Over at the Motherblog, Kate Sheppard floats the Condi Rice for VP theory. "I have to say, the idea of her as a VP candidate is alluring, if only because I find her a completely fascinating figure: Stanford professor. Accomplished pianist. One-time Democrat. Football fan. Adorer of all things Bush. She's a much more interesting individual than McCain, and of course putting her on the ticket might add a whole new dimension to the race in November." Non-traditional politicians often look good on paper. This was true for Wesley Clark, true for any number of businessmen-turned-candidates, true for former-football player Lynn Swann in Pennsylvania, and so forth. But running for office, particularly at the national level, is a skill. And the question for someone like Condi is whether she possesses it. Wesley Clark, for instance, seemed great, and often was, but then famously tried to pander on choice and accidentally endorsed abortions right up to the point of birth. Oops. Clark, a former Rhode Scholar and four-star general, is not an idiot. He just wasn't a professional politician, but was tossed into the spotlight at a level where you can't make mistakes. He was a paper candidate who didn't work so well in the flesh. Similarly, the nuances -- and in many case, broad strokes -- of Rice's beliefs on taxation, health care, immigration, gay marriage, National Arts funding, and basically every other domestic issue are complete unknowns. On paper, that's fine. On the trail, it's only fine until she begins explaining them, or considering, off-the-cuff, an aspect of one of these issues that she never really thought about and was never told the party line on.
