I agree….he should be in the top tier. I’m a hypocrite I must confess. I long for the sharp candidate with the incredible resume but then I get sucked in by the “rock-stars”.
I’ve said earlier in this blog, while working on another race in NM I had the pleasure of meeting this gentleman and WOW…charisma, brains, and the total package…he’s a great candidate Viv..
Because not many know who he is, he didn’t do very well in the first debate and the man already has rumors about his problems with women. Not to mention something about making up a story about being drafted by the Kansas City Athletics.
That being said, I like the guy as a VP candidate.
Thankyouthankyouthankyou.
If Richardson doesn’t get at least serious consideration as a legitimate contender, it exemplifies what is now wrong with our political system.
I think he did fine in the debate, as do others. As for his purported problem with women – that does give me a bit of pause. But certainly not as much as another inexperienced candidate who has admitted to doing drugs.
Maybe because the voters are shallow. So they prefer “rock stars” with no experience, such as Edwards, Clinton, and Obama.
Of course, the Republicans do the same thing. They’re fawning over Fred Thompson, when Tommy Thompson is a far more qualified candidate.
um, jason – isn’t that the same link as I have above? 😉 In any event, I did pick up something from one of your comments: a link to an important story about Richardson’s women problem.
Uhhhm anonymous… is Richardson really all *that* much more “experienced” than any of the other three you mentioned?
Haha…yeah. A lot more.
Terry, Richardson has been a Governor, Congressman, UN Ambassador and US Secretary of Energy.
He’s done it all. Edwards is a trial lawyer and one term Senator who couldn’t win in his own state. Obama is a former State Senator who was handed a Senate seat because of Jack Ryan’s sex clubs scandal. Hillary Clinton comes the closest but is still far off from Richardson’s resume.
None of those three have had to make the kind of decisions, that many times over, that Richardson has. Not even close. He is, by far, the most qualified candidate in the race. Republican or Democrat.
However, that doesn’t mean anything as far as electability is concerned. i.e. George Bush.
Bush, at least, was a two-term governor. That’s worth far more than one term in the Senate.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
I love those!
I agree….he should be in the top tier. I’m a hypocrite I must confess. I long for the sharp candidate with the incredible resume but then I get sucked in by the “rock-stars”.
I’ve said earlier in this blog, while working on another race in NM I had the pleasure of meeting this gentleman and WOW…charisma, brains, and the total package…he’s a great candidate Viv..
Because not many know who he is, he didn’t do very well in the first debate and the man already has rumors about his problems with women. Not to mention something about making up a story about being drafted by the Kansas City Athletics.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-eisele/bill-richardson-not-a-ro_b_44507.html
That being said, I like the guy as a VP candidate.
Thankyouthankyouthankyou.
If Richardson doesn’t get at least serious consideration as a legitimate contender, it exemplifies what is now wrong with our political system.
I think he did fine in the debate, as do others. As for his purported problem with women – that does give me a bit of pause. But certainly not as much as another inexperienced candidate who has admitted to doing drugs.
I’ll tell you why Bill isn’t in the top tier: because of this ad.
Maybe because the voters are shallow. So they prefer “rock stars” with no experience, such as Edwards, Clinton, and Obama.
Of course, the Republicans do the same thing. They’re fawning over Fred Thompson, when Tommy Thompson is a far more qualified candidate.
um, jason – isn’t that the same link as I have above? 😉 In any event, I did pick up something from one of your comments: a link to an important story about Richardson’s women problem.
Uhhhm anonymous… is Richardson really all *that* much more “experienced” than any of the other three you mentioned?
Haha…yeah. A lot more.
Terry, Richardson has been a Governor, Congressman, UN Ambassador and US Secretary of Energy.
He’s done it all. Edwards is a trial lawyer and one term Senator who couldn’t win in his own state. Obama is a former State Senator who was handed a Senate seat because of Jack Ryan’s sex clubs scandal. Hillary Clinton comes the closest but is still far off from Richardson’s resume.
None of those three have had to make the kind of decisions, that many times over, that Richardson has. Not even close. He is, by far, the most qualified candidate in the race. Republican or Democrat.
However, that doesn’t mean anything as far as electability is concerned. i.e. George Bush.
Bush, at least, was a two-term governor. That’s worth far more than one term in the Senate.
I think Tommy Thompson is the most qualified on the Republican side: http://www.tommy2008.com/Biography.aspx