But is she saying that it's just single women who can't hack it, or that it's a tough position for anyone who doesn't have an excellent support system?

I think that when you're under that much stress, you really do need someone to talk to who is always willing to listen and who you know has no agenda but your well-being, like a sibling or a parent or yes, a spouse. It doesn't really matter if you're male or female.

But it doesn't have to be a family member. Condi wouldn't have gotten to where she is now without a strong social support system composed of, maybe, fellow neocon intellectuals.

There's only ever been one single *man* who became president, either.

This may not be a "a woman needs a husband" comment so much as "a president needs a spouse"... which may actually be true, at least inasmuch as no single person has won the Presidency in the 20th century.

I mean, I'm no fan of Laura Bush... but the evidence is on her side in this case. Single people don't win the Presidency even when they are male. (In general single people don't even run. Dennis Kucinich is the only single candidate I can think of in some time.)

i'm not saying it was a distinctly sexist comment--just an irksome one

I don't understand how having dead parents and no siblings excludes one from having supportive friends. I also don't understand how being single excludes one from ever getting married or having a love life. I would tend to think this is more an indication on the neediness/helplessness of Laura's husband than it is on Condi.

sounds like ms. bush doesn't count herself among the "supportive friends." my supportive friends wouldn't cut my career legs out from under me because i'm (happily) unmarried.

i can see why laura bush wouldn't like condi referring to bush as her own "husb--" though.

I think this is also an indication of Laura Bush herself. She's not the most independent of First Ladies. To me, it shows how pervasive this thinking is.

Reverse the situation to a man in similar circumstances. What would the comment have been? I bet it wouldn't have been the same.

Sure, maybe the comment would be the same about a single man running for president. But I also think this is a case wherein women candidates just can't win either way. If Condi had a husband and five kids, then people would be saying she couldn't hack it as president because she has too many familial responsibilities.

I think it's hard for any single person to win elected office, simply because an opponent can turn it around saying single people and people without kids "don't understand the needs of families". I think such a notion is ridiculous, but there are plenty of voters out there who believe it. (Lousy single people with their iPods, and their discotheques, and their crazy Interwebs!)

To me, it sounds like she's saying "if you don't have major political connections, you can't be president".

I dunno; I can't agree with exactly what Mrs. Bush said here, but I see her general point. Every time I do an acknowledgments page in one of my books, I "thank my family for their love and support." Those aren't empty words for me. I'm 28; I have a terrible, distant relationship with my brother; the nephew who grew up as a little brother is a medical resident and we're not likely to be able to spend much time together over the years; but I have three close family members, all over 60, who are there for me.

I honestly don't know where I'll be in 20 years, emotionally, if I don't have a life-partner. Is it hypothetically possible that I would have a group of friends--a "tribe"--close-knit enough that they could provide that level of emotional support? Maybe. But I would be high-maintenance. For a high-stress job like the presidency, I would need emotional peers in whom I could confide anything--scandals that would destroy my political career if they went public, national security secrets, whatever. One or more people I'm actually trusting with much more than my life.

But I don't think that's necessarily what marriage is for. Folks of Mrs. Bush's generation and political predilections tend to have a much more utilitarian view of life-partner relationships than I do. If Ms. Rice were to say "butt out--that role is being filled by my friends," I'd respect that. But the one bachelor president we did have, James Buchanan, told his successor, Abe Lincoln: "If you're as happy entering the White House as I am [leaving it and going home], you're a happy man indeed." The presidency damn near killed him because he had nobody to confide in; his partnered relationship was very much of a Brokeback Mountain nature, so there wasn't really anybody there, day in and day out, that he could be frank with. No wonder it broke him down.

Cheers,

TH

I don't know... I mean, since studies show that marriage benefits men a lot more than it benefits women, it might not be right to compare the difficulties for women vs. men.

As for me, I have an amazingly close relationship with my mom and sister... I hope that my mom would live long enough to be around when I'm old enough to be president, but there are no guarantees. I also get along very well with my brother. I have a close-knit group of girlfriends from law school with whom I speak, over email, virtually every single day, and in whom I confide almost everything. Including secrets I'm not sharing here or anywhere they could be committed to writing. I have additional close friends I talk to fairly regularly, and who I would trust with my life.

I think I have a pretty damn good support network... frankly, it's probably a big part of why I don't feel any particular urgency to meet someone and settle down. Granted, if/when they start getting married, these relationships could be harder to maintain -- however, two of these very very close girlfriends are married (though one is in the process of a divorce) and have been in these relationships since the day I met them. It hasn't been an impediment to our close bond.

So... I'm not convinced. If anything, it seems to me being single could be an asset for someone who has to make hard decisions, day in and day out, that affect the welfare of an entire COUNTRY. Maybe worrying about your spouse and children could even make it harder to be rational about what's the best course of action for the nation.

I think Laura's comments are INCREDIBLY out of line. They're bordering on gauche. She is implicitly suggesting that because Condi is not married, that she lives a lonely life destitute of closeness and support. How offensive. I hope Condi gives her the cold shoulder at the White House Christmas party.

Hopefully, she's suggesting W will be stuck in Paraguay.

Oh, it's definitely gauche, TLF. It's incredibly rude to comment on someone's personal affairs like that. I thought that went without saying.

I was really articulating more what Tom said so much better; the supportive relationships need to be utterly unbreakable, and that's best achieved with family. If you'll note, I listed spouse after sibling and parent.

I just didn't agree with the notion that Laura meant that lonely spinsters can't take the heat, because I think what she said applies to everyone.

But when said about one specific person, it was rude. She should have left it at, "I'm not sure she's interested for personal reasons," if she had to say something at all.

"i'm not saying it was a distinctly sexist comment--just an irksome one"

Irksome perhaps, but truthful nonetheless.

Actually, I like this comment by Ms. Bush. Anything that keeps Rice out of the White House is fine with me. Now, if only Laura would divorce her husband and take the dogs so Dubya would have no emotional support. Oh, wait. That's what the beer's for.

Just think how much worse Bush would screw it up if he were single.

TLF writes:
As for me, I have an amazingly close relationship with my mom and sister... I hope that my mom would live long enough to be around when I'm old enough to be president, but there are no guarantees. I also get along very well with my brother. I have a close-knit group of girlfriends from law school with whom I speak, over email, virtually every single day, and in whom I confide almost everything. Including secrets I'm not sharing here or anywhere they could be committed to writing. I have additional close friends I talk to fairly regularly, and who I would trust with my life.

Right--and apparently, Condoleezza Rice has none of these relationships. Or at least that's what Laura Bush implied. I mean, what she basically said was that Rice is a loner, has no family, has no significant other, has no siblings or close friends who can fill that role, and that the presidency would drive her crazy if she didn't have that support network in place. If all of those conditions are true, then I'd say the conclusion is true also, but it was mighty rude of Mrs. Bush to say so.

I'm not putting marriage up on any kind of pedestal, but if my family were gone tomorrow and I were suddenly elected President, I don't know how many of my friends would be able or willing to pick up that much emotional slack.

Cheers,

TH

Anything that keeps Rice out of the White House is fine with me.

But she should still run in the Republican primary. Hopefully she'll win; as President she'll do less damage than Giuliani or McCain or Romney, and she's less electable than at least McCain and Giuliani, and she'll force the Democrats to start competing for black people's votes.

"if my family were gone tomorrow and I were suddenly elected President"

Tom, while I would never wish ill on you or anybody you love, I think that if the second part of this statement ever actually happened, I personally would undertake to listen to your troubles every single day, because it would be the best thing to happen to this country in my lifetime!

Maybe she just needs a wife : P

Alon:
Yes, she'll do less damage than those three, but she's also more electable. The last thing we need is another Republican president.

This is a really thoughtless, old school comment that is common of Laura's generation and upbringing; there are a lot of reasons to not want to be President of the US--and being a single gal is not one of them. Seasoned single women have done extraordinary things in the world--Oprah has single-handedly changed and inspired the world as just one example. And she has done it with the support of her closest friends while not being married.

While it's true that it is ever helpful to have a supportive group around you, it does not necessarily need to be a spouse--again, witness Oprah. Single people can focus more intently on their careers as they do not have the weight and responsibility of managing their family's internal issues and desire for attention which can prove to be distracting from the work itself.

From my perspective in my generation I would say that a single woman who is hellbent on her career and has a singleminded focus and desire to fix the issues of this country as well as one who is incredibly savvy and shrewd could take on the heavy burden of the Presidency and do it at least as well as a man as a woman is trained early on to multi-task and balance the needs of those around her. In addition women have an easier time of remaining single and focusing on their work than men seem to have as most men need to be in some kind of intimate relationship; women can be comfortable simply caring for the their close friends and family and being passionate about their work.

So I would encourage any single woman who wants to take on the burden of the Presidency or any other large corporate or political role to tackle it head on regardless of your marital status and start proving that women are just as capable as men of brilliantly managing difficult roles. We simply need more role models for the upcoming generations of women in this country; so go forth, ladies, and conquer!

This is a really thoughtless, old school comment that is common of Laura's generation and upbringing; there are a lot of reasons to not want to be President of the US--and being a single gal is not one of them. Seasoned single women have done extraordinary things in the world--Oprah has single-handedly changed and inspired the world as just one example. And she has done it with the support of her closest friends while not being married.

While it's true that it is ever helpful to have a supportive group around you, it does not necessarily need to be a spouse--again, witness Oprah. Single people can focus more intently on their careers as they do not have the weight and responsibility of managing their family's internal issues and desire for attention which can prove to be distracting from the work itself.

From my perspective in my generation I would say that a single woman who is hellbent on her career and has a singleminded focus and desire to fix the issues of this country as well as one who is incredibly savvy and shrewd could take on the heavy burden of the Presidency and do it at least as well as a man as a woman is trained early on to multi-task and balance the needs of those around her. In addition women have an easier time of remaining single and focusing on their work than men seem to have as most men need to be in some kind of intimate relationship; women can be comfortable simply caring for the their close friends and family and being passionate about their work.

So I would encourage any single woman who wants to take on the burden of the Presidency or any other large corporate or political role to tackle it head on regardless of your marital status and start proving that women are just as capable as men of brilliantly managing difficult roles. We simply need more role models for the upcoming generations of women in this country; so go forth, ladies, and conquer!