The university that I work at - American University in Dubai - has always prided itself on getting top name speakers for its graduation ceremonies. One year we had George Bush I, another we had Bill Clinton, and the rest of the time we've had former cabinet members, Senators and the like - real movers and shakers, in other words.

This last year, our speaker was Madeline Albright: Bill Clinton's Secretary of State. And as I suffered through her speech, I started remembering why I'd never really liked her tenure. Put simply, she gave the wrong speech for the wrong audience: she was preachy and pushy, hitting all the wrong notes as she went along. I feel the majority of the applause was pretty forced, which is probably as good of an epitaph for her time as Secretary of State as anything.

I know I wasn't the only one who didn't like her tenure, to judge from the comments I remember about her. Some of that criticism might have just been well-placed - or ill-considered - hated of Bill Clinton and his policies. But there was a genuine perception that, whatever her credentials, Madame Albright wasn't doing an effective job, and I agreed. And judging from the speech she tortured me with, at that ceremony, she doesn't seem to have changed all that much.

But does that make me, and anyone else who cared to complain, a male chauvinist pig and a Jew-hater?

Maybe some of her critics suffered from one or both of those mental problems, but I maintain that they were a tiny minority. And while those small fries can sure make a lot of noise, they can't even hope to account for the large body of criticism Albright engendered during her tenure. The fact of the matter is that Madame Albright was the wrong candidate for Secretary of State, and that should be an end to things.

Flash forward one Administration, and we've got a similar conundrum. After spending four years defending the indefensible, being a voice of reason in a den of madness and being shot in the back from his "teammates," Colin Powell is leaving the building. Slated to replace him is Condoleezza Rice, who would be - if confirmed - the first black woman to ever serve in such a position.

So, of course, if you oppose her nomination you are a sexist, racist pig.

Anne Coulter - that noted paragon of responsible journalism - said as much, and she's not the only one, either. Suddenly the self-serving cry of "racist" has transmigrated from the loony left (Revs. Jackson and Sharpton, in particular) over to the self-righteous right, much like it did back when Clarence "Long Dong" Thomas was being "lynched."

Now, it's highly likely that some of that noise is just political cynicism on the part of certain knob-jobs, out there in op-ed happyland. They now have a golden opportunity to try to dish out what they've been handed, time and again, and are taking full advantage of it. I need go into their sorry cases no further, other than to point out that some of us are not so easily fooled...

But I am bothered by the fear that there might actually be some people out there who are taking this seriously. To them I would say that, much like it's possible to deride Rev. Jesse Jackson for being a blackmailing scumbag and a fraud without being racist, it's also okay to recognize that Dr. Rice should not be Secretary of State, much less in her current position. Put simply, she is in moo-moo land, and we need someone much better there at this delicate time.

On the surface, it is a great thing that a black woman has been nominated to be Secretary of State. Whether done by a Republican or a Democrat, that action smashes barriers across the board and emphasizes how far we've come since the racial turbulence of the 60's.

But those who ask why Bush isn't getting complimented for taking this bold step should ask themselves what their own reaction was when Walter Mondale asked Geraldine Ferraro to be his running mate in 1984.

Unlike Mondale's choice, this nomination isn't tokenism: Dr. Rice is no lightweight goober riding her race and gender for all they're worth. There's a reason why she's got that "Dr." in front of her last name, and she has earned her due to get as far as she has.

But this is cronyism. Bush is notorious for not listening to people who tell him what he doesn't want to hear, which is part and parcel of why he won't consult with "outsiders," much less read newspapers. Dr. Rice is one of the few people Bush will listen to, and I think it's fair to say it's because she tells him what he wants to hear, and not what he needs to.

The fact that she then goes out and repeats it far and wide, being the President's mouth in absentia, is not so disturbing. I would expect everyone in the Administration to be reading the same lines in public. This is one of the reasons why her soon-to-be predecessor was such a failure in his job.

What bothers me are the lines, themselves. And she is - either through what is said or what's left unsaid - one of the major architects of their fear. I don't know whether her background hasn't prepared her for what we now face, or if she's just assumed the position along with everyone else in this Administration. But I can't count on her to understand the situations she's going to be walking into well enough to report them back to the White House - especially in the Middle East - and I don't believe that she's going to be able to broker deals and act as an effective spokesperson if she has to keep running back to the phone to ask for "her" opinion.

It is that situation/shortcoming, and not her race or gender, that should be the primary reason for her not becoming the Secretary of State. To stay silent on them for fear of being told you have a "problem with black women" is cowardice. And to suggest that her critics are somehow racist or sexist for pointing these problems out is the height of intellectual fraud - something the neo-cons she'd be pitch-hitting for are surprisingly good at.

Of course, this is all probably just words on the page: chances are good that Dr. Rice will, indeed, be confirmed as the next Secretary of State. But it will be a shame if her legacy as the first black woman to ever hold that post is one of cronyism, failure and ineptitude.