Who the heck is Bill Richardson?

[rabid1st]

One of my LJ Friends asked that question just last week. And I answered in detail...but today...there is something to add to my answer. Bill Richardson is an EX-Presidential Candidate. He ended his bid today.

Why should we care? Because Bill Richardson...was the candidate who was actually qualified to be President. We all have our favorites...and I wasn't going to vote for Bill either. But we need to take a good long look at what we keep settling for...when a candidate like this is sent packing.

Let's look at Bill Richardson--a sweaty, non-charismatic, non-photogenic, decent, hardworking, talented man...who can't be President because...let's face it...the vast public doesn't know this about him:

Richardson had one of the most wide-ranging resumes of any candidate ever to run for the presidency, bringing experience from his time in Congress, in President Clinton's Cabinet as energy secretary, as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, in the New Mexico Statehouse as well as his unique role as a freelance diplomat. As a Hispanic man, he added to the unprecedented diversity in the Democratic field that also included a woman and a black man.

But Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama dominated the spotlight in the campaign, and Richardson was never able to become a top-tier contender, trailing well behind them and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards.

Richardson fell below 5 percent in the New Hampshire primary Tuesday and came in with just 2 percent in the Iowa caucuses last week.

Hillary Clinton called Richardson "a great public servant and a friend."

"He waged a hard-fought and substantive campaign, and helped drive the conversation on the great issues facing our nation. I wish him the best of luck as he continues his outstanding work in New Mexico," she said in a statement.

Abraham Lincoln wouldn't be President if he ran today, either. Nobody would give him air time.

Comments

Ah, so we're discussing politics now?

[astitchintime-9.livejournal.com]

1. http://www.votehelp.org
I like that this one asks your opinion on issues, rather than on existing US policies. And then, when you scroll over your results it shows you pro/con where your opinions match or diverge from those of the candidates.

2. http://www.vajoe.com/candidate_calculator.html
This is far from perfect (its calculations are based on your opinions on current programs, rather than your opinions on programs that you'd wish to create), but have a look anyway.

[principia.livejournal.com]

Bill Richardson may well end up as someone's VP pick, or back in the cabinet. Sad to say, but photogenics has played a significant role in Presidential contests since 1960, and it's not likely to change anytime soon.

[gobi-rex.livejournal.com]

I'd love to see B.Richardson somewhere in the next cabinet.

Btw, as I was nervously awaiting NH primary results, I decided to play around with these "pick your candidate" quizes. From Mr.Gimlet Eye's POV. I figured he's somewhere between a libertarian and a Republican. Definitely a fiscal conservative. Small govt. Very tough on immigration. Anyway, he consistently gets Ron Paul! I'm glad he can't vote. Or more precisely, wouldn't (too much effort, even a mail-in ballot).

[rabid1st.livejournal.com]

I was shocked to discover Ron Paul and I agree on a lot of issues. Unfortunately, not the ones I put as my ultra-priority. Except maybe an end to corporate welfare...which I really think is one of our main issues...this Bill Richardson thing is really a reflection of the fact that we don't have a choice or voice...everything in this country is controlled by our mass media. We vote for the people we are told to vote for...manipulating us is all too easy (as Darth Vader would put it).

Rae

[gobi-rex.livejournal.com]

I was watching the Saturday debate and Ron Paul looked surprisingly sane at first. Then he started saying things like "the free market system is the best for taking care of poor people" and I started to look for the troll hammer.

The candidates I was really interested in hearing more from never had a chance in this race (Richardson, Biden, even Dodd). I resent the media for hyping the top two.

[rabid1st.livejournal.com]

Hey! Gobi! I didn't stop and say HOWDY to you my long lost BoB buddy the last time. So...Howdy!

And yes, Ron Paul is very disturbing in close-up. The things I don't agree with him on are far more important than the things we DO agree on. Some things are just too disturbing.

Rae

[webeh.livejournal.com]

I heard that the same would have also been true even during WWII. People who were voted in then would not be voted in now simply because of their appearance.

[auntiesuze.livejournal.com]

Actually, I did remember who he was after you described him...saw him on The Daily Show or The Colbert Report several months ago.

Sadly, the best candidates almost never make it into the finals. We're very appearance-based and people tend to go for the packaging (not just looks, but the charisma, etc.).

[bloodypoetry.livejournal.com]

I live in New Mexico, and I love the man too. I do hope he'll get SOME sort of role in the new government. VP would be excellent, giving him the time and freedom to do his diplomatic thing. Which is so totally what we need right now as a country.

[tsukara.livejournal.com]

In all honesty, I was thinking of voting for him. He seemed like a real person amidst all the fluff and bother of a usual campaign season, with real experience in the fields that really mattered

However, it actually doesn't matter who I vote for. I live in Oregon; one of the last primaries in the country. by the time we vote, it's basically been decided. So I sit here in my damp-climated home and watch with envy all of those who actually get to have a bit of influence on nomination of the candidates...

[kou-shun-u.livejournal.com]

yup, the press (as who knows what else) controls politics. independant runners arent even allowed in those debates and then within the parties they practicallly let only two people speak. and then they block out runners from being on ballot in states and then go on to say runners cant be part of a debate unless they get so many votes -but if they cant be on the ballot for real petty stuff.......

[rabid1st.livejournal.com]

Really...if there was one thing we could do to take back the democracy it would be to go back to equal airtime...to make sure that all parties running get their say to start with and that the press stops manipulating the vote via unfair coverage.

Of course, we would be going up against Rupert Murdoch and his mighty empire. And good luck with that.

Rae

[bamfer.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the shout out for Bill Richardson! He's my governor, so we likes him at lot, and he had the best renewable energy plan of all the candidates. I even got to shake his hand and have an autographed photo of him (political nerd that I am). I was hoping at first he'd run for Senate here in NM to replace the retiring Pete Domenici rather than for president, but as it turns out we got another good Senate candidate in Tom Udall (very good chance to add another senator to the "D" column).

As for Ron Paul, at first I kind of liked him (he was raising tons of cash and was giving the GOP heartburn), and at least there was agreement on the war and on protecting our constitution... but then you start to realize he has some pretty whacky positions and disturbing views. The New Republic magazine went through a bunch of his newsletters which bore his name (ie. "The Ron Paul Political Report") from back in the 1980's and 1990's and revealed a host of bigoted, anti-Semitic and virulent homophobic opinions, plus some nutty conspiracy theories. I recommend that anyone who might have been considering voting for Ron Paul read this article first:

The New Republic: Angry White Men (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca")

[rabid1st.livejournal.com]

Well...that's the thing about Ron Paul...right there. He's a fanatic on the side of too many things I can't agree with for me to every vote for him. It is so refereshing, also, to see two people from Bill Richardson's state pipe up and say what a great Governor he is. Because lots of times there is resentment in the person's own state. Texans often complained about GWB before the election. But everyone loves Bill and he's so articulate and then...when you look deeper into his policies...they are actually POLICIES.

I feel quite strongly that we should have a grassroots movement to end the media lock on our Presidential and congressional races. The WAY people run for office needs to change...no manipulative, emotionally based ads, no opinions from media pundits, no more polishing your image. You should be allowed to tell us how you plan to do the job we are hiring you for...and what in your past qualifies you for the job. End of discussion. If we had to pick the President THAT way...we would have a more qualified man or woman in the job.

Rae

[bamfer.livejournal.com]

Couldn't agree more with you about the media, which is why I pretty much avoid the traditional TV media like the plague. I mostly had TV for politics and news, and got so disgusted I ended my satellite tv plan a few months ago (I now have no tv reception at all- that's $56 a month now put to better use). I'd like to think New Hampshire voters called them on their crap.

I read a lot of left-leaning political blogs, my favorite being The Daily Kos (http://www.dailykos.com), which often highlights good grass roots candidates (one being supported right now is Donna Edwards, a Democrat running in a primary against a corrupt incumbent Democratic Congressman, Al Wynn in Maryland).

Also, I seem to have screwed up my New Republic link on the Ron Paul article above, there's some extra characters that got appended, let me try again:

The New Republic: Angry White Men (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca)