Yesterday morning while eating breakfast, I listened to a podcast of the September 24th PBS NewsHour Vote 2008 interview with Democrat hopeful, Governor Bill Richardson. If you consider that the most important issues facing the U.S. are the War in Iraq, regaining the U.S.’s moral authority in the world, immigration, the U.S.’s dependence on foreign energy (and the environment), as well as balancing of the budget, then Mr. Richarson is your candidate. Why is he the best candidate on all of these issues:
Historically, members of Congress have not been great presidential candidates. Being a member of the legislature is quite different from being an executive (ie, Reagan, Clinton), and Bill Richardson is both the Governor of New Mexico (something that he tries to remind everyone in all of his interviews) and a former congressman. But more importantly, Mr. Richardson has experience in the important issues facing the nation. He was U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and was the Secretary of Energy, both posts under President Clinton.
Personally, I find that his plan, in part based on his experience in the Balkans, for pulling troops out of Iraq and using the U.N. and diplomacy to bring in a coalition of armed forces from Muslim states to be the only sensible solution (similar to the one that I have proposed). He is also incredibly knowledgeable about energy policy and understands the problems associated with energy, our foreign energy dependence on Middle East oil, and the environment.
Richardson’s mother is Mexican and his father American, and he has lived in both the U.S. and Mexican. This adds another plus to the U.S. presidency, having a fully bilingual and multi-cultural president to lead both the debate on immigration and in dealing with foreign leaders.
Finally, Richardson offers something that Hillary cannot give to her candidacy. He is not controversial and does not genereate animosity the way that Hillary does. For all of the experience that Hillary claims to have for her time spent in the Clinton White House and now in the U.S. Senate, Richardson also spent time in the Clinton Administration as a Secretary and as an Ambassador. He has also served time in Congress like Hillary, but also has the experience as an “elected” executive.
But, Mr. Richardson will not become the next president. It looks like there is no stopping the Hillary Clinton train. Hillary is doing very well in interviews and in debates, and she is incredibly well disciplined in the statements she is making to the press and public. At the same time, her closest competitor, Obama, is not performing up to everyone’s expectations. Furthermore, Hillary also has much better funding and more support in her party than does Richardson. Finally, as was the case with Bill Bradley, Richardson lacks a charismatic punch to his public speaking.
So if Mr. Richardson is not going to win, why is he still in running? One reason could be to get name recognition for future elections. Another is that he might be a good running mate to Hillary. This does not seem far fetched considering Richardson was part of the Clinton Administration.
Here you can find the NewsHour’s interview with Governor Richardson.
And of course, the “best one for the job” simply means the least pathetic, lamentable candidate.
15 responses to “Bill Richardson: The Best One for the Job Has NO Chance”
I like Richardson, although i think there are other candidates that have better politics he is the most qualified for the job.
Hillary Clinton will be the next president, unless something crazy happens between now and election day. The word is that H. Clinton doesn’t like Richardson, so i am not sure she will pick him.
Most qualified non-candidate: Colin Powell.
Least qualified candidate: anyone currently running from either party, take your pick.
Vote ’08 outcome: Hillary wins, America loses.
Vote ’14 outcome: James’ children are fully grown and have flown the coop, and he decides to remove himself to more cultured climates.
More cultured climates? What did you have in mind? New York City? Cleveland?
Try Messina, Ragusa, Roma or Tuscana.
James – were it not for a tragic underestimation of your talent as a soccer player,I’m convinced you would just now be winding up a brilliant professional career at one of those destinations. Re the “best candidate”, one of the things I’m concerned about, particularly with the democratic candidates is – who would they surround themselves with in their cabinet, and other key positions. If Hilary were to dip into her husbands advisoy crew, that’s basically a rogues’ gallery, which will have their strings pulled by Move-on.org., etc. I would have concerns as well about the ability of Obama and Edwards to attract or select top statesman into their administrations. Today, Edwards wouldn’t win a mayoral race in his hometown located near me. None of the three has ever administered anything large such as a governor, mayor, general or business leader would have. That’s a huge drawback. Take the top Republicans, and there is a fertile field of statemen types to bring into an administration, if they would be willing – from among, Guliani, Romney, McCain, Gingrich, Thompson, etc.; and yes,Jeb Bush,the dem, Lieberman, and maybe Colin Powell,ready to make amends for abetting in our entry into the Iraq war when he knew it was wrong. That’s my vision (in a perfect world), one of those as president, and a super-cabinet of people that are more for America than for their party and self-interests, as I think that group is. If there were a dem that fit that description, and perhaps Richardson does, he might well get my vote. Hating Bush can’t be one of the reasons for voting for one of these dems. His second worst legacy will be, being the cause of bringing into the White House a Hilary an Obama or an Edwards. Hilary might have the ability to rise to the occasion, the other two would not, at least to this point in their careers. Richardson looks awfully good in comparison. Charlie
Hillary is spawn of the darkest depths of blackest Hades itself.
I’d rather have Lucifer himself, than that socialist tramp. Might as well just call Hugo up now and hand him the keys to White House, they’ll be bedmates within five minutes of the end of the inauguration ceremony.
Giuliani has more than a few questionable ties to “less than wholesome” businesses and business people. Not to mention, I don’t believe the international community would find him authoritative, or show him any real respect.
Gingrich is the supreme “Whitey”, self-righteous moralist and aristocratic pompous ass. His cabinet would be a cross of TBN and Halliburton, no thanks, I hope he takes a slug.
McCain, side swapping, weak minded and untrustworthy. Although, he might have the clout in D.C. to put together a proper cabinet, which might make him usable to some degree.
Romney and Thompson I haven’t really bothered to look into, I don’t believe either of them are going to have what it takes to garner the votes.
Obama and Edwards? Aren’t they the guys who sanitise the stalls at the DNC? What are they running for, “head sanitation engineer” or “Friends of Gimpy, the syphilitic goat”???
Colin Powell or nothing.
Hopefully the rest of these “candidates” all take the same plane that falls out of the sky somewhere over the Pacific … at least that way their eulogy reading “died in service to their country” wouldn’t be a lie.
So you want to go to Italy? How ironic don’t you think? You have 90 days to stay legally in Italy as a tourist and then you will have to leave. Getting citizenship is pretty difficult unless you can first live legally there for some 15 years with a work permit. I got my work permit denied twice in Spain and it then took 2 years to finally become a legal resident.
There are borders and barriers that keep people from legally moving to so called more cultured places. So you’d first have to be an illegal immigrant before you can experience living in the most politically disfunctional and corrupt of European nations. Start filling out the paperwork today.
I’m there dude!!!
I am not allowed to respond to this website but I have been biting my tongue for so long I need to reply. I would love to hear you write some positive statements, some ideas to make this world work in a more productive way. I feel criticism and pessimism is too prevalent and cheap in our society.What are you doing to make it a better world? What is anyone doing? People criticize without spending energy on how to better not only our country but the world. I would like to see a more positive and instructive slant to your entries.
I have no idea who “poyanna” or “Pollyannna” might be … so you have me at a disadvantage. Do I know you?
I’ll accept that I criticise, but due to the fact that you are not party to either the perspective of the author, or the ensuing laughter are more often accompanies the authorship … I would say you are interjecting your own subjective emotive slant.
Pragmatics and utility are not at all concerned with emotive perspective, as both arise from the Stoic class of philosophy. To the contrary, what is important is that the application of knowledge, regardless the context, is presided over by non-emotive reasoning. Herein lies the foundation of the initial error, humans have to “feel good” about the application of knowledge, most often in a deeply personal perspective, for said application to “useful”, “correct”, or “good”.
I harbor no falsifiable positions with regards to “human nature”, history provides the markers, I stand “on the shoulders of giants”, and regurgitate their wisdom. No one hears, where is the onus of responsibility then?
I mind my own business, avoid attachment, tend to my children and their minds, and in the final, embrace absurdity as the world of humankind perpetuates the errors of antiquity, ad infinitum.
Again, the ancient Daoist cosmological perspective is both pragmatic and utilitarian: “All that you require for change, is that the weighted mass of the world, raise itself up by its own bootstraps.”
You request the impossible. Humanity is historical habituation, before all else.
Perhaps what is wrong is not the issuance of grievance, but the perspective that fails to account for and understand history.
you forgot to mention that you are just calling it as you see it.
The current state of politics in the US is not a happy thought, unless you are super rich.
Often times when i criticize the gov’t people write me off as cynical, negative or pessimistic. It bothers me, but i am not about to call an empty glass full or visa versa.
It does not matter who I am. I am just asking you to be real, not political, not intellectual, not intriguing or clothing yourself in words. I guess the real question is who are you? What makes your heart sing? What makes you anxious? What makes you cry? How do you love? What is the most important thing in your life? What can you not live without? That is what is important to me. Negativism is bad for the soul. It kills hope over the whole planet. We are in trouble on this earth. Let’s send positive messages throughout this universe, not trash.
On paper, yes Richardson has the foreign policy experience but as you said, he ‘lacks a charismatic punch to his public speaking.’ The Newshour has more on Richardson on its blog: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2008/blog/index.html
On an important note, Brittany Spears lost custody of her children.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL … be gentle with me Rewrite, it’s only a joke …
For the record, I attempted a response to “Pollyanna” ::snicker::snicker:: but apparently Baby Jebus’ spam filter is a hater and kiboshed my posting.
At the end of it, pick up some Camus, Machiavelli, Dawkins and Hawking. Then we can talk ~ I am nothing but what my brain tells my mind to dialectically make of me.
So the groaning over the linguistic cloaking is so much tripe. Without the linguistic wrapping, I’m just an amorphous blob of randomly grouped, carbon based, non-specific molecular patterns without intent or purpose.
That’s not pessimism or a complaint, just how my unique and special butterfly addresses its absurd reality. Mmmmmm, abject human glory, yes, yes, quite rather tasty.