Readers have weighed in on the 2008 election, at least in terms of the hypothetical scenario that I posed in a column a few weeks ago. The question was: Which candidate would you support for president: Condoleezza Rice as the Republican nominee or Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democrats?

Although initially responses poured in for Rice, Clinton quickly gained ground. In the end, 1,472 readers had shared their preferences with approximately 39 percent voting for Rice and the same for Clinton.

And, despite the fact that I had outlined a two-way race, my musings about a potential candidacy for former Secretary of State Colin Powell no doubt encouraged many readers to endorse him or others that they would like to see running for president. Powell garnered the largest share, about 6 percent. But a multitude of additional figures contributed to the final tally. They included Gov. Jeb Bush, retired Gen. Wesley Clark, Sen. John McCain, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (despite his ineligibility at present), consumer advocate Ralph Nader and “any candidate the Libertarian Party puts forward in 2008.”

Those results do not, of course, suggest anything scientific, merely an informal summary of certain readers’ sentiments.

Paul J. Sharpe, a Rice fan who lives in DeLand, Fla., said, “Rice is a brilliant public servant, tough and respected in the United States and internationally. Her character is beyond reproach, and trustworthiness is her middle name.”

Across the United States, in Burns, Wyo., L.J. Hamilton agreed, saying, “She has brains and long-overdue class.”

But two readers in Charleston, S.C., had other ideas. Amy J. Samonds said, “Clinton, hands down. She has the experience, the intellect and more respect than Rice.”

Richard A. Wooden also cast a vote for Clinton, saying she “has more compassion. (She) wants to help those who are at the lower end of the spectrum. Rice has those ideas of helping big business and wealthy citizens by lowering taxes for them and shoving more of the tax burden to those who are less able to pay.”

To those kinds of sentiments, Ken Smith of Anchorage, Alaska, chimed in with a list of top ten reasons not to vote for Clinton: “Explosive temper; sailor’s mouth; plastic hair; Whitewater; disdain for common people; manipulative; disloyal; her real goal — ‘Queen of the World’; bring Bill back around the interns?; and she has already been president — twice.”

Other readers offered broader comments about a Clinton-Rice match.

Jerry Pierce, a Maitland, Fla., resident, observed, “You obviously know that (Clinton) is running, which she is, and you also know that the only person in the Republican Party who can ‘run the table’ is Rice. No one else could come close. Rice’s primary is now in foreign affairs. If she does well, it’ll be a slam dunk. If not, (Clinton) will most likely be our next president, with Ohio, not Florida, being the deciding state if the election is close.”

Gene Goldhammer of Las Vegas said, “Clinton vs. Rice would be like a rematch of the Nixon-Kennedy election, with the parties switched. Rice as the urbane, cultured intellectual, and Clinton as the seasoned and testy backroom lawyer/politician.”

Jim Harrick, a reader from Hornell, N.Y., switched the focus, saying, “If Powell would decide to run for president, he would be the best choice. See what you can do to convince him.”

Jack Cairnes of Groveland, Fla., agreed. “By including Powell as an independent, you certainly tipped the scales and gave me a candidate I (could) easily support.”

I’m with Harrick and Cairnes. No decisive winner may have emerged from this informal poll, but I, too, would vote for Powell.

John C. Bersia is an editorial writer for the Orlando Sentinel and the special assistant to the president for global perspectives.