Achilles; Wellington vs Bonaparte; Lee vs Grant; Mary, Queen of Scots vs Elizabeth; Ali vs Frasier. And now, Condi vs Hillary.
These potential combatants are as different as, well, black and white. In many ways, they are mirror images of each other: not only white/black but north/south; Democrat/Republican; married/single; suburban/urban; and, in policy interests, domestic/foreign.
Saying that Condoleezza Rice is black, though, is similar to saying that Colin Powell is black, that Jennifer Lopez is Hispanic, or that Ann Coulter is a woman. In each case, the statement is in fact true, but it doesn't help to explain the person in question. All of them have disregarded their racial, sexual or ethnic identies in favor of the pursuit of money and political power. Thus, portraying this as a "white/black" battle is deceptive in many ways: Clinton would be much more likely to support racial and ethnic equality and civil rights. Rice is far too busy being beholden to the oil corporations that love her so much as to name an oil tanker after her to ever care about such human issues as civil rights. Make no mistake: Rice is a neoconservative, and as such has not ideological basis for upholding the Constitution. To her, and to the rest of the Bush cronies, the "law of the land" is merly an obstacle to greater levels of power. The Bill of Rights is thus made into a pesky thorn in the side of neoconservative campaigns.
That there is even one person who has even a passing familiarity with politics and yet can still hold on to the idea that Rice has any qualifications or capacity for President is a disturbing thing indeed. Her qualifications are no greater than the only President in history to ascend to office without winning any kind of a national vote whatsoever. For her to ally herself with one who blatently steals elections, who commissions and condones the murder of nearly 30,000 Iraqi civilians, who has led the most concerted assult on the Bill of Rights in US history, and who has made a complete mockery of the nation's diplomatic relations, what does that indicate about her? What sort of person willingly and knowingly supports a war criminal, serial electioneer, and a neofascist? The portrayal of this supposed struggle between Clinton and Rice as being "preordained," just or otherwise anything other than a battle of Rice's propaganda machines against the power of the independant media to expose her for what she is would be laughable were it not for the fact that there are those among us who seem to think that she could serve this nation well in any sense of the phrase.
