Why Bill Richardson won’t be President OR Vice President
September 2, 2007 by James Mason
When Bill Richardson first entered the race, he seemed to be a guy who really could win the Presidential or Vice Presidential Nomination. A south-western, moderate Governor who also had served as Secretary of Energy and had foreign policy experience from his time as United States Ambassador to the United Nations. Sounds like a shoe-in, doesn’t it? Well, as time has gone on, Richardson’s campaign, in my opinion, has began to crumble away. Sure, he may not be doing so bad in recent polls, but I would bet you a million dollars that he won’t get any higher than where he is now, which is around 13 percent in Iowa, and something like 10 percent in New Hampshire, I believe.
And the reason this is, is that he simply isn’t Presidential, or Vice Presidential, for that matter. In all the debates I’ve seen so far, he seems tired and somewhat cranky, and he isn’t that great of a speaker. He’s chubby, he’s short, and he makes a lot of gaffes, his most famous one being the “it’s a choice” comment he made, in reference to homosexuality, at the GLBT debate in Los Angeles on August 9th. President’s and Vice Presidents have to be on the ball and aware all the time. As hard as it is, it’s necessary for a President or Vice President, because if they made a comment about some other country, for example, just because he was kind of out of it because he was tired, it could have serious repercussions on America’s relations with that country. It sounds bad for Gov. Richardson to use being tired because of jet lag as an excuse for his gaffes now, so imagine how bad it’ll sound if he’s President or VP of the United States. He’ll sound ignorant and careless, and that’s why he won’t be either.
This is not a reflection of my personal opinions. In fact, I like the Governor a lot. This is just a reflection of what I think most of the Democratic Primary voters are going to be thinking come January 2OO8. The nominee will be Hillary Clinton, and she’ll be the next President. You why? Because she is always on the ball, she never seems tired, and she’s very competent. She’s very careful about what she says, and while some may regard it as insincerity, I think of it as a good thing, because she won’t say anything she doesn’t think about first.
Well when the democratic nominie is chosen at the convention he or she if elected when they choose a secratary of state Joe Biden and Bill Richardson are the top 2. I think Richardson will get a cabnit job.
[Reply]
he’s also very sweaty
[Reply]
Blogging is one person’s opinion, and you are entitled to yours, but it just doesn’t measure up to the facts. Sure, he has had some gaffes in the debates, but it seems like people see that as being real, not “blow dried” and “polished”. The polls bear that out, with Richardson trending upwards in almost all the polling since the debates.
So, my biq question is, do you have a million dollars? Because you said you would be a million dollars he doesn’t do better in New Hampshire and Iowa than current polls indicate. I will take that bet (and my financial statement can cover it!)
[Reply]
I will agree that Bill Richardson has a shot at a cabinet post, but I think if he’s gonna get a cabinet post it would be Secretary of State, and I think Joe Biden has a better shot at that. Personally, and as you said to me, you are entitled to your opinion, but I think all of his debate performances were mediocre. He just seemed out of it and tired. If people are looking for a candidate who isn’t “blow dried” or “polished”, Joe Biden is their guy. Sure, he made that one “clean” remark, but nobody remembers that anymore and he presents himself as a very honest and straight-forward guy. He doesn’t give you any bull. He tells it to you like it is.
[Reply]
Presidential, presidential, I keep hearing this phrase. What does ‘presidential’ mean? Does a person have to look and act a certain way to be presidential? Is there a certain way that a President is supposed to act? Personally, I would prefer it if our presidents continued to reinvent the presidency. Every single one of them should redefine the concept of presidentiality. So, I find it somewhat strange when the press asks, “Did he/she look presidential?” It is not a narrow, certain thing. It is reinvented with every president.
I don’t support Richardson, I support Mike Gravel, but this applies to Gravel as well.
[Reply]
My husband totally agrees with you James! When he first said Richardson was not “presidential” I didn’t really understand it. I paid closer attention to Richardson and I realized he and you are right. There is a certain type of charisma or leadership ability that MUST shine through for someone to be a viable candidate. Politicians who get elected - especially to the higher offices - have a way of behaving in public that allows the public to have confidence in them. I don’t see these qualities in Richardson. These qualities are difficult to define, but it may be a sort of energy that radiates. Many years ago I saw Ted Kennedy in person and you could feel the charisma or something emanating from him.
[Reply]