It just occurs to me that Condi doesn't necessarily have to give up her White House job when she takes over Foggy Bottom. Henry Kissinger was simultaneously National Security Advisor and Secretary of State for two years. I haven't heard about potential replacements for her current position. I wonder if the White House is thinking what I'm thinking, or if they just haven't gotten around to announcing her replacement yet.

Henry Kissinger was simultaneously National Security Advisor and Secretary of State for two years.

I did not know that.

Isn't it possible though that relevant laws might have been changed since then, in part because of it?

It's possible, I suppose, but I've never heard about it. I don't think that anyone thought that it was a big enough problem that it was worth passing a law about. If Congress was worried about it, they could insist that she step down from the one office before being confirmed for the other by the Senate.

I believe Dr. Rice's deputy, whose name escapes me at the moment, will move up to tyhe top NSA job.

I heard the same thing. A senior deputy advisor will move up.

The replacement is Stephen Hadley, current deputy national security advisor: http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=622121§ion=news

A lot of folks are kicking around Rice's name as a 2008 presidential or VP nominee, but I find that doubtful, as I'm fairly certain she hasn't served in a single elected position yet. That, and I'm pretty sure she isn't married.

Neither of those conditions (prior elected office, being married) are required to be president or vice president, Neil (unless there's some new amendment they made to the Constitution when I wasn't looking)...

Taft, the fattest president and also the only one to serve as chief justice hadn't been elected to anything either. His CV reads a lot like Conni's does today

[i]Neither of those conditions (prior elected office, being married) are required to be president or vice president[/i]

Rand, don't be obtuse. These conditions are not required, but their lack makes winning election unlikely - and winning Republican nomination even less likely. Taft notwithstanding.

These conditions are not required, but their lack makes winning election unlikely - and winning Republican nomination even less likely. Taft notwithstanding.

Less likely != unlikely

I think that she might be capable of overcoming both those handicaps, both for being nominated and elected. Of course, we don't know how good a campaigner she is, since she never campaigned. But she's be sure to get a larger share of the black vote than any Republican since Reconstruction...

Frankly, I'm still hoping for Colin Powell in 2008. He'd be the strongest republican candidate in decades.

I think Colin Powell would probably make an outstanding President. He's intelligent and disciplined, has a sound moral character, and is without a Clintonian class-clown need for the adulation of a big TV audience.

Unfortunately, I don't think he'd make a very good candidate. He doesn't have much patience for sarcastic adolescent behaviour, perhaps a leftover from his military career, which means he'd be terrible at manipulating the boys and girls in the media or sucking up to Congressmen.

And also unfortunately, I don't think he wants the job. I'm under the impression he took State mostly from party loyalty and loyalty to W and his family. I think he really does want to go home and run nothing larger than his family. And since he doesn't seem impressed with cheering crowds, it won't be possible to seduce him into it. He might do it if he saw it as his duty, but God forbid we should throw as terrible a burden as the Presidency on a good but unwilling man's back. He's served his country very well, and earned his retirement.

In short, for some of the very reasons he'd make an outstanding President, I doubt he'll ever be one. Ironic.