There's no doubt that Hillary Clinton is a popular figure among Democratic women. Her approval rating is even higher than the president's.
But I also noticed something interesting when Condoleezza Rice spoke at the Republican National Convention last summer--
My Facebook newsfeed lit up with emotional accolades from my Republican and independent friends, who were enamored by Rice's speech and her poise.
This leads me to believe that 2016 could give us an awesome and historic presidential candidate match-up: Hillary Clinton vs. Condoleezza Rice.
And I'm not the only one hoping it'll happen.
A recently-released Fox News poll asked the question, "Would this person make a good president?"
The top two picks were... you guessed it: Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton!
55% of respondents thought Mrs. Clinton would make a good president, while 43% believed Condoleezza Rice would make a good president.
There was also speculation that both women would run for president in 2012, but obviously, that didn't pan out. Ms. Rice has shown no signs yet of preparing for a presidential run in 2016, but Hillary Clinton's new website has led to a lot of speculation as to whether it's the first step i an upcoming presidential campaign. The website certainly LOOKS presidential.
I would personally love to see a woman as president, whether she's a Democrat or a Republican. I think that women handle things differently from men, and believe we might see more creative solutions and compromise on Capitol Hill than we have over the last few decades.
One thing I've learned, though, is that the most obvious presidential candidates often choose not to run, leading to situations like we had with the Republican presidential candidates in 2012. The pandemonium and divisiveness that ensued as a result of a half-dozen candidates refusing to drop out of the race ultimately weakened the Republican ticket, in my opinion. The GOP is going to need a strong candidate that they can all unite behind if the party's going to have any chance in 2016. If Hillary does decide to run, her popularity ensures that she's going to be a tough candidate to beat.
Still, I'm keeping my finger crossed about a Clinton-Rice match-up in 2016 -- How about you?
Images via Robert Huffstutter, Marc Nozell/Flickr
This Hot Dad Wants to Do Your Ironing
This Hot Dad Wants to Cook You Dinner
This Hot Dad Cooks AND Does the Dishes
Kanye West is Gay?! 
Comments 19
Condoleezza Rice has said many times that she is not interested in running for president but if she ever did change her mind, I would certainly vote for her. I really wanted Hillary Clinton in 2008 and voted for her in the primary but now after 4 years of Obama and another 4 years to come, there is no way in hell I would vote for someone with his ideology after him.
No, Deb. I can't make "all other things equal", because you have to factor in personality, and there's no way to make that "equal".
I cannot put gender on the same level with others you defined as 'groups' or subgroup. Women are not a 'group;' I think that is demeaning [to you too] and an invalid comparison. The 'personality' you describe is not that dissimilar to what I'm saying, tho: a Point of View. The way a man sees the world and approaches problem-solving is very different than the way a woman would, and how each projects that. I want that POV represented — all other things being equal. As for personality, per se, eh, don't care about that, you will never know who these people are anyway — just the 'persona' they want you to see.
I'm good with agreeing to disagree.
DebraLa-you sound just like what PonyChaser doesn't want, people who will vote for someone because of their gender, race, etc. It's just as wrong to vote for someone because of those reasons as it is to not vote for someone because of them. I disagree that a woman sees things this way, a man sees things a different way. Hillary Clinton is very similar to Obama, you're not going to get a lot of difference in the way they govern. Now if you compare Dr. Rice to Obama, then yes you will but it doesn't have anything to do with their gender. Also, along your line of thinking, if Rice and Clinton ran against each other, how would you differentiate between them based on your logic? Your vote would come down to their political views.
Ah. The one-way, over-simplification filter is on again, I see.
Ah, the emotional liberal who can't respond with an intelligent rebuttal is on again.
I think where we differ, Deb, is where I differ with a lot of people. I don't elect people to go and "do things for me". I elect them to lead my country.
I don't put them in office so they can get special favors for my state, or extra money for my congressional district, or even special treatment for my gender/race/religion/pick a special-interest group. I elect them to ensure the safety and security of my country, to ensure that my tax dollars are being properly - and FRUGALLY, and to ensure that my freedoms are being protected.
Frankly, I don't care if it's a pair of pants or a skirt sitting in that oval office. But right now? The pair of pants that IS sitting there is a useless, pathetic excuse for a "leader" who is more interested in his golf game and his next vacation than being a decent leader. And Hillary is too busy securing a "legacy" for herself than actually doing well for this country.
I will wait and see what the next election offers me. But the last thing on my checklist of qualifications is gender, race, or religion. Isn't that the way it's supposed to be? Aren't we supposed to "judge a man by his character not by his skin color"? Or is that just a bunch of platitudes when political favors are on the line?