To the editor:   Matt May's article ("Dream woman") promoting Condoleeza Rice as the Republican Party candidate for president in 2008 is very thorough, articulate, and replete with historical analogies.  An impressive piece. 

But, ultimately, it doesn't reflect the reality of modern American presidential politics, which is that winning presidential candidates almost always are former governors or vice—presidents.  Working backwards to 1900:  George W. Bush (gov), Clinton (gov), George H.W. Bush (vp), Reagan (gov), Carter (gov), Nixon (vp), Johnson (vp), Truman (vp), FDR (gov), Coolidge (vp/gov), Wilson (gov), TR (vp/gov), McKinley (gov).  This makes perfect sense —— the American people demand that the president have chief executive experience and ability.  Rice plainly lacks this critical trait. 

Moreover, since 1900 only five elected presidents have come from different backgrounds:  Taft (sec'y of war/governor general of the Philippines), Harding (senator/lt. gov), Hoover (sec'y of commerce/head of European relief efforts during WWI), Eisenhower (Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, WWII), and Kennedy (senator/congressman/war hero).  Again, Rice lacks this kind of leadership role in either the executive/military or legislature.  Rice surely is brilliant, principled, and charismatic, but her academic and advisory position credentials simply are not the stuff of presidents. 

Unfortunately, Mr. May seems ensnared by the "cart—before—the—horse" logic of contemporary identity politics, when he proclaims excitedly that by nominating Rice in 2008 the Republican Party will "become the first major party to put forth the first African American and the first woman for the highest office in the land."  A worthy achievement, to be sure —— when the right candidate comes along.  From the vantage point of 2004, however, Rice is not that candidate.

Steven M. Warshawsky
New York City