Aaron - first off, I agree with you; This type of subtle racism (and sexism) are prolific in this country. It is absolutely sad, and all sides practice it.

If history is any indication, it is much more likely that our first woman prez will be white, followed by a black or latino man, then someday (not likely before I die), a black woman.

However, I can't say I'm surprised that the people you mention think the way they do, nor am I surprised that they have no idea however racist or sexist their attitudes might be - in fact, I'd wager they don't care.

Christian Right-wing extremists (and mind you, I don't find extremists of any ilk to be a good thing - though I do find them entertaining) are the least likely to consider women to be viable candidates. Think about it...according to hard-core religious-type folks, the home can only have one leader - and that leader must be a man. By extension, a State or a Country can be considered a 'home'.

We had a christian conservative woman run for governor in this state, and she lost in a landslide (meaning most of 'her side' didn't vote for her, if they even bothered to vote)...mind you, she was more than a bit nutty, but she while the folks who voted her into the primaries got her to the candidacy, her own party hardly supported her - and my argument is because she's a woman, and the 'base' of the extremists in her party can't support a woman as a ruler. It just doesn't fit in with the religious agenda.

After that woman (and the next republican candidate in a later election, a man) lost, the governor in-seat decided not to run again. The candidate who replaced him? A woman democrat...

The resultant race was highly contentious, and it's possible that the woman in-seat now didn't even win the election due to vote-counting errors and fraud.

However, it was a very tight race. Enough voters came out for both sides (the republican candidate was a man) to make it a highly contentious and contested race...

Would it have been so close if the republican candidate was a woman? I don't think so. Not because voters would have preferred the democrat woman over the republican woman, but because republicans would be less likely to vote for a woman at all...

Women and minorities have so many strikes against them, despite the progress we've made in this country...it's sad that that progress only comes in very rare spurts.

Good thing for the citizens of NC that Liddy Dole didn't listen to your type of analysis, tj.

You can't really compare governors races in Washington and North Carolina. Any republican with good name recognitiion could have moved to NC and won.
TJ doesn't mention that the two term governor was an Aian-American and a centerist, DLC type Democrate in a very progressive state. The Republican party ran a woman to try to defuse the race card.
And wasn't Dixie-Lee Ray, a woman and an independant, the previous governor?

Maybe I am naive, but I believe Condi when she says she isn't going to run.

But, you do have a point about Hugh just blatantly ignoring her performance in the fantasy poll.

Her Bio is certainly impressive. She would, I think, be the most intellectually accomplished person to run from either major party post WWII. But as far as I know, Condi has never held an elected office. Has anyone else ever successfully run for president that wasn't either a Governor or Senator? Discounting George Washington, of course.

Condi beats Hillary, another reason to oppose the lesser of two Clintons.

Gore in eight, it ain't too late!

I dunno, I think Hugh is a realist and knows Condi won't run and would, because of her lack of elective experience, have troubles if she did. It wasn't racist that people from day 1 thought of Edwards and Clark as natural VP candidates.

Yes, candidates have been elected who'd never held elective office before; the two since 1900 are Eisenhower and Hoover (Hoover had been a Cabinet secretary). Washington, by contrast, had been an elected state legislator in Virgina.

I'm a Condi fan too but polls aren't voting booths and the best we can hope for is V.P. or she'll undercut the base because of her lack of experience.

Remember Senators usually lose to Governors in Presidential races and Condi hasn't been either one.

If Condi runs, she'll win. That's the bottom line. She crushes every other candidate in nearly every poll she's in. For me, it either has to be her or Giuliani in 2008. I don't get why Hugh or Glenn don't even give her a chance. Doesn't make sense to me. I think John Thune would get crushed.

No man who plays the ever-more irrelvant "race card" can be a Republican. Speaking as an employment attorney who every day deals with frivilous lawsuits alleging "race discrimination this", "sex discrimination that", I can say unreservedly - people like you ruin our country.

The Democrats make no secret of their race pandering, and that's why they never win elections - why the heck should any white man vote for them? (You are essentiually voting for reverse racisim legislation agasint your own interests). But Rockefeller RINOS who support such nonsense are even worse.

Title VII should have been repealed a long time ago. It's amazing to me that politicans have been so cowed by guys like you that they won't even touch the subject with a ten foot pole.

David, I think you're mistaken. I did not say they were racists and I am very much a Republican. And all this talk of Gulianni. Everything that disqualifies Condi as a conservative should disqualify him.

My post was to point out how people can say certain things and not see how it appears to others.

They were discussing a staw poll and the person who is crushing everyone is Condi. They spent one sentence on her as VP. The rest was all this speculation about white men. That's all. Thune? The only experience he has as an executive is running the SBA.

There is no race pandering on this site. I call it like I see it. Something smelled about their posts and I said so.