<p>It looks like Richardson will make a decision to whether or not to get into the Presidential race by the end of the month.</p>
<p>Here is why I think he should:</p>
<p>1) Competency - No other person out there has a better proven record of competency across the broad spectrum skills needed to be President than Bill Richardson. He has a successful proven record as a legislator; a diplomat; a Cabinet officer; and as a state chief executive. All Democrats talk about is competency and the lack of it in the White House now. We need to put our money where our mouth is.</p>
<p>2) Demographics - Richardson represents the largest swing voting demographic in the country. Richardson can turn more red states blue than any other Democrat.</p>
<p>3) Likeability - Richardson is good guy. He is someone you could see yourself having a beer with. He takes the issues seriously, but doesn?t take himself too seriously. He is more likeable than anyone else out there.</p>
<p>I believe he will need to show that he can take a hit or two about a Clintonesque zipper problem and still keep on ticking. Otoh, if Giuliani and Gingrich are serious Republican candidates, maybe we’ve moved on.</p>
<p>That is such BS. I have known Richardson since he was elected to Congress and while he is a tremendous flirt, unlike Bubba, there is no action there. </p>
<p>When he was being vetted as a possible VP for Gore, the DNC had two different independent investigators look into his background about the rumors and there was nothing there.</p>
<p>If there was any evidence of it, there would be something that stuck by now. There are enough R’s in New Mexico who would have loved to hung him out to dry that they would have found the 'blue dress" by now.</p>
<p>Or perhaps, you have evidence that no one else has been able to come up with.</p>
<p>I’ve long been a Richardson fan and I was quite annoyed at the way Clinton failed to back him up in the Weh Ho Lee mess. Here’s a caveat vis-a-vis 2008 and Richardson’s “demographic base.”</p>
<p>Has Richardson overcome (or neutralized) ignorant folks criticism that he’s not quite hispanic? Silly, I know, but I have heard at least one Democrat (Randi Rhodes, ugh!) commentator make a nitwit statment about ‘if he’s hispanic, what’s the deal with Richardson’s last name?’</p>
<p>As I understand it, the Governor’s mother was born and reared in Mexico City. Last time I heard, that qualifies as hispanic ancestry.</p>
<p>“Has Richardson overcome (or neutralized) ignorant folks criticism that he’s not quite hispanic? Silly, I know, but I have heard at least one Democrat (Randi Rhodes, ugh!) commentator make a nitwit statment about ‘if he’s hispanic, what’s the deal with Richardson’s last name?’”</p>
<p>On a somewhat related note, there is a liberal commentator here in New York who has gone after Barack Obama for not being a black American because he was raised by a white mother and isn’t part of the history/culture of people whose ancestors came from slavery and Jim Crow. I’m not making a point here, just an observation, because I’m certainly not in a position to judge who is and who is not black or hispanic. I just think it’s noteworthy.</p>
<p>LFWB, I don’t have “evidence.” I have the opinions & concerns of some Democratic pros who don’t (as far as I know) know each other. As I tell my D, cross-check everything.</p>
<p>ZM, just one opinion, I think all this “authentic black” or “authentic Hispanic” stuff is all BS. My biggest reservation about Barack Obama is that he hasn’t actually done much of anything, compiled much of a track record. Certainly he has star-level presence and, hey, it worked–at least as far as being elected–for Ronald Reagan…which kinda illuminates my concern. Though the present Doofus-in-Chief makes Reagan look good in comparison.</p>
<p>TheDad, Reagan was a very smart man who had written policy speeches given on the radio for many years before he ran for office. It is abundantly clear that, whatever you may think of his politics, Ronald Reagan was a very different man than the one publicly portrayed. You should read some of his writings from the decades before he ran for governor.</p>
<p>I cannot describe Richardson’s performance working under Pres. Clinton as particularly successful, but his actions as Governor seem pretty good. He is easy to like and comes across as credible. That is something Hillary, Obama, and Dodd don’t have. If we have to get stuck with a Democrat President, Richardson seems to be the best of the lot so far.</p>
<p>“Stuck” with a Democrat? And the current batch of Republican leaders have done us so darn proud, don’t ya think? Seriously, at this point I’d weep with gratitude to be “stuck” with a Democratic president. … I do agree that Obama has a thin political resume to this point–as did Alfred E. Neumann when he was appointed president by the Supreme Court back in 2000. I personally find Obama extremely easy to like. Hillary, not so much. She’s been far too supportive of monkey man’s insane war, for far too long.</p>
<p>So, let me make sure I have this right. TheDad heard from some “Democratic pros” that they have opinions and concerns because they heard from somewhere that there are zipper problems. Or is it TheDad hangs out with various Democratic “pros” that routinely sleep with married politicians and tell him about it?</p>
<p>Instead of telling your D to cross-check everything, perhaps you should tell her that it is bad form to perpetuate third party rumors.</p>
<p>Hindoo, You’d rather be “stuck” with a democrat? Democrats have done more harm than good. Problem with democrats is they only complain and don’t take action - then they sit back and judge the Republicans. Republicans at least try to amend the problem unlike the Democrats. Hey, I’m no hard core republican, nor am I a democrat, but from what I’ve seen the majority of Democrats are not very intelligent. (ex. John Kerry v Bush - Bush may not be the best president but Kerry would have been worse.)</p>