Who's more qualified, Albright or Rice

The Democratic Party's fixation on race and gender explains why black Supreme Court justices can't be conservative, why Hispanic parents should not want their kids to learn English, and why members of both hues should all think alike. It explains how you get Gray Davis supporters shouting "He's a for'ner!" about an immigrant candidate, and how you get the Democratic governor responding that if you can't pronounce the word "California," you shouldn't be governor. It's also how you get the Democratic Party of Minnesota discouraging black Minnesota Supreme Court Associate Justice Alan Paige (search) from running to fill the late Paul Wellstone's (search) Senate seat in last November's elections.

"What did being a woman mean to your term as Secretary of State?" the Time interview asks Albright.

While such questions are not beneath Albright to indulge, they're not relevant. It's the difference between a platform of inclusion and a platform of substance, which is inclusive by happenstance of the country's physical makeup.

That's why when you employ a merit-based system, you get Condoleezza Rice. And when you employ affirmative action (search), you get Madeleine Albright.