Sunday, December 30, 2007
Then, in this article in the Des Moines Register, David Yepsen, Iowa's premier political reporter, discusses the electability of each of the major candidates and has much to say--that you've already heard here--about Bill Richardson's unique strength among the Democratic candidates to win in Western states.
Four days until the Iowa caucuses....
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Sunday, November 25, 2007
(1) Right now! We need folks to collect signatures to get BR on the NJ primary ballot. The deadline (Dec 10th) is approaching fast.
(2) We need to sign up Jan '08 volunteers now so if the Gov finishes top three in Iowa, which is looking more likely every day (Edwards is dropping like a rock in IA and NH), we have an enthusiastic contingent to hit the Garden State with Richardson material in January, i.e., leading up to the 2/5/08 NJ primary.
Either way, email me now at email@example.com and I'll get you signed up to help.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
The CNN/WMUR poll in NH has the Gov doubling his support since the last poll and moving to within a point of John Edwards, who is dropping like a rock. That poll has Clinton 36, Obama 23, Edwards 13, and Richardson 12.
In Iowa, the latest Wash Post/ABC poll has Obama 30, Clinton 26, Edwards 22, and Richardson 11. While those numbers aren't as close for third place as in NH, they are extremely significant in that they show the lowest numbers for John Edwards since the campaign started. His support is dwindling fast. Meanwhile, the Gov is on the move again.
Finishing in the top three in both of these states is critical. The media has made it pretty clear that they can only handle major coverage of three candidates. So far, Clinton, Obama and Edwards get the lion's share of the press. That will all change if Bill Richardson can continue to rise in the polls as Edwards falls.
This race is not over. The voters in Iowa and NH seem hungry for another choice outside of the top three candidates so far. That choice is clear: Bill Richardson, change, experience and electability.
Monday, November 19, 2007
"Bill Richardson did not leave me and my crew behind and he will not leave you veterans or this country behind."
Monday, November 12, 2007
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
And here's video of the announcement:
Monday, October 29, 2007
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Zogby Poll: Half Say They Would Never Vote for Hillary Clinton for President
Other top tier candidates in both parties win more acceptance; Richardson & Huckabee favored most
While she is winning wide support in nationwide samples among Democrats in the race for their party's presidential nomination, half of likely voters nationwide said they would never vote for New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, a new Zogby Interactive poll shows.
The online survey of 9,718 likely voters nationwide showed that 50% said Clinton would never get their presidential vote. This is up from 46% who said they could never vote for Clinton in a Zogby International telephone survey conducted in early March. Older voters are most resistant to Clinton -- 59% of those age 65 and older said they would never vote for the New York senator, but she is much more acceptable to younger voters: 42% of those age 18-29 said they would never vote for Clinton for President.
|Whom would you NEVER vote for for President of the U.S.?||%|
At the other end of the scale, Republican Mike Huckabee and Democrats Bill Richardson and Barack Obama faired best, as they were least objectionable to likely voters. Richardson was forever objectionable as President to 34%, while 35% said they could never vote for Huckabee and 37% said they would never cast a presidential ballot for Obama, the survey showed.
The Zogby Interactive poll, conducted Oct. 11-15, 2007, included 9,718 likely voters nationwide and carries a margin of error of /- 1.0 percentage point.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
And here's Joe Scarborough's highly complimentary interview with the Gov on MSNBC, addressing the war:
Sunday, October 14, 2007
So let's clear this one up: Bill Richardson doesn't want to transfer water from one region of the country to another. This isn't socialized water that he's talking about. All he meant by Wisconsin being "awash" in water is that *all* states, even the more "awash" ones, need to be focused on water conservation. Folks in the Southwest have been dealing with this for years, and there certainly are many good people in the Great Lakes area who have too, but BR's point is this: *everyone* in the US needs to focus on water-supply issues and conservation. It's that important. Bill Richardson doesn't want to steal anyone's water. He just wants everyone to think of water as a precious resource that needs to be protected.
Here's the official statement from the campaign yesterday (link to website):
Bill Richardson reaffirms authority of states to oversee water distribution
SANTA FE, NM-- Presidential candidate New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson's national press secretary Tom Reynolds today released the following statement on Richardson's water policy for America's future:
"As president, Gov. Richardson will launch a national dialogue on water issues affecting all parts of the country, including quality, conservation, efficiency and reuse. While certain areas of the country enjoy greater water supplies than others, Richardson in no way proposes federal transfers of water from one region of the nation to the other. Richardson believes firmly in keeping water in its basin of origin and of the rights of states to oversee water distribution.
"As governor of a western state, Richardson understands more than others the importance of protecting our water supplies. In New Mexico he has developed a statewide water initiative, he has created a statewide strategic water reserve, and he has created a water innovation fund and a water trust fund to invest in water conservation and production.
"As President Gov. Richardson will embrace a national water policy that will specifically help protect the authority of states and the rights of local communities throughout the country."
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Monday, October 1, 2007
Friday, September 28, 2007
Thursday, September 27, 2007
They all said, "No."
I promised a long time ago on this blog that I would not "go negative" on any other candidate in this primary race, and I still won't. But I will tell you when Bill Richardson's position is starkly different than his chief rivals for the nomination, and there could be no more crystal clear example of such a difference than in his answer to that question: one year. The troops will be home within one year of him taking office. Not 2013, which, by the way, is five and one-half years from now--longer than this war has already been going on. One year.
And this is not a simple numbers game of one year versus many more. It's a difference in basic philosophy regarding the best way to end the Iraq War. There are the naysayers that quibble with Bill Richardson, telling him that one year is an unrealistically short period of time, and that troop withdrawal will take longer than that. To them, I say, "So what?" The critical point is not the precise length of time, but, rather, the commitment of the candidate to get our troops home as fast as possible, so the real process of peace and reconciliation can begin. The 2013 crowd is on the other side of that divide. They do not have the same commitment to bring our troops home as soon as possible. Instead, their plan has no end-goal in sight.
This choice isn't complicated. Yes, withdrawing troops from a war zone is complicated, but that will be true whenever it occurs. What is not complicated is deciding on which side of a simple divide you stand: should we bring the troops home as soon as possible, with a goal of no more than one year for the arrival of the last troop home, or should we keep an open-ended commitment to stay in Iraq much longer than that? If you choose the former course of action, you should have an equally uncomplicated task in choosing a candidate from among the top four candidates seeking the Democratic nomination because Bill Richardson is the only candidate who agrees with your position on Iraq. So go vote for him. Make him the nominee, and let's end this war--quickly and responsibly.
Vote Bill Richardson for president.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Monday, September 24, 2007
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Monday, September 17, 2007
Monday, September 3, 2007
Sep. 03, 2007 | Bill Richardson likes to play up his image as a
horse-ridin', gun-totin' man of the Wild West, but don't be distracted
by the cowboy swagger -- the Democratic governor of New Mexico also
has a serious policy wonk side. That was on full display in May when
he unveiled a broad and ambitious climate and energy plan. Billing
himself as the "energy president," he's now calling for a 90 percent
cut to greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050, a renewable-energy target of
50 percent by 2040, and a 50-mile-per-gallon fuel-economy standard by
Richardson is no newcomer to energy issues, of course -- he served as
secretary of energy at the end of the Clinton administration, and has
aggressively pushed clean energy as governor of New Mexico. But some
greens might not care for his "clean coal" boosterism or his embrace
of "all kinds of biofuel."
I rang up the governor at his office in Santa Fe, N.M., to size up his
energy and environmental vision.
You've dubbed yourself the "energy president." Why did you choose that
Right now, the most important domestic and national-security issues
involve America becoming energy independent and reducing
greenhouse-gas emissions. I believe it's going to take an "energy
president" who will lead this country toward these goals by asking all
Americans to sacrifice for the common good and be more
energy-efficient and promote a green style of living.
Many of the candidates are trying to paint themselves as the green
candidate. What makes your platform stronger than the others'?
On energy, both the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters
have stated that my plan is the most aggressive, with the strongest
But what differentiates myself from other candidates is I've actually
done it. I've done it as energy secretary in the Clinton
administration by tightening air-conditioning energy-use standards by
30 percent, building a strong portfolio of renewable energy, and
promoting 100-mile-per-gallon vehicles through a fuel-efficiency
initiative with the auto companies.
Then, as governor of New Mexico, I believe we have the most
clean-energy initiatives of any state. We have a renewable portfolio
standard going to 20 percent by 2020. Our state is on track to observe
the Kyoto treaty. We have no taxes on hybrid vehicles. We're the first
in the country to export wind energy. We also have a number of
incentives for solar, wind, biomass, biodiesel and
distributed-generation fuel cells.
I was also probably one of the most active pro-environment
congressmen. I pursued and made law a number of national parks,
wilderness areas, river protections and air-quality standards. When I
was on the committee [overseeing the] Interior [Department], I worked
on bills including the Jemez National Recreation Area and the South
San Juan Wilderness.
You've vowed as president to mandate a 90 percent greenhouse-gas
emission reduction by 2050 --
I've also proposed a strong standard in the short term: 20 percent
reductions by 2020.
These goals are even stronger than some environmental groups are
calling for. Why such dramatic targets?
Because we can't wait. It's a matter of necessity. It's important
because it involves our national security. Our energy dependence on
foreign oil is so unhealthy -- we could be vulnerable to an oil price
shock, to $5-per-gallon gasoline prices, to long lines at the pumps.
What I'm also advocating is a dramatic shift in mass transit, like
I've done here in New Mexico with the Rail Runner. But we'd have,
nationally, transportation policies that promote sensible land use --
not just proposing highway funding bills, but bills to establish light
rail and bullet trains and more energy-efficient transportation. Also,
land-use policies that advocate open space. This is for a better
quality of life for all our people.
Are your climate goals as much informed by your concern about energy
independence as they are about climate change?
As president, would you subsidize the development of technologies,
such as liquefied coal, that could worsen global warming, even if they
would boost energy independence?
I'm for clean coal, but I'm not a big fan of liquefied. I do not
believe that coal-to-liquids technologies represent a viable solution
for the future because of the associated carbon dioxide emissions. I
will push for a well-to-wheels low-carbon fuel requirement that
reduces the carbon impact of our liquid fuels by 30 percent by 2020,
including alternative fuels that will substitute for about 10 percent
of our gasoline demand.
But coal does belong in a clean-energy future?
I believe that carbon-clean coal will play a role in our energy
future. There have gotta be some very strict clean-coal standards. I'm
not an advocate for continuing to use old oil, coal and nuclear. They
all have to be part of a mix, but in the past, those three have
received an inordinate amount of subsidies and tax incentives at the
expense of renewable energy. It's important to emphasize that the
future is in renewable energy, renewable fuel, conservation measures.
It's in buildings that are 50 percent more energy-efficient, solar
roofs in schools, 50-mile-per-gallon vehicles by 2030.
What about nuclear -- can you expand on that? It sounds like you think
coal and nuclear need to be part of the energy mix, but they shouldn't
Yes. My dramatic preference would be for clean coal. I oppose the
construction of those coal plants in Texas -- too many subsidies for
the coal industry. And I opposed giving a tax incentive in New Mexico
to just a regular coal plant that's proposed here, Desert Rock. I
can't be the champion of global climate change and have a new coal
plant that isn't clean.
Do you think we'll have to expand nuclear capacity?
Nuclear has to be part of the mix, but I would eliminate the subsidies
that nuclear and coal and oil got from the last energy bill and shift
those to renewable energy, to a more equal playing field.
Nuclear will not be able to move forward unless we resolve the waste
issue. The [Yucca Mountain] site in Nevada has significant water,
environmental and transportation problems with it. The other
alternative of putting nuclear waste at existing regional sites around
the country is not going to work. I favor a technological solution --
let's get our best scientists at the national labs to find a way to
dispose of this nuclear waste safely. Until that is resolved, nuclear
should not get any advantages.
What role do you think ethanol and biofuels should play in a 21st
century energy system?
A very important role, both of them -- all kinds of biofuel,
biodiesel. We need to have more fuel-efficient fuels.
We should provide incentives for distribution by, for example, helping
gas stations convert at least one pump to handle E85 or other
biofuels. The federal government also should use its purchasing power
-- as we have done in New Mexico -- to transform the energy
marketplace by, for example, purchasing more hybrid and flex-fuel cars
for its own use.
And I believe in cooperative ventures with other countries. I would
expand our ties to Latin America with more collaboration in renewable
energy and technology. That's the future for that region, what Brazil
has done with ethanol, for instance -- they're totally energy
You are a strong supporter of both corn and cellulosic ethanol. How,
specifically, will you structure policies that transition the U.S.
away from corn ethanol and toward cellulosic?
Our goal should be bold -- to replace 20 percent of liquid
transportation fuels with biofuels by 2020. We should significantly
ramp up federal investments in the research and development of
biofuels, including cellulosic ethanol.
You have a strong incentive for electric cars in your auto proposal.
Do you think electric cars will win out over biofuel cars?
They will all be part of the mix. We in New Mexico were very proud to
get Tesla Motors to move here from California. It's the perfect
combination for us: It's high-tech jobs plus clean energy.
Do you think climate and energy will be front-burner concerns in the
Absolutely. They are among the most important issues in the
presidential campaign. The first is Iraq, the second is a close tie
between universal healthcare and energy independence.
You've said on the one hand that voters need to be willing to
sacrifice some of their creature comforts for a new energy landscape,
but also that Americans should be able to keep SUVs. Can you explain
What I'm asking for is not sacrifice, like Americans' wearing sweaters
and turning the heat down. What I'm asking for is being more
energy-efficient with appliances, with vehicles, with mass transit.
Maybe, instead of driving to work, once a month go mass transit.
I believe very strongly in what John F. Kennedy asked all Americans to
do and that's sacrifice a little bit for the collective good. We need,
as a moral imperative, to reduce our consumption of fossil fuel
because it's in our national interest that we do so as a nation. It's
going to take a president to lead this dramatic shift and not just
little energy bills. We need to energize every American to become green.
But Americans will be able to keep their SUVs because the technology
Yes. You can have an SUV with a fuel-efficient engine. We do have the
technology to achieve this.
You say your energy programs are going to produce 10 times more value
than they cost, right? How does this math add up?
Our energy programs are going to be great for the economy mainly
because they are going to create two sets of new jobs in this country
-- one in renewable technology, which are high-wage, high-skill jobs,
and the second in retrofitting homes for the construction industry,
also higher-wage jobs. It will be not just a job boom, but a
So that boom in jobs will add up to 10 times more than the cost of
jump-starting that trend?
Can Detroit achieve the sharp fuel-economy standards you're proposing
-- an increase to 50 mpg by 2020?
Detroit will benefit from this. We've got the technology. They need a
little gentle prodding and they need incentives, but Detroit has
always stepped up with ingenuity. They must realize that to keep jobs
in America, to be part of this globalized world, they gotta compete.
I'm not at all averse to giving Detroit tax incentives for these
vehicles or having the government jointly invest in R&D with them,
rather than clubbing them over the head.
In 2005, you signed an environmental justice order in New
Mexico. How would you address environmental justice as president?
I would issue an executive order that would respect neighborhoods,
especially in minority areas; I would make it part of a "Quality of
Life Initiative." It would have several components: promoting
environmental justice, as well as a new open-space policy, a smart
land-use policy and a new transportation policy that would emphasize
light rail and more energy-efficient transportation.
After climate and energy, what do you think is the most important
environmental issue facing the nation?
Protecting our parks, not drilling in ecosystems and offshore areas,
the need to create more open space and wilderness areas, and finding
ways to conserve water more effectively are critically important.
Who is your environmental hero?
Mo Udall, because he gave me, when I first came into Congress, a very
good environmental ethic. I remember him taking me to Alaska where we
worked on the Alaska wilderness initiatives. He was a Western
environmentalist -- I patterned myself after him.
And Al Gore deserves enormous credit for pushing global climate change.
You often talk about your love of the wilds of New Mexico and the
outdoors in general. Can you describe your inner cowboy?
I own a horse -- that's my main recreational activity. His name is
Sundance. I love to go out into the mountains of Santa Fe and spend
time with him. That's my main recreation. Unfortunately, I don't have
much time for it.
If you could spend a week in one park or natural area, where would it be?
What have you done personally to lighten your environmental footprint?
We got a Ford Escape hybrid for the governor's fleet and an ethanol
vehicle, a Chevy Tahoe FlexFuel that can run on E85. The governor's
mansion has energy-efficient windows, and we've installed compact
fluorescent bulbs wherever possible. We also are involved in a
renewable-purchasing program that supplies 90 percent of the
electricity from solar and wind. We've also made water-conservation
improvements to the residence, like low-flush toilets, low-flow
showerheads, xeriscaping, and a water-efficient irrigation system.
This article is part of a series of interviews with presidential
candidates produced jointly by Grist and Outside.
-- By Amanda Griscom Little
Thursday, August 30, 2007
In fact, Yepsen hits on a golden opportunity for the Gov. Right now, the Top Three are all having troubles of their own. Hillary Clinton's electability is coming into question and that appears to be an issue that won't go away soon. Barack Obama's experience is, likewise, being examined by Iowa voters, and John Edwards suddenly seems, to a lot of voters, like a too-angry-for-primetime kind of candidate. There's a window of opportunity that is wide open right *now* for Bill Richardson. I hope he seizes the moment.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
The Prez on the Rez forum on Native American issues attracted only one top-tier Dem: Bill Richardson. It's great to see the Gov try to broaden his base of support in many different communities across the country. Here's another take on the same forum.
Then, on the same theme of expanding his base of support, Governor Richardson announced a new outreach program to attract Hispanic voters.
Moreover, the Gov's new book, Leading By Example, is getting rave reviews for its forward-thinking take on energy policy.
Meanwhile, Bill Richardson was not kidding when he said recently that he was amping up his Nevada operations. This past week, he was in Nevada, courting votes there at a forum with Joe Biden.
Finally, a reader at the Washington Blade has sounded off in support of the Gov.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Monday, August 20, 2007
Meanwhile, the Santa Fe New Mexican says the Gov "brought his A game" to this debate.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
I have told you in the past that, with one exception, I have not been overly impressed with the Gov's performance in the debates so far. He has been, generally speaking, OK. But "OK" is not going to cut it when trying to move up high enough in the polls to challenge for the lead. He has also occasionally been less than "OK," and I've been disappointed by that because I know he is capable of so much more. Which brings us to today....
And he was good, even great at times. More than ever, he made it crystal clear that his plan is the most urgent to bring *all* of the troops home from Iraq as soon as possible. He was not perfect, but far more noteworthy political analysts than myself thought he did very well for himself. Over at Reason magazine, they say Bill Richardson and Hillary Clinton won today.
Meanwhile, at the Washington Post, Chris Cillizza, who has been rough on the Gov's past debate performances, gave him high marks for distinguishing himself well on his Iraq position.
Good on ya, Gov. Here's to doing even better next time, and the time after that....This campaign is still on the move and there's still plenty of time to win.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Then, in a move certain to distinguish him from many in the area of fiscal conservatism/responsibility, Bill Richardson unveiled a detailed economic plan designed to drastically reduce the federal budget deficit that Mr. Bush has blown through the roof.
Also, in a reaction to the news that John Edwards' campaign appears to be scaling down its Nevada operations, Governor Richardson has redoubled his efforts to win that early battle for the nomination.
You know, a few months back, Governor Richardson said he would "outwork them all," referring to how he would defeat his better-funded rivals for the nomination. He really seems to be giving it his best shot. Now what we need is some seriously great debate performances to round out what is otherwise a stellar effort. Go Bill!
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
BTW, later today, in Iowa, the Gov will unveil his heathcare plan in detail.
Saturday, August 4, 2007
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Monday, July 30, 2007
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
This is all great news because it's still *really* early in this whole game. The non-politically -obsessive general public is just beginning to look seriously at the candidates. Indeed, something like 64% of New Hampshire voters said they had not permanently settled on a candidate yet. Bill Richardson is moving up. Now that the Gov has found a debating style that suits him well, let's enjoy the ride and keep it going. He was already great in person with a crowd at a campaign appearance. Now he finally seems to have found a way to be just as convincing in front of a TV camera. This is good news.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
"As a conservative from the Reagan era, let me say that much of what you said here is right on the money. I've thought for two years that Richardson is the one guy who could carry the states the Dems have built as a base and siphon enough votes to get Arizona, Louisiana, Kentucky, or Missouri.
This is not going to be as 'easy' for the Democrats as most of their supporters wish. Let's face it: Bush is NOT on the ballot. Saying, "I'm not Bush" (which was Kerry's ONLY argument) didn't win when Bush was the alternative, so why should it work when the GOP isn't nominating Bush AND isn't nominating his Veep, either?
It is a SIMPLE FACT that the Electoral College swings in favor of the GOP. It's not as hard a swing as it used to be in one sense - some states (NJ and IL, for example) that used to vote GOP are now pretty solid for the Dems. The PROBLEM, however, is the NUMBER of electoral votes going towards the GOP has increased as NY and PA have lost votes to places like Florida."
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Also, be sure to vote for Bill Richardson in the Daily Kos monthly poll.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Sunday, June 24, 2007
But by far the most interesting stat appears on page 15 of that report, when voters are asked whose speech made the biggest impact on them in terms of changing their minds and making them more likely to vote for a candidate. The answer? Bill Richardson, by a huge margin. That tells me that if the Gov just keeps at it, and spreads his message far and wide, especially using the personal touch of live events, and even using humor and a personable approach to advertising, he can make friends and allies fast, faster than anyone else.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Richardson: Bush Turns His Back on Millions with Veto
of Stem Cell Bill
Lifting ban on federal funding for stem cell research
would be a priority for Richardson
SANTA FE, NM -- Governor Bill Richardson today issued
the following statement regarding President Bush's
veto of legislation to lift the ban on federal funding
for stem cell research:
"With one pen stroke, President Bush has ignored hard
science, embraced misplaced ideology and turned his
back on the millions who stand to benefit from the
advances that stem cell research holds.
"Countless Americans continue to suffer from
debilitating diseases while our country's brightest
scientists are denied critical funding needed to
search for cures and treatments.
"Congress must continue to fight this battle,
exploring every option at its disposal to lift this
arbitrary ban and give hope for a brighter future for
those living with Parkinson's, ALS, cancer, spinal
cord injuries and other debilitating ailments.
"The President's veto is not the last word on
advancing stem cell research. There is too much at
stake for Democrats to back down. We must press
forward because that's what a majority of Americans
"And if the President continues to ignore the will of
the people, I promise, once elected to the White
House, I will lift this ban, giving our scientists the
funding they need and restoring hope to millions."
Richardson has a strong track record of working to
advance important medical research. Last year,
Richardson announced a major $10-million investment
plan in stem cell research for New Mexico, which
$2 million to establish a nationally-recognized
training program in Stem Cell Research for medical
students, graduate students, residents, fellows,
physicians and scientists.
$4 million to recruit nationally recognized
scientists. Funding is needed to support the initial
recruitment costs plus provide start-up funds to buy
necessary equipment and supplies, and to train and
$4 million in capital to establish state-of-the-art
research facilities for Adult and Embryonic Stem Cell
Research. Federal guidelines currently prohibit work
with embryonic stem cells in space that has been
constructed with federal funds. This capital outlay
will be used to build a state-funded area devoted to
embryonic stem cell research.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Yeah, I know, you're thinking, "Uhhhh, what are you doing, Steve, drawing an analogy to a candidate who lost the nomination?" Here's the point: go back to this time in '03, before his message was distorted by the media, and Howard Dean looked pretty damn good. I was a Dean fan back then (long before he was apparently not ready for prime time and acting a little, er, unpresidential after the Iowa caucuses) because Howard Dean was a fiscally conservative, socially-progressive governor who distinguished himself as *the* anti-Iraq-war candidate of '03/'04. Had he not been distorted by the media into the "waaaaaaaay left candidate that can't win in the general election" and had he not let loose with The Scream, he could have been a formidable candidate--a progressive centrist with heavy anti-war cred, electable as all hell in centrist red states which control presidential elections and which fear tax-and-spenders (which he is not). Instead, he got co-opted by his media-driven reputation and his candidacy crashed and burned.
Which brings us to Bill Richardson....
Governor? Check. Fiscal conservative/social progressive? Check.
Is he about to let loose with a Scream? Nope. He never struck me as the type. Will he let his image be co-opted by the media so he suddenly becomes the "too extreme on the left" candidate? Doubtful, especially because he has a much longer record on which to base a proper evaluation of him. Put differently, he's a more known quantity than Dean was back then, and he's unlikely to get painted into a corner, position-wise, by the media as a result. Finally, is his anti-Iraq-war position as attractive as Dean's was, and as distinctive as Dean's was from the other candidates for the nomination? You bet.
"Dean without The Scream." I mean that as a compliment of the highest order. Bill Richardson has all of Howard Dean's '03 positives without any of his '04 negatives. Those who want to win in '08 should take notice.
Additionally, today at the AFSCME event where the Big Four Dems spoke, the Gov did his best to make it clear that he stands out from the pack. Watch the video here.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Monday, June 11, 2007
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Sunday, June 3, 2007
Very briefly, my take is that he did well, but it's hard to deliver any knockout punches in an eight-person format. Quibbling only in a very minor way, I'd say that he doesn't need to reference his status as the only governor in the race on *every* answer, but I thought his answers were clear, concise and well thought-out, and his executive experience *does* provide him with a better perspective. I think we'll see a new Zogby poll for NH soon. Let's hope the debate made a positive impact for Bill Richardson's numbers.
I'm out of town and offline Tuesday through Sunday this week. By the time I get back, I hope we'll be celebrating even better poll numbers....
Saturday, June 2, 2007
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Anyway, this Sunday is big. We have a candidate who is better-qualified than any other and has electability in red states in the West and Midwest that no other Dem can touch. He's a dream candidate when he's at his best. He's also hit the magic double-digit figures in NH and IA that have him poised to make an even bigger leap in the polls. Sunday night is the time to set that kind of gain into motion. A strong, solid debate performance, big on charm and personality, big on specifics, maybe a little lighter on generalities, could propel Governor Richardson into full-on head-to-head competition in the polls with the leading three candidates. Do it, Governor. Your country and your party need you.
Friday, May 25, 2007
And, hey, welcome to all the new folks who have signed up over at the official campaign site for our New Jersey For Richardson group. You can join them by clicking here.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Recently she had Bill Richardson on the show and you can hear the interview here. It is amazing to watch/listen to the transformation of the Gov from "Well-Qualified But Slightly Nervous Guy in His First Time in the Extreme Limelight of a Presidential Campaign" to "Well-Qualified Confident Charming Knowledgable Presidential Candidate Who Can Run With the Big Dogs." He's really hitting his stride. I have very high hopes for him in the June 3 Dem debate in New Hampshire. It's a big chance to have his post-debate poll numbers reflect that he has fully reached the first tier of candidates.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
For what it's worth, I've decided to keep blogging for the Gov here at Blogspot. There's a blog feature over at the new campaign site, so I've set one up there, but all it does it redirect you back here. Seemed like the easiest way to go about it. Have fun poking around the new site and sign up for the NJ For Richardson Group while you're there. Oh, and when you do, make sure to go in and edit your profile so it lists you as a member by name rather than just "User in Trenton, NJ" or something like that.
On a more personal note, it was an exciting day for me because the Gov took time out of his busy schedule to have a conference call with a few of us bloggers from around the country. It was interesting stuff, mostly strategy (shhhh, top secret!) and expressions of appreciation for what we BR bloggers are doing here in the blogosphere. There's clearly an air of excitement about the campaign because of the new double-digit poll numbers from IA and NH. This campaign is taking off and it's going to be a fun ride.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Slow and steady...slow and steady really will win this race.
And, by the way, the "official" start to the campaign begins Monday. We're on the move.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Friday, May 11, 2007
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Sunday, May 6, 2007
"Bill Richardson: It seems that every primary season some governor comes out of nowhere to steal the nomination. Richardson showed in this debate that it might well happen again. He was genuine and tough, the kind of guy who could pull the troops out of Iraq without looking wimpy. If he has a couple of more debates this good, money will start flowing his way. (Grade: A+)....
If the Democratic primaries continue along the path they began last week, then Richardson is the only thing between Clinton and coronation."
Friday, May 4, 2007
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
But recent visits to places like Daily Kos and MyDD and recent conversations with others who want a change in this country make me wonder if we Dems aren't just a little too cocky for our own good. I've heard comments like, "No *way* can we lose in '08! This country *hates* this war!" Well, that type of comment is half right. This country *does* hate this war, but Democrats *can* still lose this election.
It's a polarized country, and presidential politics is more about the individual candidate than the party. I'm not here to point fingers at any Dem candidate as unelectable but I know for sure that only one Dem is *extremely* well-situated to win in places like Ohio, Missouri, Colorado, New Mexico, West Virginia, Montana, Arizona, Nevada, and Iowa--Bill Richardson.
Stated a little differently, it's not 1992. It's 1988. We've had eight years of GOP rule, and it looks like the country's in the mood for a change of power/party in the presidency, but go ahead and nominate a candidate whom the moderate red states think is too liberal, too out-of-touch with their concerns, too likely to tax and spend them into bankruptcy (and, yeah, I know... GWB has spent more than anyone) and we will lose like Michael Dukakis lost. Dukakis was a decent guy, a well-meaning guy, but he got trounced because this is a big country where the red/blue divide is deeper than ever and, if you haven't noticed, we've been on the short side of that divide twice in a row.
I'm old enough to remember that 1988 election oh-too-well. I thought that the country was ready for a change, and, by and large, they *were*, but only with a candidate with whom they were comfortable. In 2008 Bill Richardson can provide that necessary general-election red-state appeal and still pursue a progressive agenda for change. His foreign-policy experience is second to none and will guide us out of Iraq and into a peaceful solution. His alternative-energy cred is, likewise, impeccable. He will pursue healthcare coverage for all Americans. He is a proven defender of personal liberty and his pro-choice commitment has never wavered. *But* he also has proven that he is not a tax-and-spend chief executive, and, while that may not matter a bit in a blue state, go ahead and add up all those blue states that Kerry (or Gore) won, and what do you get? A close loss, that's what. We can't repeat that mistake again.
It's 1988 all over again, but, if we're smart, we'll treat it like 1992. Vote smart *and* progressive. Vote Richardson.