Michelle Malkin points to this provocative piece by Steven M. Warshawsky and asks, "see if you agree."

In the piece, Warshawsky takes apart the growing theory that Condoleezza Rice would make a great presidential candidate in 2008. But his argument has some holes that are worth pursuing.

He says, "For all her virtues and strengths, and she has many, Rice simply is not presidential material." The same was said of Harry S. Truman, Ronald Reagan, Teddy Roosevelt and George W. Bush. What is presidential material?

He says, "But she lacks the background and experience to be a credible, let alone winning, candidate for the White House in 2008. " John Kerry had a pretty impressive pedigree and resume. So did Al Gore. So, for that matter, did William Jennings Bryan. The American people don't elect a pedigree. They elect a leader.

He says, "No one starts his (or her) career in elected politics by running for the White House. The idea is absurd. " They also said it was absurd to think an actor could be president, or someone who was divorced, or someone who was Catholic.

He says, "Even Hillary, who has presidential ambitions of her own, realized that she had to start by winning a seat in the U.S. Senate. If Condi wants to be a serious candidate for the White House someday, she needs to pursue a similar course." A similar course? Does that mean, cherry pick the electoral landscape for an easy seat to win, carpetbag, and spend the next several years issuing press releases about obtaining funding for local dam projects? Should she move to Minnesota, try for Sen. Dayton's vacant seat, and work quietly as a junior senator under Norm Coleman? Actually, no, because he recommends against her running for senate.

He suggests she run for governor: "Since 1900, almost every elected President previously served as governor or Vice-President ..." Included in that lineup, though, are Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon, and LBJ, who left office broken and abysmally unpopular. So neither a governor's nor a vice president's credential is an automatic ticket to greatness.

He ridicules Dick Morris for suggesting Rice would be popular with women and minorities: "...This is nothing but crude identity politics masquerading as political analysis..." But then he goes on to say, "Whether we like it or not, most Americans – men and women – are not accustomed to having women in positions of significant authority outside the family. "

So perhaps it's a case of mistaken identity politics.

He also says Rice would have no base of support, primarily a regional base of support, that successful candidates usually have. Well, if "people who want a candidate who would kill, not coddle, the most terrorists" is a demographic, she'd be pretty strong there.

Look, it's too early to say whether Secretary of State Rice should run for president. Let's see how she does with the Middle East, North Korea, Iran, Darfur and the War on Terror first. If she handles them well, there may be a new definition of "presidential material" being written.