I disagree with Dick Morris' contention that Rice is the only one who could beat Hillary. I think Morris has a tendency to going to town with data that supports his contentions, and ignore that which disagree with it. I do agree that long-term demographic shifts favor the Democrats and the Left, but as with the last several decades, I think even in 2008 the nation will still naturally favor a conservative over a liberal in normal, stable circumstances.
Unfortunately, the potential seems higher than usual for big macro-condidtions to set up in favor of a leftist like Hillary, to push the electorate into voting against their natural inclination. Thankfully, we still have a little over 2 years for things to improve (by that I mean improve to the point where it would be hard for the media to credibly paint a picture of doom and gloom that only Saint Hillary could rescue us from).
I understand that people think a Rice candidacy could offset some of these things with an expected large draw from women and black voters. I don't believe for a second that Rice could win half of the black vote as some believe. I think that the natural desire of blacks to see a fellow African American ascend to the highest office would be offset by the inevitable demagoguery of her as a female Uncle Tom; by the time the Left and the NAACP got done with her she wouldn't be thought of as 'black', much like Clarence Thomas. Of course I'd be remiss to not acknowledge that Dem success generally relies on winning upwards of 90% of the black vote, so if she could just win 20 or 30% then maybe that would be enough to pick off some close states like Penn or Michigan.
As for women; well I don't really see why they would be more inclined to go with Rice over Hillary. While I agree with the conventional wisdom that VP's don't make much difference (with some exceptions of course, like LBJ and Texas), part of me thinks (or maybe hopes) that a Rice on the VP slot would help the GOP offset a possible Hillary landslide with women. I mean, having a credible and strong woman running as the VP would be quite novel as well (Ferraro doesn't fit that description), and again, it would set her up as an inevitable successor.
If the before-mentioned macro condidtions of our society are in good shape in 2008, and if Hillary has a good chance at winning, then I fear for the future because that would not speak well of where we stand as a nation.
I don't agree with Morris either, but I do think Condi would vaporize the beast. Others might win, but Condi would be their kryptonite.
Women, for one, are not NOW dykes or monolithic idiots who do as they are programed by the MSM to do or think. In fact, most women still have the beast's number just as they did after her dismissive remarks about having better things to do than stay at home and bake cookies. A friend of mine described his wife's reaction the first time she saw the krintons on the tube before the '92 election. She walked in, looked at the image of the krintons and asked who the feminist was that hated her husband. BAM! Absolutely cold and she got the entire picture. Other do to, but leftist polls ignore it.
Blacks, too, will also resonate with Condi when her full story is known. The bogus krintonesque 'down home' BS will shrink before Condi's real claim to civil rights fame and black heritage. Even the rave baitors will take a backseat to a righteous woman like her. If they don't she'll have the full ability to b*tch slap them into eternity.
In the end, all I am saying is that Condi would win in a landslide. She is not the only electable candidate, though. For me, winning is important, but I want my nation's enemies skewered on a spit and roasted on the White House lawn and Condi is the one to do it as well as mix-up a BBQ sauce to serve them with..