Would Obama/Richardson be too progressive to win?

Out of the Democratic candidates, I like Richardson most. Hillary seems too…I dunno …hardened, and Obama just doesn’t have the experience in my opinion. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll vote for either since they seem most likely and I’
ll be happy if either wins, but they’re not my first pick.

I think a Richardson/Obama ticket would be good, but would it sell? Or would there be an urge to temper the “novelty” of a black candidate by pairing him with a “safe” OWM (old white man)? Or perhaps that’s just in my head, not that I think they should do that, but that they would do it to be safe.

Anyway, my debate is, would some people be “scared off” if Obama picked Richardson as opposed to, say, Edwards as his mate?

Maybe the “no white candidate” thing would scare off a few more people than a ticket with “just” a black or Latino Presidential candidate, but I don’t think either would scare off enough people to guantee defeat.

It’d be an interesting ticket if only to see the interesting ways the Republicans would get the word out that Richardson isn’t really a Nice White Guy, but really a Dirty Mexican.

I think the reaction would mostly be “Who the hell is Richardson?”

Actually, my first reaction was “Anne Richardson? I love it, in a ghoulish way!” Then I remembered that her name was Richards, not Richardson. Then I thought “Who the hell is Richardson?”

Bill Richardson will make an excellent Secretary of State.

I love Bill Richardson for his experience, but he doesn’t know how to sell himself: he looks awkward on camera, he’s not that good at speaking off the cuff, and he can’t sound smooth without sounding scripted. He is, of course, seasoned in all the important areas (immigration, energy, foreign policy/diplomacy,etc) where Obama is not, and Obama is charismatic where Richardson is not.

I think Obama risks looking young and inexperienced next to Richardson, though; if Richardson’s main selling point is his experience, that highlights Obama’s main weakness, and he’ll look like a lightweight who’s nakedly compensating for his own shortcomings.

I think Obama should actually be trying for the VP spot; he has great promise but not enough substance, and 4-8 years in the VP’s office would be the perfect venue for him to get the credibility he needs while positioning him solidly as heir to the office.

I like Joe Biden right now; he’s gotten a lot better with speaking smoothly and plainly, he exudes reassuring experience and sensible plans, and he seems confident and ready to get to work and fix what’s going wrong. I’d love to see a Biden/Obama ticket, actually, if Biden could sufficiently smooth over that gaffe about Obama being “mainstream” and “articulate.”

Bill Richardson is my favorite, too. But I live in his back yard and have had a long time to watch him work and to admire how he gets things done.
But for most of the rest of the country…you’re right…Who’s…

Maybe us Anglos feel that way, but put him on the ticket, and the Dems get about 85% of the Hispanic vote, and win the election.

Provided he can convince them he’s Hispanic. This article talks about how that’s been difficult.

That didn’t hurt Bush in 2000. People questioned his foreign policy experience, so he chose Cheney as VP and indicated Colin Powell would be part of his cabinet. Addressing your faults is generally not a bad move.

The Vice Presidency is not a stepping stone to the Presidency; ask Al Gore or Dan Quayle or Walter Mondale. Only two past Vice Presidents have been elected President (unless the President died) in the last 200 years. Obama is popular now and he might as well go for the gold now.

I screwed this up; Martin Van Buren makes three. Still, Obama is popular now, and history indicates that serving eight years as somebody’s Veep, or four years as VP and four years out of office while a Republican or Bloomberg is in charge, will not do much for his chances.

Yay.

Does the VP have to fly a lot? Richardson seems to have a problem with jet lag.

. . . then, I thought, a dead lady doesn’t make a good running mate.

Yeah, that was a moment to wince at. And it was proof that Richardson is just not good at thinking on his toes.

And about Obama: I know that the VP spot doesn’t guarantee being elected the next time around. But unless you’re associated with a bad administration, it automatically means that you’re the main contender for the nomination, the candidate with the best name recognition and most press time. And Obama probably won’t win now; to have what will amount to an early-round defeat on his record won’t position him for the nomination in the next election.

If Bush were to run today he’d have more executive experience besides anyone but Richardson and Giuliani. You cannot compare him to Obama. He ran multiple corporations, and the state of Texas.

He ran the corporations badly, from what I know, but I was plainly not making an overall comparison of their records. (For the record, however, despite his executive experience, Bush was certainly green compared to Gore.) I said Bush had no foreign policy experience and showed that he addressed it. Nobody considered it ‘naked compensation for his shortcomings.’ It was considered a good move, because that’s exactly what it was. ‘Bush can’t name the Presidents or Premiers of any of our allies,’ the thinking went, ‘but he’ll have a good cabinet and that will make up for it.’

I suppose history proved that everyone who thought that was completely wrong, starting with their refusal to use any of Colin Powell’s experience or prestige. But nonetheless, it was a successful move politically.

Similarly, if Obama is nominated and names Richardson or someone similar as his VP candidate, it would be, and be considered, a good move. How can addressing your faults and compensating for them be a bad thing?

I have found the evidence that he ran the corporations badly uncompelling. It seems to me that his corporations were generally tax shelters and tools to obfuscate political moves among his Father and his friends. Money laundering if you will. Ways for Saudi Princes to buy an audience with the US President. If Bush was such a dunce at running these companies then why would a man like George Soros get involved? You see failed businesses, I see a tax shelter game being played over and over again, blatantly.

I don’t think it would be. I wasn’t the one who suggested it. I still think that Richardson would be a better Sec State than VP.

I know. I was just attempting to bring things around to my original point.

Fair enough, though people would immediately be calling Richardson Obama’s Cheney. I don’t think it necessarily is a bad thing, but it’s a hurdle for sure.