counter statistics

Sunday, June 03, 2007

Bill Richardson

After watching the debate tonight on CNN, I've come to realize that the Democratic party would be foolish to nominate anyone other than Bill Richardson. He is the most diversely qualified candidate in the field. Current Governor, former Congressman, former ambassador to the UN, former Secretary of Energy, the list goes on and on.

I find myself cringing everytime I listen to Edwards, Obama and Clinton; yet, when Richardson talks I find myself saying "this guy gets it!" Of course there are things upon which I disagree with him, but I'd vote for Richardson if he were the nominee.

Campaign Website


Andy Birkey said...

I've been thinking the same thing. It is early, but if the Dems do the right thing and nominate based on experience, they'd have to go with Richardson.

Markh said...

David, I concur. Gov. Richardson did very well, but unfortunately I don't think he'll prevail in getting the nomination.

Some of the other candidates have more glamour, more name ID, and bigger bank accounts. That doesn't mean they're better candidates.

I remember reading something during the 2004 campaign about Senators not being great candidates for President, particularly if they've been in office for a long time. They have really long voting records that can be parsed and criticized, and sometimes their reasons for particular votes are hard to defend. Also, people who thrive in a legislative aren't necessarily going to be the best executives - it's a different skill set.

mike said...

If I'm Hillary or Obama I want to stop debating before the voters start paying attention. Edwards is going to asshole himself out of the race, but someone is going to capitalize on his blunders. I'm not sure if there is such a thing as momentum any longer with early fundraising and big media running the show, but Richardson is the only guy in this race that has no potential of being a John Kerry. But it's the Democrats so they'll take the biggest risk and nominate Hillary. Just because she won't fall below 45% (or the equivlant if Bloomberg is able to get a significant chunk of the vote) doesn't mean she'll have enough to win.

If the do go with Hillary you might as well vote Bloomberg

Blue man said...

Same here. I have been a Kucinich supporter for years...but Richardson has been pretty impressive.

He's not the glamour candidate like Edwards, Obama, and Clinton, but he's significantly more qualified than any of them.

I heard Tom Harkin talking on the radio a few months ago about Presidential elections and the pre-primary and caucus time. He told a story about a Governor from Arkansas who was polling at 2% in Iowa and New Hampshire 6 months before the primaries.

We all know what happened.

If Richardson does not get the nomination, he'll have to be the top choice as VP. Immigration will be a huge issue, he'll be able to respond.

He's the polar opposite of Cheney on energy...

And his book Between Worlds is excellent!