The Bill Richardson Watch

[bigtree]

http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/57402.html

By THE NEW MEXICAN

February 22, 2007

It's done. The first debate/forum/meeting/gathering of the Democratic hopefuls (minus Barack Obama) went off without a hitch in Carson City, Nev., with Bill Richardson making it through just fine, according to general opinion out there in Blogland.

The non-matching Richardson (he wore a blue blazer and khakis unlike the other suited-candidates) ­ is garnering attention for his call that candidates "play nice" with each other.

However, a lot of media still aren't paying attention to anyone but the "stars."

The Associated Press wrote a general lead about the Dems attacking Bush on Iraq, but mainly quoted Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd and Tom Vilsack. Richardson gets a brief nod on his negative campaign stance. The rest of the candiates were listed, but not quoted. For some reason, Richardson isn't even in the AP group photo that ran in some newspapers.
http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/57362.html

Richardson enjoyed more attention from local Nevada press. The Las Vegas Review-Journal's John L. Smith writes, "Why aren't more people buzzing about the candidacy of New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson?"
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2007/Feb-21-Wed-2007/news/12721684.html

The San Francisco Chronicle story of the debate again mentions Richardson's desire for positive campaigning, but also talks about his position on health care ­ and his position that raising taxes isn't the only way to pay for it.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/02/22/MNGC2O92BV1.DTL


After the debate, Richardson landed in Denver, where he named a campaign team. Co-chairs are Lawrence Martinez, Polly Baca, Erich Bussian and Tom Strickland. State campaign director is J.W. Postal. The picks reflect ties to labor, Hispanos and the traditional party base. The Rocky Mountain News covered it here.

more: http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/57402.html



http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[wyldwolf]

1. Watch me sink Richardson on DU...

Bill Richardson is my kind of candidate. There isn't much about his background, record, policies, and beliefs I disagree with...

There. That should do it.

[KoKo]

2. What about the

"gropenator" stories about him. Was it just RW lies... There was some about it posted up on Josh Marshall's site awhile back.

He's okay...but DLC. That's a problem for some of us. But, hey, I'm glad he's running. The more issues each of these candidates can bring attention to the better.

[CPMaz]

22. Yes, he has ties to the DLC,

a group that I'm not exactly a fan of, but he's better than HRC or Vilsack in that regard.

At least he has done things besides win elections; most of the other candidates cannot say the same.

[wyldwolf]

36. just out of curiosity...

...because I don't think the DLC is bad... just how is Richardson BETTER than Clinton and Visack in regards to the DLC?

[welshTerrier2]

3. this reminds me of the old Groucho line ...

woman: i could go for a man like you.
Groucho: oh, a man like me, eh? I suppose I'm not good enough for you.

So, Richardson is your "kind of candidate". Well, that does it. He's off my list.

and, in response, to the OP's title, the "Richardson Watch", i'm afraid so far it only keeps mountain and pacific time. He's pretty invisible back here in the east. I'd like to know more.

[wyldwolf]

5. "So, Richardson is your "kind of candidate". Well, that does it. He's off my list."

See?

[welshTerrier2]

7. mr. wolf

you are truly clairvoyant ...

[wyldwolf]

8. ...maybe. Or just very observant.

[bigtree]

10. this feature updates almost daily

bookmark and check back at the link when you can

[paulk]

4. for a candidate to be disliked here on DU is a good sign

Kerry consistantly finished toward the bottom of the polling here during the last election's primaries...

[wyldwolf]

6. yes he did.

[Geezus]

23. Yeah, and he lost the general election.

That tells me that DU is closer to the views of the general public, rather than the views of the DNC.

[wyldwolf]

32. did you see a poll stating any other candidate would have WON the general election?

Your reply defines "head in the sand" better than any I've seen lately.

[Pirate Smile]

21. I think he will "break out" when things get serious in the fall.

The two candidates currently running that appeal to me are Obama and Richardson.

My only hesitation with Richardson is those stupid rumors. His resume fits perfectly for running for President so I also wonder if the rumors were put out so strongly to scare people off from him.

I think Richardson may also want to be the one left standing looking relatively clean when Clinton, Obama and Edwards are full of bullet holes near the end from all the shots they've taken from each other, the press and Republicans.

[Forkboy]

26. At least you're aware of the effect you have.

:evilgrin:

[wyldwolf]

33. yep. A badge of honor

[SharonRB]

9. I think he could be the dark horse in all this

If Gore won't run, Richardson is moving up on my list and may become my second choice. I'm not committing to anyone, though, until I know for sure that Gore won't run.

[skipos]

11. Of all the "2nd tier" candidates, Richardson is the most likely to move up

imo

[SharonRB]

17. I agree with you

I think people just need to learn more about him.

[PresidentObama]

12. Richardson is one to watch.

If anything, he's at least a serious VP pick. But I think he'll make a serious bid for the WH, and do better then expected.

[snowbear]

13. I think he'll be a serious contender too...

If he continues to do as good as he did yesterday, I'll bet he'll do better than anyone here is contemplating right now.

He's not a frontrunner.. a superstar.. or an early favorite.

Which we've found out before can be a GOOD thing..

[Blue_In_AK]

14. There are a few thinks I was some reassurance on

but so far I like him.

[snowbear]

15. Me too..

And the fact that he and General Clark are tight makes him even more appealing..

But I agree with the others here -- we have a great list of candidates (and potential candidates)!

Blue --> <-- and Me (LOL!)

[Colobo]

16. Richardson is in for one reason only

Clinton/Richardson...

[snowbear]

18. In your dreams maybe.

I saw that you wrote this same comment on another Richardson thread in General Discussion.

And here you are again....

Governor Richardson will be a STELLAR candidate.

He's a candidate who can actually win blue, purple, and red states.

He's a candidate who can actually win the Whitehouse back for Democrats.

[Colobo]

19. In my dreams? Oh, no... I'm for Obama/Whoever

But, why did Bill said Obama had to apologize to Hillary?

Anyway, Bill Richardson is a great, capable guy, but sadly, he lacks "it", with "it" being personality and looks. Superficial? Yes.

Now, we will be running against Rudy Giuliani. The guy has no substance at all and, if anything, is a major flip-flopper; but he has "celebrity" status and "star power". Rudy is "likeable" and has "star power". The media likes him too. Given how our country is, that's more than enough to win the WH. Ask John Kerry.

To beat Giuliani, we need someone who is a really good candidate with great ideas, but also someone that can compete with Rudy's charisma. Someone that can capture the imagination of voters and the media. The only three candidates that could do that are the leading three: Clinton, Obama and Edwards (assuming Gore doesn't run... and, to be honest, Giuliani vs. Gore would be closer than what most people here think). Bill Richardson is awesome; I like him VERY much... but he doesn't have "it".

No flaming... just the way I see it. He will be the VP candidate for Hillary if she wins the nomination.

[Geezus]

24. Obama/Richardson would be a killer combo. NT

[CPMaz]

28. Richardson/Edwards

The best combination of pragmatism, idealism, experience, youth, competence, and vision that is out there.

Now, whether that combo would happen if one of them is the nominee is a big question.

[Geezus]

29. That one would be cool too. N/T

[Deep13]

20. Richardson can win in November...

...and can govern well if he wins. The problem is surviving the primary against these media darling senators. Only one senator has been elected president in the last century and he almost lost it. (JFK 1960) It is also the last time a North-Easterner was elected (except Bush Sr. who pretended to be from TX). Since then, the population shifted south and west. These charasmatic senators with years of baggage will sink us every time.

[IndianaGreen]

25. The odds are against a sitting US Senator being elected President

and they are longer still for a House member. This was brought up in 2004 when many pointed out that Jack Kennedy was the last sitting Senator to be elected President.

The path to the Presidency seems to favor Governors. Part of the reason could be that Governors are a lot closer to the problems that people face every day than the good folks on Capitol Hill. I don't know how true that is, because if it were, it would also be true that a mayor has more of an impact on people's daily lives than a Governor.

Anyhoo, considering that Democrats have won the White House with Governors as their nominee in 1976, 1992, and 1996, and that the GOP did the same in 1980, 1984, and 2000, it would be remiss for us to ignore the Democratic governors and former governors currently running for President: Tom Vilsak and Bill Richardson.

[Colobo]

27. Romney? Richardson?

I don't see any of the two winning the nomination in their respective parties...

[Geezus]

30. You're probably right, but either one could

be picked up as the VP candidate.

[Forkboy]

31. Richardson strikes me as excellent VP material

Hell,he'd probably be good president material.

[Deep13]

34. Unfortunately, none of the senators running are good P material.

If we want the election to be about HRC rather than the abysmal job the Rs have done, then we should nominate her and and tell the printers to make "Guliani" presidential letterhead.

The other two frankly are political lightweights with limited experience and no reason to think they can win, or if they do, that they can govern.

[Deep13]

35. here, here! nt

[skipos]

37. I like Gov. Richardson. 3 senators elected POTUS since Lincoln

Clinton was polling horribly at this time in 1991.
Richardson is no Obama, but he is a good likeable speaker.
He has more experience than most candidates on both sides.
Early Dem frontrunners (non vps) almost never get nominated (Lieberman, Gary Hart, Dean).

I don't know why people think it is so far fetched for Richardson to win.

[Czolgosz]

38. Richardson has a poor record on civil rights. Here are Richardson's Top 10 Civil Rights Weaknesses

Richardson's Top 10 Civil Rights Weaknesses

1. Richardson’s support for mandatory jail time, even for non-violent offenders;

2. Richardson’s support for the death penalty;

3. Richardson’s vote to abolish habeas corpus in death penalty appeals;

4. Richardson’s opposition to offering the option of life-without-parole as an alternative to the death penalty;

5. Richardson’s support for prosecuting minors as adults;

6. Richardson’s support for expanding the number of federal crimes punishable by death;

7. Richardson’s support for eliminating parole for anyone convicted of a violent crime;

8. Richardson’s support for eliminating automatic citizenship for all children born in the USA;

9. Richardson’s support for limiting access to our court system for people hurt by negligent hospitals;

10. Richardson’s vote in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act against gay marriage.


Sources:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Bill_Richardson.htm
http://vote-smart.org/npat.php?old=true&can_id=H2505103&npatform_id=11