Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Richardson makes it official: he’s in. So what are you waiting for?

By

No surprise here: Bill Richardson is officially running for president.  You can read his full announcement, which includes a brief rundown of his policy positions on several big issues, at this link.

So what’s a progressive to do?  Barack is making mistakes.  Edwards has a distressing tendency to get suckered by warmongers, and frankly has a pretty thin resume.  Hillary is, well, Hillary.

It’s pretty hard to dispute that, on paper, Richardson is the “most qualified” candidate.  But that of course won’t get him the nomination or the presidency (though it’s a good start).  Charisma?  Don’t count him out until you watch his DNC winter meeting speech — he’s much better than you think.  His vote for DOMA when in Congress?  Unfortunate — but here’s Ryan on how seriously Richardson is taking gay rights these days (note, also, that Richardson was the only major candidate to even mention gay rights at the DNC winter meeting).  Iraq?  Richardson wants out, period, though he also understands the need to stay engaged diplomatically.  Health care?  He has a plan that is something like the MA plan — enforced employer participation coupled with an individual mandate.  Maybe Medicare-for-all would be better, but at least he’s talking seriously.  There’s more on various issues here.

So don’t tell me that he hasn’t raised enough money to win — that just turns the election over to the pundits and the big-money donors.  Don’t tell me that his poll numbers stink — it’s far too early for that, plus they’re getting better.  Tell me why he doesn’t deserve to win — or that he does, and why you’re on board.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  2. I have my own personal reservations about Richardson, as I do them all.  But either way, his candidacy will be good for the country.  I rate him much lower on the Scale of Pandering than Clinton and Obama (don’t get me started in McTool & Willard).  That can only be a good thing in keeping other candidates as honest in their stances as possible.

  3. …than most of the others combined.

    <

    p>
    And he’s the only one on the Democratic side of the race with any executive experience.  (Well, personally i’d be willing to suppose that Hillary Clinton learned a few things about being president after being in the White House for 8 years, but this would be lost on some).

    <

    p>
    My fear with Richardson is that he may have an unfortunate tendency to be a bit too touchy-feely, something i can’t see Democrats tolerating in a candidate for fear of a repeat of what happened to Bill Clinton.  This is something i’d expect the Rovian disciples to hit, and hit hard.

  4. …you know, to keep us on an even keel after about 8 years of growth, shrinking deficits like the Clinton years.

    <

    p>
    But 8 years of GWB means our country has gone the wrong direction fast.

    <

    p>
    We need bold, transformational change.  Especially in health care.  And that’s not what he’s aiming for.

    <

    p>
    Oh, and what’s up with Bill Richardson picking Byron White for his favorite Justice?  That guy opposed Roe v. Wade, and voted the wrong way on Bowers v. Hardwick. 

    • I hadn’t heard that, but I just found a report of it.  Thanks for noting it.  Bad choice on Richardson’s part (as he realized when he was told to his surprise that White dissented in Roe v. Wade).  Here’s his explanation.

      <

      p>

      Mr. Richardson said he chose Justice White as his first answer because he was an all-America football player who was nominated by President Kennedy, who was Mr. Richardson’s hero.

      “I was thinking really fast — I didn’t know, was he dead or alive,” Mr. Richardson said yesterday. “I don’t regret what I said. I make mistakes.”

      <

      p>
      Lame?  Yes, a bit, although Richardson isn’t a lawyer, so he can be forgiven for not being totally up to speed on Supreme Court minutiae.  At least he admits the error.

      • if only he would do that with his DOMA vote!  unless, of course, he doesn’t consider that an error.

        • When I had a brief opportunity to speak with Governor Richardson in April, I asked him if he would support federal recognition of civil unions.  He said he would, and I wish he would make such a clear statement in this regard somewhere in his policy papers (particularly given that New Hampshire will soon have civil unions).

          <

          p>
          (Note: Personally I would much prefer there be no distinction between “civil unions” and “marriages”, but I suspect that no Democratic presidential candidate, perhaps with the exception of Kucinich, is going to make any public statement in favor of same-sex marriage.  Hopefully that would change after said candidate actually gets elected.)

  5. Because he says what Richardson won’t say.  I’ll be backing Senator Gravel until Al Gore steps in. 

    <

    p>
    Everything you say about money applies to Gravel as well, and he does stand out in the crowd! đŸ˜‰

  6. I agree. Richardson has the so vitally needed foreign policy experience that Obama doesn’t have and without the tendency to shoot himself in the foot that Biden has. National Security experience is going to be extremely important as voters look for a way out of the quagmire.

    <

    p>
    Edwards is just not going to get over the ‘storyline’ which is already formed by the MSM that he’s a hypocritical rich guy. It won’t go away, we all know the Gore fabricator and Kerry flip-flopper memes were a bunch of crap but they still couldn’t shake them.

    <

    p>
    And I’m sorry, I just don’t buy the dynastic pretensions of the Clintons. There are a number of other Democrats who could do just as good or even better job without the baggage (and without smarmy Terry McAuliffe who drives me up a wall).

    <

    p>
    I sort of like Dodd but no one seems to take him seriously. Maybe those bachelor years hanging around with Teddy were wilder than have been reported.

    <

    p>
    I’ll end up actively supporting any of these candidates if they win the nomination but Richardson is the best of a pretty good bunch. I can support him with enthusiasm and encourage others to get involved also.

    <

    p>
    For those interested, you can join the Mass for Richardson Group here: http://action.richar…

    • Do you really think that because John Edwards and Hillary Clinton already have ‘storylines’ or ‘baggage’ in the media that Bill Richardson wouldn’t get the same treatment?

      <

      p>
      EVERY Democrat who has a reasonable chance to win the White House instantly gets some contemptuous narrative slapped on them by pundits like Maureen Dowd or Chris Matthews and then the political reporters like Adam Nagourney fall in with the same insults.

      <

      p>
      Gore was a liar.  Kerry was a boring flip-flopper.  Dean was ‘too angry.’  Bill Clinton was ‘Slick Willie.’  Muskie had ‘tears on his cheeks.’ 

      <

      p>
      It’s fine with me if you want Richardson to win.  But don’t repeat silly beliefs that your candidate won’t get a harsh light from the media.  There’s no history to back that up.

      • Yes, they all probably will but he hasn’t yet been negatively labeled successfully, despite the efforts back during the winter to float a ‘womanizer’ tag on him. In fact, the storyline that the media has run with so far is ‘most qualified’. And he has a chance to make that the impression the casual voter develops as they get to know him. Maybe he won’t succeed but it’s not a bad place to start from.

  7. <

    ul>

  8. You think the president is the not the executive of the nation.  You see him/her as first, last, and foremost, as a moral exemplar — a preacher writ large who can teach your family moral lessons you’re too lazy, dishonest, or incompetent to teach yourself.  A president should be someone who reaches the moral level of presidents past (a level that never existed, but was presented during an age when the media covered up dalliances and falsehoods).  Since reaching your moral standards is pretty much impossible, you search for someone with no imagination, recognition of complicated ethical dilemmas, and proclaims extremism on so-called moral issues.

    9. <

    p>

  9. You think the president should be someone who other people think should be president.  Rather than decide who you like, you try to mind-read Catholics in southern Ohio, suburbanites in Florida, and the progeny of union families in Pennsylvania.  You try to imagine the thought processes of people you’ve never met.  You call this being responsible, call it “electability”.

    10. <

    p>

  10. You think the president should be an inspiration first, an executive second.  This individual, who likely will never personally know you, should appeal to you like a family member or clergy would.  The importance is not what they say, and it’s certainly not what they do.  It’s how they say it.  A president should create their own swelling music, and you choose your candidate on the impact they have on your tear ducts, rather than your nation.

    11. <

    p>

  11. You think the president should be someone famous.  Rather than research all nineteen choices yourself (not including almost-candidates Thompson and possibly Gingrich, and Libertarian and Green options), you let a media that can’t count past three do the work for you.  If you’ve seen him/her in a movie, or heard them before last year, they’re more qualified.

    12. <

    p>

  12. You think the president is not the only president, but the people around him/her are kinda president too.  You convince yourself that more important than the candidate are the handlers, the people who will give advice.  The fact that the president can ignore that advice, and will do with increasing frequency as their term lengthens, is easily dismissed.

    13. <

    p>

  13. You are uncomfortable with the president not being a white man.  Get over yourself and join the twentieth century.

    14. <

    p>
    I recognize the very authentic and real reasons to support other folks running.  I also recognize many of their supporters fall into those categories listed above.  We don’t tend to see them at Richardson meetings.

Archives