Not to borrow too heavily from the right-wing playbook, but let’s face it, folks: we actually do live in dangerous times. I’d like the next president to know what he or she is doing, particularly on the foreign policy front. I’d also like him or her to have a track record of getting things done — both here and abroad, if possible. And it wouldn’t hurt to have a decent shot at bringing important voters out on election day, and at helping a purple state or two turn blue.
Sounds like Bill Richardson to me.
Taking the last point first: New York and Illinois always vote Dem. North Carolina will never vote Dem. So Hill, Barry, and John don’t have much to offer there. New Mexico, however, is eminently winnable, but voted for W in ’04, and for Gore in ’00 by about 300 votes. Not a lot of electoral votes, but hey — it’s a start. I’m guessing Richardson could also run pretty strong in Arizona and Colorado, other states that the Dems should win but haven’t recently.
On the merits, he’s been AFAIK a pretty successful and very popular Governor of an interesting and very diverse state that is also one of the poorest in the nation. He did good work as head of the Democratic Governors Association. And, in addition to the highly desirable experience of being a Governor and actually getting things done, he has a unique foreign policy resume that goes way beyond what any other Dem candidate can offer:
Appointed by President Clinton as the Ambassador to the UN, Bill Richardson worked with world leaders to build alliances and help prevent the development of nuclear weapons in North Korea. Bill Richardson has been nominated four times for the Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating the release of hostages, American servicemen and political prisoners in North Korea, Iraq, and Cuba. Governor Richardson recently negotiated a 60-day cease fire in war-torn Darfur following direct talks with rebel leaders and the President of Sudan.
He was also in Congress for 15 years, and he served as Clinton’s Secretary of Energy — a hot topic these days.
On some key issues (this is from his announcement video):
The next president of the United States must get our troops out of Iraq without delay. Before I became Governor of New Mexico, I served as a congressman, as Ambassador to the United Nations, and as Secretary of Energy. I know the Middle East well. And it’s clear that our presence in Iraq isn’t helping any longer.
Check.
Our next president must be able to start reversing global warming, and make real progress on energy independence. And that means making a real commitment to renewable sources of energy and conservation.
Check. He goes on to talk about the good things he did as Energy Secretary and as NM Governor, especially in the renewable energy area, and concludes: “everybody talks about these issues; I’ve actually done it.”
A couple of potential negatives have been mentioned. They don’t strike me as all that bad. He allegedly likes the ladies. Eh. After Clinton, it would have to be pretty bad, and the rumors don’t seem to be on that level. He has said in the past that he was drafted by a pro baseball team, while in fact he was never actually drafted but was on various scouting lists (he later developed arm problems). Again, doesn’t make me break out in a sweat.
Finally, he’s not exactly Barack Obama on the stump. That’s fair enough — his announcement video is fine, but it’s not going to give anyone goosebumps. But it’s hard to do much on these little videos, so I’m reserving judgment on that one. I do like the fact that he recorded his video in Spanish as well as English.
He ends his video this way:
I know I’m not the favorite in this race. As an underdog and Governor of a small western state, I will not have the money that other candidates will have. However, I believe these serious times demand serious people who have real world experience in solving the challenges we face. I humbly believe I’m the best-equipped candidate to meet these challenges.
At this point, I find it hard to argue with much of that. I’m happy to be persuaded otherwise, though.
Someone in another thread mentioned Wen Ho Lee, which jogged my memory regarding Richardson’s tenure as Energy Secretary.
<
p>
Just months after taking that job, Richardson authorized the production of warhead tritium, the ‘H’ in H-bomb, in CIVILIAN nuclear facilities. The tritium was not actually even needed, and production of it in civilian facilities was against long-held policy, set a bad international precedent, and was unsafe (in the white knuckle range) for people living near the plants where it was done (TN, and NC if I remember correctly).
<
p>
Anyone interested can read up on it in Keneneth Bergeron’s book Tritium on Ice. Here’s part of the blurb from the MIT Press
<
p>
I contacted Ed Markey about this a few years ago, before actual tritium production began, but he took no interest and gave no explanation as to why (although interestingly he endorsed the Bergeron book). Anyway, it raises an real concern for me about Richardson.
Its sad to say at this state in the game that your supporting a “moderate electable Democrat” Dave. At least flirt with a progressive insurgency from Edwards, Obama, or someone else. At least pretend you don’t already know the outcome of the race, at least pretend theres still hope and passion and energy in politics.
<
p>
Richardson to some degree represents giving up, yes he’d make a fine President and frankly so would most Senators, Governors, or leaders. But he does not have the stamp of greatness upon him. These times call for more than just a good experienced micro manager and budget balancer, they call for a bold honest leader willing to make the sacrifices that will be required to save our country from the past, frankly thirty years of mismanagement, and at least six years of mismanagement that have lead to a shrinking middle class, sky high deficit, and a lack of moral authority in the world.
<
p>
Richardson would make a mediocre President, and if nominated I’m convinced he’d make a great candidate, but Obama has that mark of destiny and greatness about him, and Edwards has a message and a head of hair reminiscent of RFK’s. It could prove to be very interesting in any case so don’t commit yet.
[blockquote] But he does not have the stamp of greatness upon him. [blockquote]
<
p>
How in the world do you know that? In what conceivable way could you possible deem any of the current candidates as having the “stamp of greatness”? It is far, far, far too soon to make that kind of judmgent. I love Obama, but he doesn’t have hany such stamp of “destiny and greatness” as far as I can tell. He has the stamp of somebody with a clear vision and extreme charisma, but let’s see him actually do something great before we can call him great. Obama has great oratory, but not “greatness.”
I could apply the stamp of greatness on you, afertig, I would. I enjoy your comments.
Now if only I had the stamp of spellcheck…
Richardson: Intelligence and experience in both foreign and domestic affairs, chief executive skills, budget balancer and immigration cred. v. charisma and hair? Hmmm.
<
p>
Merely an observer of the POTUS candidates at this stage, I can only weigh-in with my sentiments that Charisma and Progressive are not synonymous. I have concerns that celebrity status can (sometimes) deliver dazzle in lieu of depth.
<
p>
That statement is not intended to be a disparagement of any of the other (D) candidates. I for one, would really like to see our (D) candidate be a solid heavy weight contender.
First, it’s “David,” not “Dave.”
<
p>
Second, I didn’t say I’m “supporting” anyone, nor have I “committed.” I said I’m “really interested” in Richardson, and I am.
<
p>
Third, on what, exactly, do you base your theory that an Obama candidacy is “progressive,” at least moreso than anyone else? Does he support marriage equality? Does he make an effort to keep his personal religious views from dictating his stands on policies that affect other people’s private lives? Is he committed to getting out of Iraq? Is he supporting the Kennedy bill on that subject, or is he going along with the sad “non-binding resolution” crowd? Has he taken a stand against American military intervention in Iran and Pakistan? So far, a lot of progressives have been disappointed in Obama.
<
p>
Fourth, I couldn’t care less about John Edwards’ hair — John Kerry famously noted that he and Edwards had “better hair” than Bush and Cheney, and look how well that turned out. I like Edwards’ focus on poverty. But the only reason, IMHO, that he’s polling as well as he is at this stage of the game is simple: he has high name-recognition as a losing candidate for Vice President.
<
p>
Fifth, the notions that Richardson represents “giving up,” that he lacks the alleged “stamp of greatness,” and that he’s not someone “willing to make the sacrifices” that are needed, strike me as a bit hyperbolic. You don’t like him? Fine, but don’t pretend that the Messiah is running for the Democratic nomination. (I haven’t heard anyone else talking about “sacrifices,” by the way, so what exactly are you talking about there?) There is no perfect candidate in this race.
<
p>
I could go on, but maybe I’ll stop there.
I don’t see a real “great” member in the bunch. They are all deeply flawed in ways that can really be a problem later on. Hillary with her war hawking; Barak with his inexperience (and perhaps a few of his stances too); Edwards with both inexperience and perhaps a little too much of the stink of losing (both the primary, and the general as veep, though there wasn’t much he could do about that). Clark with his terribly-run campaign in 04.
<
p>
But I think some of these people have potential to live up to greatness in the end. As to charisma, look at Bush. He’s got the charisma of a stump, if you ask me, notwithstanding his “you can have a beer with him” media hype which I never understood.
<
p>
And to progressivism, I’m not sure Richardson isn’t progressive. It seems that he’s a step in the right direction. I’d like to see how he weighs on the neo-liberal corporatist vs. actual real populism scale before I’d make any decision. I’m not interested in exchanging one corporate whore for another one who happens to be a Democract. But barring that, I’d say that Richardson bears a good, hard look.
David, that was a solid response.
<
p>
I would add, however, that one of the reasons Edwards is currently polling well in Iowa and elsewhere is that he has aggresively fostered a good relationship with labor. I don’t know if anybody else in the field has endorsed UNITE HERE’s 2006 contract campaign. He does have high name recognition, but I think there’s more to his high polling numbers than that, is all.
And I agree with everything you said here.
<
p>
Obama may run to the left, but everything he’s done in the Senate so far has “DLC” stamped all over it. He’s been slightly less annoying than the Joe Lieberman… and, quite frankly, I’m dismayed people are beginning to jump on the bandwagon.
<
p>
If he continues running to the left – and backs it up over the next 2 years in the Senate – I very well could vote for him. However, he’s done nothing to back up his recent words so far. I prefer him to Edwards and Hillary so far, but not by much.
<
p>
Calling Edwards “progressive” is laughable. I think I’d rather vote for Hillary.
<
p>
I’m not keen on Richardson, but I’ll certainly give him a look. I’m still hoping (and expect) Al Gore to throw his name in the bucket, because then we’ll have another strong candidate with different views running. Only time can tell who will sound the most progressive – and who will have policies that will actually be the most progressive. My hope is Al Gore, but last time he ran he really fudged it, so only time can tell.
Okay, we just rolled in to 2007 and already the stridency is off the charts.
<
p>
You’d do well to read Kos’s comments on this subject. Your pronouncements about who’s got the “stamp of greatness,” “the mark of destiny,” or who would make a “mediocre president” are way over the top. This combined with your insulting and judgmental commentary like “at least flirt with a progressive insurgency from Edwards, Obama, or someone else” and “at least pretend you don’t already know the outcome of the race, at least pretend theres still hope and passion and energy in politics” are ad hominem and completely unnecessary. You are not the arbiter of whose “progressive” intentions are sincere, invested, informed, or acceptable.
<
p>
Dial it back; we’ve got a long way to go.
<
p>
If you just meant the 2008 election, you’re probably right. However, North Carolina has been trending blue for a while now. They’ve got a habit of electing Democratic governors, elected a Democratic Senator in 1998, have increased their D:GOP House Ratio from 4:8 in the 1994 election to 7:6 in the 2006 election. Finally, in 1996 the difference between Clinton’s popular vote nationwide and within North Carolina was -13.2. John Kerry’s differential was -10.1, evidence that the popular vote is tightening.
Are North Carolinians growing more liberal? Well, probably not. There’s a number of substantial military bases in NC, and they might swing a few votes depending on wartime policy. For the most part though, North Carolina is growing more liberal because places like Massachusetts are exporting our blue blooded brethren. North Carolina’s population grew 21% from 1990 to 2000 (source), and most of that was from migration. That they’re coming from the North is information you’ll have to trust — as a Northerner in college for four years in North Carolina, I heard all about it every single day.
<
p>
So — will North Carolina vote for a Dem for president in 2008? I doubt it, although I contend that if NC is perceived to have tightened up even a bit since 2004, it might result in the Democratic candidate spending a little time and money south of Mason & Dixon; furthermore while choosing Edwards with the hope of taking North Carolina is foolish, I do think he’s got a far better chance of winning NC than any of the other white Democratic candidates (Obama and Richardson may actually do fairly well in NC). It wouldn’t surprise me if North Carolina is nudged toward swing state status by 2012.
But I’m talking 2008. That’s what matters right now.
But so did Bob Graham, who served as Governor of Florida before he became a Senator, and whose campaign for the 2004 nomination petered out in 2003. Part of the problem was the lack of inspirational speaking style, a weakness evidently shared by Richardson. Richardson’s supposed ace in the hole is the newly-moved-up Nevada primary, but we since this is new we don’t know how that’s going to be interact with Iowa and NH in terms of creating momentum (assuming he makes it that far). But what really troubles me is the statement “…our presence in Iraq isn’t helping any longer.” That implies that it was justified in the beginning, that the only problem is American forces have overstayed, rather than it being a disaster in the making from day one. He sounds too much like Hillary on this.
<
p>
The one thing I find attractive about him is the fact that his pre-Columbian ancestry is written clearly on his face; but I don’t believe in putting race above issues and ideology, so I’m sticking with Edwards for now.
Some things have disturbed me about him. First, there’s this suit on a prison program. While it is not clear how much Richardson had to do with this, he’s certainly not stopping it:
http://ffrf.org/news…
He is also a supporter of the death penalty, and even fought to weaken habeas corpus rights for those under the death penalty (see vote on HR 2703, vote number 1996-64).
He, of course, like all the other front-runners, opposes gay marriage:
http://www.foxnews.c…
<
p>
I do like his foreign policy credentials, but for me, it doesn’t quite match Edwards’s emphasis on foreign poverty.
He has a folksy quality coupled with a certain gravitas. He just needs to lay off the “The American President” quotes.
I just don’t think Richardson can capture America’s imagination the way Obama can. He just doesn’t seem to have the personal characteristics that a Presidential Candidate must have. I agree that he has the right resume and experience to be a great President, but that doesn’t mean that he would be a great Presidential Candidate.
<
p>
Don’t worry though, Richardson will be part of the next administration in some respect and will be quite influencial. I foresee him to be either the next VP or the next Secretary of State. In either case, the country will be well served.
<
p>
On another note, I would like to mention one very important quality the next Presidnet must have, which I have not seen discussed. Our Next Press has to repair America’s standing in the world. Because of his personal style and his biography, I think that Obama is the best choice in this regard.
Plenty of people have called you Dave and I don’t see the big deal in doing so, and its irrelevant to the presidential discussion in any case in response to your most pressing point
<
p>
“Third, on what, exactly, do you base your theory that an Obama candidacy is “progressive,” at least moreso than anyone else? Does he support marriage equality? Does he make an effort to keep his personal religious views from dictating his stands on policies that affect other people’s private lives? Is he committed to getting out of Iraq? Is he supporting the Kennedy bill on that subject, or is he going along with the sad “non-binding resolution” crowd? Has he taken a stand against American military intervention in Iran and Pakistan? So far, a lot of progressives have been disappointed in Obama.”
<
p>
Obama supports national federal civil unions and its certainly not full marriage equality but its better than any other realistic candidate, Richardson does not support that, he supports DOMA, and he has not even taken a position on the gay marriage ban in his own state. If you support full marriage equality vote Kucinich, Gravel, or Sharpton but Im sure you’ll be disappointed in their chances.
<
p>
On the effort of his personal religious views, a lot of people in this country think that all liberals are atheists who want to take God out of their lives, and believe me I have talked to enough conservatives to understand this. And you sound just like the boogey man liberal elitist when you say his personal religious views are an issue with you, hmm damn that papist Kennedy he cant be president! And others on this site are scared of Mitts Mormonism, yes Obama is a Christian and so was every other presidential candidate that was ever elected, I see his faith as an asset not a liability, and he can very effectively frame his Christianity in a way that reinforces his liberal ideas, something no other liberal trying to talk about faith can pull off.
<
p>
Every Democrat is committed to getting out of Iraq, name one Democrat who supports the surge and the escalation! Obama opposes that, supports the non binding resolution, and he feels that cutting off funding will look like a slap in the face to the troops, and essentially it would be just as symbolic as the non binding resolution since the President can use the NSA and executive orders to fund this god forsaken war indefinitely. Also Obama did say he would consider the Kennedy proposal.
<
p>
He also said on both Meet the Press and Face the Nation that he would not support intervention in Iran unless they attacked us (reasonable position no?) and most Democrats support military intervention in Pakistan since that is the likely hiding spot of Osama bin laden.
<
p>
Lastly David it sounds like with these questions you don’t know anything about Obama, and you clearly don’t know many of Richardsons controversial stands, he violated the habeas corpus rights of a Chinese man as energy secretary, big coal and big oil supporter for the most part, pro death penalty, and more anti marriage than Obama. More importantly I still like the guy he is the most experiences presidential candidate, Id vote for him on either end of the ticket, but I think at the top I would rather have someone with a better record as a progressive (really really research Obama before you dismiss him with Kos like rhetorical questions).
Charley called him Dave once………once
is that one is my name, and one isn’t.
<
p>
Beyond that: the reason I put up the post was to generate a discussion. In fact, that’s pretty much the point of this site. I appreciate the information and viewpoint that you and everyone else bring to the topic — though I would appreciate it a LOT more if you supplied links to back up what you say about Obama’s and other candidates’ positions and histories, since otherwise it just looks like some guy’s views on what a candidate might think. Linking to reliable sources is a good way to get people to take what you say seriously.
<
p>
What I don’t appreciate, and what does not get anyone to take what you say seriously, is the entirely uncalled-for invective against people who don’t see eye-to-eye with you on every little point about Barack Obama or anyone else. So do us all a favor, and next time leave out the “boogey man liberal elitist” and “you don’t know anything about Obama” crap. It’s entirely non-constructive, it does not persuade anyone of anything, and it generally drags down the site. My original post said nothing negative about any candidate (other than to note that Obama, Clinton, and Edwards are unlikely to add to the likelihood of the Dems winning their home state, which I still think is true), and certainly said nothing negative about anyone who might be a supporter of any candidate. Let’s see if we can stick to that, shall we?
<
p>
Sincerely,
stormv
stommy
tommy
stormy
stomv
I chuckle at the idea that Edwards or Obama are “insurgents”. What order are they trying to topple — the one that got them a VP slot on the 2004 ticket, or the one that gave them the keynote speech at the 2004 DNC?
<
p>
I also am amused by people whose argument is “don’t support him because I think that people won’t be interested in him.” Sounds like a code word for electability. We have almost a year to let the American people decide what interests them.
Supposedly why Kerry was nominated, and look where that got us…
… but I’m still waiting for a few good, strong, policy-based reasons why Obama would be a great President (hence why I too, have blogged about my early interest in Richardson on this site). After reading a few of the gems I’ve re-posted from this thread below, I’m left wondering if Obama’s people think a presidential race can be won exclusively on thoughts, feelings, hugs & kisses?
<
p>
The Gems:
<
p>
“but Obama has that mark of destiny and greatness about him” – jconway
<
p>
“I just don’t think Richardson can capture America’s imagination the way Obama can.” – bostonsammy
<
p>
“Because of his personal style and his biography, I think that Obama is the best choice in this regard.” – bostonsammy
<
p>
“Also Obama did say he would consider the Kennedy proposal.” – jconway
<
p>
Richardson is “more anti marriage than Obama” – jconway
<
p>
(Yikes!)
Deval did pretty well considering a great part of his winning was “just words.” Heck, he regularly admitted it at almost every stump speach.
<
p>
The power of being able to wax poetically on stage should not be underestimated. If the candidate has solid ideas behind those words, the words is what will convince people to pass those ideas.
<
p>
So while Obama shouldn’t be given the POTUS on an Oval Platter, he shouldn’t be scolded for having “just words” either. What we, as voters, need to do is have an open mind and really look at what he does with those words in the US Senate over the next 2 years.
And Im still waiting for someone to give me a concrete reason that he is not a progressive when his voting record is fairly liberal, he has fought for progressive causes his whole life, and his book outlines a fairly progressive agenda. Or at least more progressive than Richardson, who for the record I like, I never attacked him, I just simply agree with Obama more and thats why he is currently my candidate.
<
p>
Also as to attacks on my thought that the man is destined to lead, he has that aura around him, otherwise why would a freshmen US Senator with a funny name from a very blue state even have a shot? Yes it has a lot to do with charisma, but since when does having charisma equal electoral posion? Being charismatic does not mean someone is not intelligent, if you read Obama’s books or hear his speeches he is incredibly articulate and specific about the issues.
<
p>
David, what angers me most is that you consistently say that Obama is not progressive, or that there is a train of thought among liberal bloggers about this same vein, he is not progressive, but they have yet to back any of this up, and the way in which you asked those questions was in effect attacking Obama and raising questions that I clearly answered on every front. So lets have a real debate and get above name calling like you requested.
When I went to barakobama.com, I found no specific information about committees he’s served on, legislation he’s proposed/voted for/against, editorials he’s written, speeches he’s made, etc. So for me, it’s not a matter of is his record progressive, its, where is his record?
<
p>
This “info light” situation is a real stumbling block for me with Obama because he’s not a known quantity (to me). I would absolutely love to jump on Obama’s bandwagon, but it’ll never happen if I can’t learn some solid information about his deeds & accomplishments. He is wasting his website.
On Barrack’s web site. It seemed to provide some details on legislation he sponsored. Just click on any issue for additional details.
<
p>
http://obama.senate….
its as if candiate Obama doesn’t know a thing about senator Obama (or isn’t telling). At least, based on his “announce” website.
to find “progressive” disappointment with, or at least reservations about, Obama. You’ll recall, no doubt, the kerfuffle over his big religion speech. And a short trip to Daily Kos brings up no shortage of progressives disappointed in Obama for other reasons. That’s on top of the links in my previous post.
<
p>
So I think I’ve done my part about backing up my position. Your commentary remains distressingly link-free. Like you said, let’s have a real debate.
I posted this in the “silly season” thread:
<
p>
Globe “product placement” bias favoring Clinton (0.00 / 0)
On page 2 of the Boston Globe today (The Nation section) the headline was that Bill Richardson was entering the race. The big photo associated with the story, however, was not of Richardson but of a smiling Hillary Clinton surrounded by children. There is not photo associated with the story in the on-line edition, so you have to have the print paper to see it.
The Globe featured headlines slamming Patrick on Benjamin Leguere the day after the first debate.
<
p>
This reminded my of the day after Al Gores barn-burner Martin Luther King Day speech last year when he accused Bush of “repeatedly breaking the law” with respect to wiretapping. Gore was the first major public figure in politics to publicly call him on this. The next day it no mention in the New York Times and barely a paragraph in any major newspaper. The front page of the NY Times was a big picture of Hillary Clinton at some minor event.
<
p>
Richardson has a lot going for him but he will find it hard to crack a media that is betting on a Hillary Clinton candidacy.
about the Hillary picture in the Richardson story. Both hilarious and absurd. And you’re quite right: the MSM would love nothing more than to see Hillary win the Dem nomination.
But at this point in time we still need to get more information. This is true with all candidates, I actually have a positive feeling toward all of the candidates so far. I don’t think there is a single candidate that I would be disappointed with. There are a lot of pluses that Democrats can field a strong list of candidates while Republican’s have to hold their noses and pick one of theirs.
<
p>
With Richardson you get someone with accomplishments and someone who knows their stuff. He’s a 7 term congressman and was on the Intel Committee prior to joining the Clinton administration. Then we all know about the UN and Cabinet position under Clinton. As governor of NM he has rated as the top ranked democrat in taxes and fiscal responsibility from the Cato Institute (they say they are Libertarian, but we know they’re Republican). He has since moved down to the 3rd ranked democrat, interesting take from a local paper which makes it seem more political than by actions.
<
p>
Downside, well there are some things that we need to review about his record in congress, from On The Issues:
<
p>
Supports death penalty: zero tolerance for heinous crimes. (Oct 2002)
Voted NO on maintaining right of habeas corpus in Death Penalty Appeals. (Mar 1996)
Voted YES on making federal death penalty appeals harder. (Feb 1995)
Voted NO on replacing death penalty with life imprisonment. (Apr 1994)
<
p>
But this is all part of the process. Bill Richardson, I think the more he talks the more people will like him. It will be a difficult choice during the primaries.
You found one bad vote Obama made on CAFA and personally I think his speech was EXACTLY what Democrats need to be saying, that yes we are a party full of people of faith and that neither party owns Christ or owns the flag. I have read that speech in full and I read a whole chapter in his book where he discusses that, whats so wrong with public figures discussing their faith? It doesn’t breach the separation clause, he is not saying his faith is completely right, and certainly is not saying we need to become a more Christian nation, rather Obama has a great way of relating big issues to his own personal experience (like another great politician who happens to be married to a rival of Obama) and I found nothing wrong with the speech. If anything the reaction to the speech shows you how many on our side of the fence are apprehensive and afraid of religion, and this fear shows and its why a lot of people who I’ve talked to that are against the war, against the Republicans on economic issues, are still wary of voting Democratic, in fact a lot of Ohioans I’ve talked to out here in Middle America said that they didn’t trust Kerry because they felt he was insincere, partly because they didn’t buy him when he talked faith and values, these same people who regret their 2004 votes are all Obama supporters now.
<
p>
As for links tell me what issue you have with Obama not being “progressive enough” for you and I’ll take you up on it.
<
p>
I don’t object to your preference of Richardson, again he’s my top VP choice so I like the guy, but I do take issue with your characterizations of Obama as a non-progressive.
If so, it’s better form to hit “reply” to my comment, not to someone else’s.
<
p>
First, again, PLEASE don’t keep mischaracterizing my post. I have not said I’m supporting Richardson or anyone else. I said I’m interested in him.
<
p>
On gay marriage, here’s a problematic Obama quote for me.
<
p>
<
p>
Two big, big problems with that. First, his equation of “I’m a Christian” with “I’m against gay marriage” doesn’t make sense to me. Deval Patrick is a Christian too, yet he is outspokenly in favor of marriage equality. So are all the Christians who belong to the Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry, and similar groups. Second, he can claim all he wants that he’s not letting his personal religious beliefs determine his political views, but that’s what he’s doing. As pro-equality folks have argued ’til they’re blue in the face, this debate is about civil marriage. The state isn’t in the business of “sanctifying” anything. No church has to marry anyone they don’t want to marry. This is about the state being even-handed about tax law, property law, health care, and a host of other things that married people get.
<
p>
So sure, I wish Richardson (and every other candidate) supported marriage equality too. But if Obama is going to be the great hope of progressives, he’s got to do better than say “I’m no worse than the other guys.” His resume, frankly, is thin, so he’s got to make up for it elsewhere.
<
p>
Finally, I don’t mean to sound like I dislike Obama. I don’t — he’s obviously an incredible political talent with a bright future. But it’s bad strategy on the part of his backers to react to any criticism of the guy as though the critic is some kind of sell-out (“At least pretend you don’t already know the outcome of the race, at least pretend theres still hope and passion and energy in politics. Richardson to some degree represents giving up”). As lightiris points out upthread, kos has some worthwhile advice on this kind of thing.
<
p>
Whether there’s any merit to that point or not (and I’m leaning towards not – just ask Al Gore, who lost Tenn), I think it’s a terrible precident and point to bring up the state Richardson lives in. Quite frankly, he hasn’t impressed me up until this point, but I’m definitely willing to consider him. However, his geography will never be a factor in my consideration.
<
p>
Furthermore, electability in general has been an aweful trick Democrats keep trying to play over and over again. We need a candidate who can really rally the people and speak with conviction; we need a candidate who can easily show he’s very different than Republicans and can lead us in a better direction.
<
p>
Lastly, I’m not sure some of your “checks,” thrill me. Being Bill Clinton’s Energy Secretary is supposed to be a plus? How? What good did President Clinton do in advancing the Global Warming front? He didn’t even make Al Gore be the leader he was on the issue; he pretty much shut up about it. What good did President Clinton do on making America independent from foreign oil? Nada. While I appreciate Richardson’s experience at the UN – and that counts for a lot – if anything, his post as Energy Secretary is a mark against him in my eyes. It’s a sad thing that a lot of the renewable energy technology we had back then wasn’t advanced like it has been now, sadly under the Bush Administration – which at least gave some tax incentives for wind farms, etc.
It’s certainly not determinative, and I didn’t mean to suggest that it should be. But IMHO, if Richardson is the nominee, he will carry New Mexico. Gore had left Tennessee many years before he ran for president. Richardson just won reelection by a record-setting margin.