Check out this video.
Technorati Tags: Bill Richardson
Share this:
- Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
- Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Click to share on Share (Opens in new window) Share
- Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
I must confess, of all the Dem candidates, Richardson is the only one who has the objective criterion (executive experience) to qualify him for the office of “Chief Executive.”
Bill and Hillary Clinton should be supporting Bill Richardson.
This guy is your strongest candidate. The good news for Conservatives is that Hillary will be your nominee.
Yes, James, that is good news for y’all, isn’t it? There’s no quicker way to get you folks writing checks than to yell “Hillary!” Good news, indeed.
MB: Quite correct. Having Hillary run is like getting Darth Vader to run. It is very good for Republicans. Not absolutely decisive – need a good candidate to oppose her – but a good start.
Vivian,
I must respectfully admit that I don’t share your enthusiasm about Bill Richardson. He has an amazing resume, yes, but his inability to articulate opinions in debates and on talk shows will be a massive stumbling block for our party should he be the nominee. I was greatly disappointed with his showing on MTP and in the two televised debates so far.
It is my belief that we lost in 2000 and 2004 (elections that should have been comfortable Democratic victories) for one reason: we had candidates who were unable to get their point across clearly. Al Gore, with his wonkish, overly-cautious, and monotone style of speaking, was seen by the entire nation as a boring, uncharismatic robot, yet still managed to get 266 electoral votes.
Had Gore been a more appealing candidate, he would have won states like Ohio, New Hampshire, Missouri, Nevada, and his home state of Tennessee. Had he done that, the entire election would not have fallen into the hands of Bush’s operatives in Florida.
In 2004, John Kerry, who consistently failed to effectively take control of the Iraq issue from the Republicans, ended up being effectively smeared and labeled a flip-flopper and a Vietnam War coward during a war-themed election. He won fewer states than Al Gore.
If you believe that Governor Richardson can run a more effective campaign than those two gentlemen, then, by all means, support him. Based on what I have seen, though, I honestly don’t believe that he can. This, of course, could change between now and the election, as he has more time to refine his debate skills and talking points.
But, in the meantime, I must state my belief that it’s time for us to have on the ballot, as our Party’s nominee, a candidate who is compelling, animated, insightful, and combative.
I’ll let you know who that is later 😉
Well, the thing is, James, Hillary can beat every one of those candidates the Republicans have come up with thus far. The Pavlovian dog/nutball crowd is smaller than it used to be, and the rest of the country is less open to their antics than they used to be. So it’ll be good news that the Dems will have a winning candidate, and it’ll be good news for Regnery Publishing and the insane clown posse over at the WSJ editorial offices, who still haven’t sucked the nutball crowd of all their money and influence (yet). See? Hillary offers something for everyone! Yay!
James, who was the strongest candidate over on your side of the aisle again? Haha, oh yeah, that’s right. Sorry, I forgot.
Richardson’s problem (and hence Vivian’s and everyone else who supports him) is that Hillary, Obama and Edwards are so organized and dominant that they’re sucking up all the oxygen in the debate. On the GOP side, they’re still waiting for Thompson (or anyone else) to come along that they think would be a credible candidate they can get behind. Rudy, Romney and McCain aren’t sucking up the oxygen–they’re just sucking.
I’d much rather be over here where we have too many good candidates instead of over on the other side where you don’t have any. But thanks for stopping by. 🙂
Johnny – one of the reasons I like Richardson (support at this point may be too strong a word 🙂 ) is that he appeals across the aisle, which is where we have to be in order to win in November. anon is right – the “top tier” is sucking all the oxygen, making it more difficult for others to be heard. And it doesn’t help that the MSM continues to focus solely on them. That’s why I put this stuff about Richardson up – to help continue the conversation about who our nominee should be and not who the MSM wants it to be.
I also think Richardson can win, and has a better shot in the general election than Billary. To me, he doese not come off as inarticulate, but as REAL.
I to have been greatly impressed with his positions on the major issues and also believe he lacks the charismatic nature to pull off the nomination which is why I believe he becomes Hillary Clinton’s VP running mate should she beat Obama or Edwards. The Clintons have always seem to be good to Bill is his various positions appointed by the former President.
I don’t know that Hillary could afford to pick anyone other than Obama if she wins. Passing up the junior senator of Illinois would be seen as a personal snub by all the people supporting him. The thing that’s often overlooked by the more wonky among us is that politics isn’t about issues, but about people. Richardson’s going to need to win over a lot of people who don’t live in New Mexico if he wants to get a spot on the ticket. Ideally he’s going to have to prove that he can deliver a couple of states by winning a primary or two.