Richardson In, Too

Richardson will announce he is joining the race tomorrow on ABC's "This Week."Here is the story:ew Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson intends to take the initial step toward the Democratic nomination, hoping his extensive resume will fuel an insurgent campaign to become the first Hispanic president.

Richardson plans to announce on Sunday that he will soon file the papers to create a presidential exploratory committee, several officials with knowledge of his plans said Friday. The governor is scheduled to appear on ABC's "This Week."

His entry would make the Democratic race the most diverse presidential contest in history. Beside Richardson's bid to be the first Hispanic chief executive, Sen. Barack Obama would be the first black president and likely candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton would be the first female president. Richardson is definitely the resume, experience and accomplishment candidate. His extensive experience in foreign relations (frequent high level diplomatic envoy and Ambassador to the UN), as Governor of New Mexico (chair of the DGA, no less), and as a member of Clinton's cabinet (Energy secretary) is impressive to the point of bordering on dreamy. And oh yeah, he was also in Congress and is a member of the largest emerging voting block in the country.

As far as making the field look more diverse, it is true. However, the field still isn't really all that diverse. It has exactly one woman (Hillary), one African-American (Obama), and one Latino (Richardson). The other six, Biden, Dodd, Edwards, Gravel, Kucinich, and Vilsack, are all white dudes. That is about twice the level of white and male as the Democratic electorate, so while this is a step forward, obviously a lot of work is left to be done.

Richardson starts second tier, but considering the numerous niches he fills, he probably starts at the top of the second tier. The second tier includes, depending on who ends up running and who you talk to, as many as four other candidates: Clark, Vilsack, Kerry and Biden. He is extremely fiscally libertarian, and is quite liked even by CATO and Reason magazine. He can thus can be not only the experience candidate, but also the Latino candidate, the Western candidate, and the libertarian candidate (Markos might like that combination). If he can successfully swing all four of those niches, he will be top tier in no time. He also has a small, but solid, group of online supporters (5%-6% for fourth place, according to the last Dailykos straw poll, for example). Keep in mind that it isn't necessarily the amount of your online support, but what you do with it that counts.

Finally, what is up with Democrats announcing on weekends? My guess is that it is the Obama effect. His announcement strategy was so shrewd and well-timed that the remaining candidate had no good options left when it came to making their announcements. Or maybe it is just poor timing and campaign decision making, I don't know.

Tags: Bill Richardson, President 2008 (all tags)

Comments

53 Comments

Re: Richardson In, Too

Well,I think the Sunday "news" shows and Sunday papers make a Saturday announcement the way to go.  Within that time frame, the February 3-4 weekend is the Super Bowl (forget that), and Obama locked up February 10.  That leaves two weekend dates open: today and next Saturday.

My guess, the first winner takes it all.  Whether Iowa, New Hampshire, or Michigan lead off the calendar.  The only way to mitigate that effect is to have two states share opening day.

by David Kowalski 2007-01-20 08:34AM | 0 recs
Real diversity

"However, the field still isn't really all that diverse. It has exactly one woman (Hillary), one African-American (Obama), and one Latino (Richardson)."

Come on...it's huge that Democratic Party which has championed civil rights and equal rights has a black man and a woman as its two leading contenders for President.

It is the most diverse field ever in real terms...first time a black has made a real serious run for the presidency.  Jackson, Sharpton, Braun were not really serious candidates with a real chance.

Certainly Hillary is the first woman who has a real chance though one could argue Ferraro was first but I don't think ran so much as was chosen.

Pelosi as Speaker, Obama as President would be AMERICA writ large.  A way for America to gain the moral leadership in the world.

by BrionLutz 2007-01-20 08:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Real diversity

I thought Jesse Jackson was a pretty serious candidate.  

Per wikipedia:

Four years later, in 1988, Jackson once again offered himself as a candidate for the Democratic Party presidential nomination. This time, his successes in the past made him a more credible candidate, and he was both better financed and better organized. Although most people did not seem to believe that he had a serious chance at winning, Jackson once again exceeded expectations as he more than doubled his previous results, capturing 6.9 million votes and winning eleven primaries. Briefly, after he won 55% of the vote in the Michigan primary, he was considered the frontrunner for the nomination, as he surpassed all the other candidates in total number of pledged delegates

Seems like a pretty serous candidate to me.

by JJCPA 2007-01-20 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Real diversity

and check out his platform.  it sounds like a laundry list of things that would excite a lot of people here, again per wikipedia:

Campaign platform
In both races, Jackson ran on what many considered to be a very liberal platform. Declaring that he wanted to create a "Rainbow Coalition" of various minority groups, including African-Americans, Hispanics, the poor and working poor, and homosexuals, as well as white progressives who fit into none of those categories, Jackson ran on a platform that included:

creating a WPA-style program to rebuild America's infrastructure and provide jobs to all Americans,

reprioritizing the War on Drugs to focus less on mandatory minimum sentences for drug users (which he views as racially biased) and more on harsher punishments for money-laundering bankers and others who are part of the "supply" end of "supply and demand,"

reversing Reaganomics-inspired tax cuts for the richest ten percent of Americans and using the money to finance social welfare programs,

cutting the budget of the Department of Defense by as much as fifteen percent over the course of his administration,

declaring Apartheid-era South Africa to be a rogue nation,

instituting an immediate nuclear freeze and beginning disarmament negotiations with the Soviet Union,

giving reparations to descendants of black slaves,

supporting family farmers by reviving many of Roosevelt's New Deal-era farm programs,

creating a single-payer system of universal
health care
,

ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment,

increasing federal funding for lower-level public education and providing free community college to all,

applying stricter enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, and

supporting the formation of a Palestinian state.

With the exception of a resolution to implement sanctions against South Africa for its Apartheid policies, none of these positions made it into the party's platform in either 1984 or 1988.

(emphasis added)

by JJCPA 2007-01-20 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Real diversity

Yes, he was a serious candidate, and I voted for him twice.

His scandal that enabled all the wise men to denounce him was a report that he was overheard referring to New York City as "Hymietown." I always wondered whether it might have been "Jaimetown."

by joyful alternative 2007-01-20 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Real diversity

Chuckle...Wikipedia doesn't quite cut it.  Jackson was not a serious candidate. He had no real chance. Kind of like Buchcanon on Republican...good career move...lots of PR etc. but that was it.

by BrionLutz 2007-01-20 02:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Real diversity

How does dominating the Michigan primary not make one a serious candidate?  

by DanM 2007-01-20 02:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Real diversity

b/c brion sez so.

by bruh21 2007-01-21 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Real diversity

I voted for Jesse.  He was quite impressive live and in person.

by cando 2007-01-20 05:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Real diversity

I campaigned for Jesse Jackson and talked him up all over the place when he was running for President and I can't tell you how many people would say, "Jackson is the best candidate, but he can't possibly win."  The entire media at the time sent the following message: "he's not a serious candidate."  This happens all the time to the candidate that is furthest to the left of the field.  I read a comment the other day on this blog that said the same thing about Dennis Kucinich.  That more than anything else makes it impossible to win.  Jackson could have broken through if it weren't for the myth--"He's not a serious candidate."

by gunnar 2007-01-20 05:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Real diversity

"This happens all the time to the candidate that is furthest to the left of the field."

Jackson wasn't the furthest left and the reason he was not viable was his odd personality.

by BrionLutz 2007-01-20 07:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Real diversity

Who was further left than Jackson?  

I never found his personality to be "odd."  He was a fiery and charismatic speaker.  

by gunnar 2007-01-22 06:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Real diversity

"He was a fiery and charismatic speaker."

Of puleeze...Jesse Jackson was a caricature of Billy Sunday trying to impart importance to his comments by cartoonish tortured rhetoric and tone.

His presidential run was like Buchanans or Al Sharpton's...some needed PR.

by BrionLutz 2007-01-22 09:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Real diversity

I saw Jesse Jackson in person at a nuclear freeze rally in Chicago sometime in 1985 or 1986.  He was the headline speaker at the event.  He was the voice of progressive politics at the time.  I thought he was great.  So did the rest of the crowd, judging by their reaction.  Obviously, this is a matter of personal choice and I don't think we'll resolve the issue.  We just disagree.

Jackson's campaigns, however, were not like Al Sharpton's campaigns.  In 1988, Jackson won eleven primaries, won Michigan with 55% of the votes and was considered the front-runner after that primary.  It wasn't until Dukakis emerged as the only other viable alternate that the anti-Jackson crowd was able to get behind one person and defeat Jackson.  Al Sharpton never won a primary and never came any where close to winning a primary.  

by gunnar 2007-01-23 03:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Real diversity

"I saw Jesse Jackson in person at a nuclear freeze rally in Chicago sometime in 1985 or 1986.  He was the headline speaker at the event.  He was the voice of progressive politics at the time."

He might have been a voice but he's a bit of an odd ball and certainly never going to be nominated for President nor win the presidency so his candidacy had no real chance but served Jackson's purposes.

Nothing wrong with that, kind of like Kucinich now but claiming Jackson was the first black American with a real presidential campaign is not correct.

Powell would have been on the Repub side but declined.  

Obama will be on the Demo side.

by BrionLutz 2007-01-23 04:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Real diversity

I never claimed "Jackson was the first black American with a real presidential campaign."  I never even mentioned the man's race and unfortunately, because he lost the Democratic primaries, he never ran for President.  I did claim that he was the front-runner in the Democratic primary in 1988, having won the most delegates deep into the primary season.  That made him a serious candidate.  

Also, you never answered my question above on who was further to the left than Jackson.  

Finally, you say he was an "oddball," but that does not make it so.  I already suggested above that we just agree to disagree over this point.  It's like arguing over which flavor of toothpaste is the best.

by gunnar 2007-01-26 02:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Real diversity

"I did claim that he was the front-runner in the Democratic primary in 1988, having won the most delegates deep into the primary season.  That made him a serious candidate."

With no real chance of winning the nomination.

by BrionLutz 2007-01-26 04:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Real diversity

And that's because "the entire media at the time sent the following message: 'he's not a serious candidate.'"  That's where this debate started.  Let us hope that's where it ends.  I pity anyone else who comes across this string.  :)  

by gunnar 2007-01-27 02:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Real diversity

"And that's because "the entire media at the time sent the following message: 'he's not a serious candidate.'"

Hard to say...I certainly never considered Jackson a real presidential contender. There was and is no chance he would be president so he's not a serious contender.

Jackson has other good qualities and work but he's mostly doing self aggrandizing in doing presidential runs.  Helps pay the rent I suppose.

by BrionLutz 2007-01-27 05:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Real diversity

You love attacking progressive leadership.  Maybe you should be posting on RedState.

by gunnar 2007-02-07 05:08PM | 0 recs
kerry second tier?

How is Kerry second tier?  Under what plausible scenario would he have any chance of winning the nomination this year?

by gobacktotexas 2007-01-20 08:53AM | 0 recs
Re: kerry second tier?

Kerry's name recognition alone vaults him over the non-superstar candidates and he's got a lot of money and fundraising muscle. Most Democrats don't think of Kerry the waffler or the bad campaigner, they think of Kerry the nominee; Kerry the antithesis of Bush.

by davefordemocracy 2007-01-20 09:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson In, Too

I've been waiting for a Governor with a real chance to enter the race and I hope Richardson is it. Though I've leaned toward Obama, my concern is his lack of demonstrated leadership. The diplomacy it takes to be an effective member of Congress is important, but I can't discount the experience that comes from leading a state with its own economy, it's own legislature, and its own diverse citizenry. The skill set is different. A candidate's performance as governor is the best way to tell if he or she is a uniter.

Governors are also more electable because they have that record of leadership. Negatives are easier to explain in terms of the big picture for governors; none of this 'I voted for it before I voted against it' stuff.

Richardson's experience with foreign relations and energy policy are going to be indispensible. Those  will certainly be two of the biggest issues for the next president, whoever he or she may be.

by davefordemocracy 2007-01-20 09:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson In, Too

Odd that this day is the day that 2 or 3 candidates announce.  The news seems pretty weak, considering they made it known well in advance that they were thinking about it.

by John Nicosia 2007-01-20 09:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson In, Too

I followed the link, but I'm still not entirely sure what 'extremely fiscally libertarian' means.

by BingoL 2007-01-20 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson In, Too

Me neither, and I've been wondering too. Is "fiscally libertarian" no taxes whatsoever, which is simple-minded and from my point of view immoral? Is it "balanced budget," which I could go for? One libertarian friend has for years been banging the drum for an across-the-board 10% income tax no matter how many times I point out the flaws; another vehemently supports replacing all income taxes with a sales tax and is likewise unwilling to face the plan's problems.

by joyful alternative 2007-01-20 09:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson In, Too

There is so much talk about the "rumors" surrounding Richardson's sex life. Lots of bloggers and editorialists like to allude to it darkly, but no one actually lays out what these rumors are. I'm beginning to wonder whether anyone actually knows what the rumors are, they just pretend to know based on reading comments by other people who pretend to know.

Even if people don't want to actually say, can someone at least tell me: Is it worse than Troy McLure and the fish?

by thesleepthief 2007-01-20 09:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson In, Too

Don't worry about the ' rumors'. If they're true, the baggage will be revealed. You can bet on it.

by rikyrah 2007-01-20 10:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson In, Too

It seems that Steve Clemons has the scoop. I'd say it's worse than the fish.

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archive s/001884.php

by thesleepthief 2007-01-21 04:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson In, Too
Not a fan of Richardson.  Don't like tha idea of a fiscal libertarian as the Democratic leader.
He also seems pretty soft, not a fighter.  Maybe someone from New Mexico would be able to enlighten me about his fiery side, but I haven't seen it.
by jallen 2007-01-20 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson In, Too

we lived in NM for quite a while. Richardson is very shrewd, NM is a very difficult desert economy with military ties in the north and south, and a very artsy northwest populated by elites and ultra strong liberals.

In the east, its like texas, in more ways than one. So its a great state for a presidential candidate to cut his teeth on.

He had two major challenges - the fires, and the budget crisis and he handled both very well. One thing we might want to check up on is educational reform; NM was always the bottom of the barrel in terms of SAT score but he might've knocked them up the ladder a bit.

Overall, he really is a strong candidate -sort of the howard dean of the race, if you will.

by heyAnita 2007-01-20 03:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson In, Too

I've been interested in Richardson for a while, primarily because of a conversation I had with an educator from the state. New Mexico had horrible pay for teachers, bottom of the barrel type stuff. They also had large classes, iirc.

Richardson raised teacher pay considerably and lowered class sizes, as well. Last time I checked, NM ranked somewhere like mid-30s I think for teacher pay (his legislative plan for this year involves raising it to right around 25th ... not bad for a state with fairly low cost of living).

Test scores may or may not have gone up (I haven't checked, and I despise the NCLB testing regime), but raising teacher pay and reducing class sizes are two of the best things to do to improve education, imo. He also did a lot of the little stuff, like improved teacher professional development and instituted some teacher accountability (details escape me, though). The educator I talked to was pretty enthusiastic about him.

by BriVT 2007-01-20 03:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson In, Too

He also lowered state income taxes considerably. That would stand him in good stead come the general.

by davefordemocracy 2007-01-20 07:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson In, Too

"The other six, Biden, Dodd, Edwards, Gravel, Kucinich, and Vilsack, are all white dudes."

Except for Edwards (and perhaps Dodd), none of these candidacies are especially serious. I doubt any of them would last past their 3% showings in the first week of primaries. (Well, except for Kucinich, who will stay until the convention to meet chicks, and I say this as someone who agrees more with Kucinich than any of the rest.) In terms of people who might actually pull it off, this is the most diversity since 1988.

by sxp151 2007-01-20 11:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson In, Too

"except for Kucinich, who will stay until the convention to meet chicks"

Man, that's funny.  (I like Kucinich, too.)

(I can't find anyone here in Connecticut who is taking Dodd's run seriously.)

by justinh 2007-01-20 11:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson In, Too

Gotta problem with middle-aged white males?

[/Rich Little]

by zappatero 2007-01-20 11:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson In, Too

Heh, if we're going to talk about diversity, I'd like to complain that "old" seems to be a prerequisite as well... the only remotely young candidate that I can see is Obama, who'd be 47 by the time he would take office if elected.

Every other potential Democratic candidate will be 55+ and thus eligible for Senior discounts most places. As far as I can see with the exception of Brownback, the same seems to be true of every major-name Republican candidate.

Ages as of potential 2009 inauguration day (assuming wikipedia-listed birthdays are correct):
Edwards: 55
Vilsack: 58
Gore: 60
Richardson: 61
Clinton: 61
Kucinich: 62
Dodd: 64
Biden: 66
Gravel: 78

by nkedel 2007-01-21 06:29AM | 0 recs
Very High-Level Diversity

Let's put it this way: the first year the Dems had both a black and a woman contesting for the nomination was 1972, when Shirley Chisholm ran.

She didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning, but she ran.

Next time this happened was in the 1988 cycle, when both Jesse Jackson and Pat Schroeder ran for the Dem nomination.  Schroeder never got out of the background noise, withdrawing in late 1987.  Jackson, as others have noted in this thread, ran a very strong second to Dukakis, with a populist campaign that drew a great deal of support from whites.  But few believed he could win the nomination, let alone the Presidency.

So this time we have a black, a woman, and a Hispanic in the field.  But the difference is that the black and the woman are two of the three bigfoot candidates in the race, and the Hispanic is at the top of the second tier.

So yeah, you've got a field that's mostly white males, but excepting Edwards, they're mostly just clutter.  Of the four with the best chance of winning, you've got only one nonHispanic white male.  (And he's taking on issues of race and class the most head-on of the four.)  And few respected analysts are saying that if Clinton, Obama, or Richardson were to win the nomination, that they couldn't win the Presidency.

I'd say that's something pretty noteworthy.

by RT 2007-01-20 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Very High-Level Diversity

Definitely. I'm really proud of the party that three of the four top candidates are not white males. And let's not forget that it's highly likely that one of these three could be the vice presidential nominee as well.

by msnook 2007-01-20 12:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson In, Too

Richardson is term-limited so he has to run for something.

I was pulling for him to run against Domenici.  Richardson is the only one in the state that has a fighting chance of winning the match-up.  He could still run for Senate if his prez ambitions fail, I suppose.

Fiery?  I don't see it.  Others may differ.  But Richardson is a competent and media-savvy candidate which makes-up for the blah-ness.

by ATinNM 2007-01-20 12:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson In, Too
I'll take that as a complete confirmation of my opinion that Richardson is a yawn.  I need some fire in my candidate.  I need some passion.  I need a fighting spirit.
  By the way, whats his position on immigration?
by jallen 2007-01-20 12:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson In, Too

My impression has been that Richardson's fairly moderate on immigration. He has said he'd back Bush's guest worker program  and called it a good start. He would add to it a provision for a clear path to citizenship and some kind of family reunification mechanism. He is for stronger border protection and more patrols. I believe he and Napolitano declared a state of emergency because of the number of illegal immigrants coming into New Mexico.

by davefordemocracy 2007-01-20 12:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson In, Too

Immigration is a complex issue in New Mexico stemming from 400 years of history.  The Hispano community here was never very happy with the Spanish Colonial goverment and the resulting economic subjugation.  Countering this is the close family and cultural ties with Mexico, the deep knowledge of how screwed-up Mexico is.  And, as Presidente Fox said, "Mexico and New Mexico share a common language, a common culture, and we've both been invaded by Texans."  <lol>

New Mexico has its share, as do all the border states, of illegals crossing into the US.  But they don't tend to stay here as there aren't any jobs for them.  If they do stay it is likely they are staying and working with family.  This cuts the other way as the tight job market means illegals compete for jobs with the locals in a very limited job market.

Given this context, I think Gov. Richardson's position - guest worker permits (for Uncle Sanchez) and stronger border controls (to keep those #^&*! illegals from taking my job) makes sense.

by ATinNM 2007-01-21 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson In, Too


Richardson is a competent and media-savvy candidate

God, another Dukakis.

Next!

by Taylor26 2007-01-20 12:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson In, Too

To say that dukakis is media-savvy, is like saying robespierre is a cure for a headache.

"Mr. Dukakis, what would you got out of prison on your furlough program and raped your wife"

(dukakis calmly reflects on the rape scene in his mind. then answers in a monotone..)

Compare and contrast to Teddy Roosevelt, say. Richardson comes the west. Sorry. no boston monotone here. You'd do well to beware if the question was asked of bill.

Kill Bill Vol. 2

by heyAnita 2007-01-20 03:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson In, Too

and that stupid tank photo-op.

As that epic political analyst, Bugs Bunny, would say, "What a maroon."

by ATinNM 2007-01-21 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson In, Too

That's almost hilariously nonsensical. So every person that's competent is Dukakis?

I'm no Richardson expert, but one thing I do know is that he's no Mike Dukakis. I'd have trouble imagining two politicians who were more different than those two.

by BriVT 2007-01-20 03:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson In, Too

At least he's run something, other than a campaign & his mouth. I'm not interested in senators for prez. Gov's are what we need.

by pwapvt 2007-01-20 01:36PM | 0 recs
The old governors, not legislators line

I'm sorry, but that seems like a silly reason to support someone.

And he supports the guest worker program?  Good grief.  I don't see any way I could support the guy.

by jallen 2007-01-20 05:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson In, Too
I liked what I heard recently about Lincoln.  He apponted his opponents to his cabinet.  I hope the next Democratic President will do that.  Richardson would be a great Secretary of  
State if not President or VP.
by cando 2007-01-20 05:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson In, Too

Richardson will surprise people with how well he does.  He is an excellent candidate.  

Just wait 'till you see the TV ads with tear-filled testimony of U.S. citizens whose freedom he negotiated from North Korean, Iraq, Sudan, etc. ....  It is very powerful.  

by NYC2007 2007-01-20 11:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson In, Too

A former operative for National Assocation of Realtors - a GOP funding group - has been low-keying some 'dirt' on Richardson in at least one right-wing blog, CapitolHillBlue.  

You can find the full story at:

http://www.abqjournal.com/news/special/4 10505sports11-24-05.htm

So expect this as a counter from the GOP.

by ATinNM 2007-01-21 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson In, Too

i like him. i think if clark doesnt materialize you will see him get some of his supporters.

by tpiddy 2007-01-21 07:51AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------