I like Richardson's qualifications as much as anyone

[dsc]

but one of the primary aspects of President is being able to express yourself well to both the country as a whole and to foreign leaders. Richardson has done very poorly in several forums and interviews. That matters. I don't think it should be dispositive but it does matter. He is clearly the worst debater of all the candidates with the exception of Gravel (and even that is a close call). Richardson would likley make a fine President in the era before the bully pulpit. But, like it or not, the bully pulpit matters. Richardson has yet to show any ability to express himself in a way that leads me to think he would be any good behind the bully pulpit.

[Captain Hilts]

1. Agreed. I was really interested in him and he hasn't proven to have enough poise...

under the hot lights.

[texastoast]

2. Send him some money

So he can get some training in the "pulpit" arena.

I agree that it is important to not appear to be inept.

My God, I'm so tired of inept.

[presspeal]

3. Oh please..

have you checked out the great speaker in office now?:wtf:

[dsc]

4. One of the several reasons Bush is a bad President

Yes, Richardson would be better than Bush and better than Bush's father. For that matter none of our candidates are the Next Clinton in that department. But Clinton, Dodd, and Biden, all of whom are merely decent speakers, run rings around him. Obama, Kucinich, and Edwards make him look almost as bad as Bush and none of them are the second coming of Reagan let alone Clinton. Richardson needs to learn to express himself better and be prepared for debates. The fact Bush is an idiot doesn't change that.

[presspeal]

5. True, true...

but like most the candidates you list (Dodd, Biden, Kucinich and maybe Edwards) he has been cut from the running for other reasons. Money, not electable, money, too left wing, money...
Kind of disputing isn't?:scared:

[RFKJrNews]

6. Richardson, Nixon, Kissinger and Bush - Strange Bedfellows, indeed.

What about those troubling ties to Henry Kissinger?



In the early 1970's, Richardson worked first as a congressional aide and then for Nixon's State Department under Henry Kissinger.

Richardson and Kissinger have remained chummy through the years. After leaving the federal government in 2001, Richardson worked for Kissinger's consulting firm.

At the close of the Clinton administration, Richardson signed on as a senior managing director with Kissinger McLarty Associates, the advisory firm formed by Henry Kissinger and former Clinton chief of staff Mack McLarty, and promptly joined the boards of three large oil companies: Houston-based Diamond Offshore Drilling, a company once run by ****George Herbert Walker Bush**** (!!!?!); Denver-based Venoco; and Valero, North America's largest independent refinery. Until recently, Richardson held Valero stock worth between $100,001 and $250,000 and options valued between $250,001 and $500,000, according to disclosures filed with the Federal Election Commission. He divested himself of his stake in Valero in May, saying his financial ties to the company had become a "distraction" to his presidential campaign.

Though on the campaign trail he has come off as a staunch advocate of green energy, even proposing "a man-on-the-moon program" to address global warming and curb the nation's dependence on oil, his close ties to the oil industry would seem no small contradiction. Currently, he is one of the leading recipients of campaign contributions from oil and gas companies among the presidential contenders.

For more information, please see the Mother Jones article: "Bill Richardson: In Big Oil's Pocket?"

http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2007/07/richardson.html

[seasat]

15. They leave off a few things in that article.

Richardson was a low level state department staffer not working directly under Kissinger. He quickly moved up to work with the Senate Foreign relations committee. He's always been a Democrat. Hubert Humphrey and JFK are some of his idols.

When he left the Clinton administration at the end of Clinton's term, Richardson went to work on 10 corporate boards including TerraSolar, a photovoltaic panel manufacturer, and an energy investment firm that emphasized renewable energy. He also served on the board of several nonprofits including the Natural Resources Defense Council. He even taught as an adjunct at Harvard. McLarty and Richardson worked together in the Clinton administration. Richardson consulted on international trade issues for the short period he was with them.

He is fifth in rank in receiving contributions from oil and gas but most of those contributions are from NM companies. Compare that to the banking and investment industry from folks that hail from those states. NM has a large oil and gas industry so it's only logical that he'd receive some funding from them. He's only received 101k from them while Clinton has received 147k and Obama has received 59k. Rudy at 477k and Romney at 232kare well above all the Democrats in oil and gas funding.

He has not given a lot to the oil and gas industry. He's launched probably the most aggressive greenhouse gas reduction measures for any state while governor and has the most ambitious and detailed plans for green house gas reduction in his platform. He's got a book detailing his plans coming out in November but has several detailed pages on his site. He's also successfully fought to protect wilderness areas from drilling while in congress and governor. He promoted environmental legislation from the time he was in congress through while energy secretary and continued as Governor. He even was giving speeches on Global Warming while UN Ambassador in '98.

[Captain Hilts]

12. Biden and Dodd are more articulate speakers than Edwards, Obama and Clinton...

when it comes to substance. They are not sloganeers the way Clinton, Edwards and Obama are.

Check out Biden's stump speeches in Iowa about foreign policy and he lays a lot of detail out logically - and doesn't use notes.

[sandnsea]

7. He's able to negotiate deals

when nobody else is. I think this is a pretty lame attack on a guy who isn't doing very well anyway. He's been able to communicate well enough that I know he's for pulling all the troops out of Iraq, and Hillary isn't.

[treestar]

8. This is not the entertainment business

If he has the experience to do the job, that ought to be considered more important than all this shallow crap. All this shallow crap has got us where we are today.

The President is not a Central Casting Call. We need someone who can do the job, not someone who can play the part in a movie.

[frazzled]

9. Part of it is indeed the "entertainment" business

And I don't say that cynically. In order to succeed in changing the country--with respect to health care, energy, foreign policy, or any other issue--you need to be able to move the American people, who in turn can move their representatives. Otherwise, it's just an inside job, with the special interests playing the biggest roles and everyone else floundering.

It's not enough to have negotiating skills (though those are important, too). You have to be able to inspire, use the bully pulpit effectively, stand on the world stage (not just in the back rooms). It's not enough to have good policy plans. You have to be able to move those plans through effective leadership. And effective leadership entails being able to move people.

Look, I like Bill Richardson, but he really doesn't have that certain something that, alas, seems to be necessary on the national political stage. I told this story before. At the Yearly Kos convention, before the candidates' forum, Richardson entered the room and started walking up to the table where I was sitting. I put out my hand and cheerfully said, "Hello, Governor Richardson! Good luck in the debate today." To which he responded (nervously), "Hi, I'm Bill Richardson and I'm governor of New Mexico." I'm still scratching my head over that one. He's just going to have to do better. Maybe he'll hit his groove, but maybe his skills just aren't in this kind of electoral thing.

[2rth2pwr]

10. Richardson doesn't seem to ever put any

thought into his statements, and maybe that has worked for him in the past. But starting from the Meet The Press interview earlier this year, when he is confronted by his past remarks or positions he looks like he was just caught with his hand in the cookie jar. And if he is asked a softball question , like at the LOGO debate, and is even given a chance or two to "correct" himself he still can't get it together.

I'd like to have a beer with him, but I definitely would not want to see him driving.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

11. I thought he did well in the first debate

And from what I read, he relaxes and does well speaking to crowds predisposed towards him, like Latino groups. But there is something generally not ready for primetime about him, and I feel bad for him, because I find him thoughtful and intelligent.

[LWolf]

13. To be honest,

I've been hearing people say this about his debate performances since the very first one, and I just don't "get it." :shrug:

Richardson is not my first choice, but I thought he did well in the debates. I liked his message better than the top 2, anyway.

It could be that I listen to what is said to decide whether or not the message is effective, and others pay more attention to the "star quality" factor, which leaves me unimpressed.

I can say that many people find Obama charismatic. HRC is obviously very smooth and is a master at saying little but making it sound good, deflecting well-deserved criticism on to others, and refusing to commit herself. That doesn't make either of them worthy of votes, imo.

I prefer substance over style, every time.

[dsc]

14. watch the logo debate and tell me he did well

He was horrid in that. He had been starting to get better but the Spanish speaking people said he did poorly in that debate. He just isn't good at expressing himself and that is not a great thing in a President.

[LWolf]

16. I've been trying to watch some of the videos.

I just haven't gotten through them all. I haven't watched his yet, but I'll get there.

Words, and the skillful use of words, have power, and a person who wants to convince the public should have some of that skill.

That skill alone, apart from integrity on issues, is nothing but propaganda and isn't worthy of a vote.

I'm an issues voter. That's probably why I've had less of a problem. I want to know about the issues. I don't need to hear a good snake oil salesman/woman. I want the real deal.

Richardson is not my first choice, as I said. He's stronger on my key issues than the top 3 are, though, so he lands higher on my list than they do.

[tammywammy]

17. I think Richardson would make an excellent VP n/t

[seasat]

18. I thought he did good in this debate.

Of course, I'm a supporter so I'm little biased. From the clips that were shown, the transcripts that I read online, and the blogs I read, he did a decent job. I'd probably give the win to Dodd, however. He came on pretty strong on some issues. I'd probably put Richardson second.

Richardson scored some points on his comment about the border wall while the other candidates had to dance around their vote for it. I also think that his complaint about not being able to speak in Spanish was a planned stunt to emphasize his heritage and criticize the other candidates who held off committing to the debate until they made the English only rule. Even though it annoyed some people, it did give Richardson an effective line that'll appeal to Hispanics and was quoted in almost every article on the debate.

On Daily KOS, the online poll they had connected to the blog where they did the real time transcription had Richardson well ahead of everyone else. They usually lean strongly towards Edwards followed by Obama at that site. Curiously, Richardson and Dodd were the only two to release press statements touting their debate perform.

However, I will give you that he was terrible in the LOGO debate. His answer after his misstatement was good but overshadowed by his mistake. I noticed that he keeps a killer schedule and does his worst when he's been on the road several days without a break and then goes into an interview or debate. He arrived early and rested up before the last debate and did significantly better.

I've seen some of his stump speeches and he's actually a pretty good speaker. He's at his best when he can inject some humor in his speeches. It's kind of hard to be humorous with some of the serious questions in these debates.

I think his strength, if he somehow manages to get elected, will be in back room arm twisting. From what, I've seen of his record and he's really good at corralling folks to get behind an issue, even when it is controversial. He was able to build coalitions to pass Clinton's tax increase on the wealthy while deputy whip and a medical marijuana bill as governor. However, don't underestimate the power of a folksy speaking style like Richardson's. We did the last couple of elections and look where we ended up.

[ludwigb]

19. At This Point, I Don't Care: He's Right On The Issues

I support him because he's right on the most important issue (Iraq) and although I don't agree with everything he stands for, I agree with most of it. Besides, he conveys confidence, experience, and modesty. I think he'd be pretty formidable.

It's true that Clinton, Obama, and Edwards all possess exceptional charisma and Richardson can look bland by comparison. Still, none of them have executive experience (at least compared to Richardson).

We are lucky to have such an attractive slate of candidates. My primary vote can change in the coming months, but for now I'm backing Richardson until Edwards or Obama moves my way on Iraq. I want more attention and support given to Richardson, Paul, and Kucinich to encourgage presidential candidates to move towards an anti-imperialist foreign policy position.