Bill Richardson

who?

wondering wrote:

who?

this guy:

B.A. Tufts University 1970 [21]

M.A. Tufts University, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy 1971 [22] [23]

U.S. State Department, 1971-1978

Congressman, U.S. House of Representatives, 1982-1997

U.S. Ambassador, United Nations, 1997-1998

Secretary of the (U.S.) Department of Energy, 1998-2001

Kissinger McLarty Associates, 2001-2002, also taught at Harvard University, Kennedy School of Government

Governor, State of New Mexico (U.S.), 2003-present

Money, or the lack of it.

I'm guessing his three years (1979-1981) of following the Grateful Dead around full time won't help his cause. Some people just won't understand that.

Not liberal enough for the Dem Primary, though he'd be strong in the general election.

Yeahyooh wrote:

this guy:

B.A. Tufts University 1970 [21]

M.A. Tufts University, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy 1971 [22] [23]

He was a 'Jumbo'.

'Nuff said.

I might actually vote for the guy if he made it to the general election, which he won't He's the most qualified person we've had run for President in a long time. But that's how it goes, it's not who is best it's who can raise money and sell out the best.

There is still a long way to go until the primaries. He has lots of time to raise his poll numbers. People will start to get Hillary/Obama fatigue. If not, he's got VP lined up due to his demographics.

429miler wrote:

If not, he's got VP lined up due to his demographics.

Not if Obama gets the nomination.

...He's the most qualified person we've had run for President in a long time...

MarathonMind wrote:

...He's the most qualified person we've had run for President in a long time...

Care to explain how Kerry and Gore were not qualified?

Care to explain where I said they weren't?

Mtn Dew wrote:

I might actually vote for the guy if he made it to the general election, which he won't He's the most qualified person we've had run for President in a long time. But that's how it goes, it's not who is best it's who can raise money and sell out the best.

leaving aside the more difficult question of who is "best", and without trying to pick on you, i'm curious as to what you use to judge "most qualified." thinking of recent presidents:

reagan had 8 years as governor of the largest state;

bush had 8 years as vice president, 4 years in the house, 2 years as ambassador to the UN, 2-3 years essentially as the ambassador to China, and a year or so as director of the CIA and he graduated phi beta kappa from yale;

clinton was phi beta kappa at georgetown, a rhodes scholar at oxford, and a yale law school graduate. served as attorney general of arkansas (2 years), and was elected governor at the age of 32, serving for a total of 12 years as governor.

hopefully you can see that i'm not trying to be partisan here. the only unqualified president on paper that we've had recently is george w. bush. and even he isn't a complete joke. he was governor of texas, although the governor in texas isn't very powerful, and he was an executive in several companies, although most of them failed. and he did attend yale and harvard business school, even if his admission to both schools was likely heavily influenced by his family name.

W was the President of Texas, that's not great, but it's better than being nothing more than a Senator. I think exectuve experience is extremely important when deciding on a President, that's why Romney or Guiliani (yes yes, I know he wasn't gov, but he was in charge of a city that has more people than a lot of states) should get the nod over McCain.

Gore wasn't all that qualified and Kerry wasn't either. Obama is seriously deficient in experience and Hillary has little experience outside of being the wife of a President. Richardson is the best candidate on the Democratic side in my opinion. He's done lots of things, he's bright, he's not polarizing. If people really took a look at him I imagine he'd poll 1 or 2 (behind Rudy). Unfortunately he won't get a real look.

Forget all about Richardson or the rest of the Dems. Fred Thompson will be elected President. That's all you need to know.

Fred Thompson seems like a nice alternative until you actually look at his positions on the issues, which are pretty appalling

Camoo wrote:

Fred Thompson seems like a nice alternative until you actually look at his positions on the issues, which are pretty appalling

Like what? What's so bad about Fred?

ok, so it appears that you were thinking of a pretty short time horizon when you said awhile.

i don't take as narrow of a view at an individual's qualifications. gore had experience as a senator and as vice president for 8 years. that's pretty solid. i also think clark and dean, among others, had great credentials in 2004. one in the military, the other as a doctor and governor.

hillary clinton went to the best law school in the country and she was a successful lawyer in a relatively small market (by necessity, given her husband's occupation).

obama was the first black president of the harvard law review, a sucessful state senator and now a U.S. senator.

i, too, like richardson's resume, but it's not like hillary and obama don't have solid credentials. they are both lacking executive experience in politics, but i don't have a big problem with that. i like the fact that each of them has proven that s/he is among the smartest people in the country in his/her generation (by that i mean top 1 percentile or so, not top 25-30 individuals).

i think the same is true of mccain. i don't know as much about giuliani's or romney's credentials.

There is not yet a critical mass of Americans ready to vote for a woman or a black man for Prez. So if the Dems nominate either one, they are through. If the Republicans run Condi, they're not even in the hunt.

Obama is woefully unprepared to be President. A couple years as a state senator and a partial term as a U.S. Senator? Come on, that's pathetic.