[QUOTE=mswas]
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.
[/QUOTE]
I’d have to hear it to believe it. People thought Bush was dumb because he played the “aw shucks” card and had trouble stringing a sentence together and pronouncing words. Obama doesn’t have those problems.
Well, Obama is a Democrat, so he won’t be labelled as “dumb”. His problem is that he has no foreign policy experience, governing experience, or much experience at national politics. This may do something to explain his recent gaffe about how he might invade Pakistan.
If he were to get the nomination for President - he won’t - he will need someone he can plausibly point to who will advise him on foreign policy. Whether or not Richardson is that person is a pretty vexed question.
Bush was governor of Texas, and had Cheney to advise him on international matters. Obviously no one on the SDMB is going to say about Obama that “so-and-so is the Evil Puppet Master behind the dim wit in the Oval Office” the way they do about Bush and Cheney, but Obama is still in trouble due to his lack of experience, and needs someone to offset that in the eyes of the mainstream.
Insofar as a running mate does a candidate any real good in the election, a topic on which I am rather more skeptical than many. If I were not going to vote for Obama based on his lack of experience at governing or managing foreign affairs, I probably wouldn’t change my mind if he picked Gore (or Hilary) as running mate. A lightweight at the top of the ticket means a weak ticket, regardless of who is playing second fiddle.
Hilary at least doesn’t have that weakness. Her lack is charisma, and perhaps Obama as her running mate might address that. The problem is that whoever the Dems pick has the black vote sewed up no matter what, and she is already a woman, so the whole “making history” thing is not much enhanced by picking a black guy.
I think there will be some more thrashing around as the far Left tries to push Hilary further off the center, and then nominate her after she wins some primaries. She seems to have smoothed over her attitude on the war, and the anti-war zealots seem to have agreed to pretend she was against it all along.
All this is provided Gore doesn’t jump in, which I still think he might. If Hilary and Obama beat each other up enough, and if the campaign actually gets started in earnest, Gore may see his chance and go for it. The question then becomes whether or not the Clintons will throw their whole weight behind him if he gets the nod. Some interesting dynamics if he asks her to be VP, too.
Early days yet in the campaign, so none of this is worth much more than as speculation.
Regards,
Shodan
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
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.
[/QUOTE]
You’d THINK so, but you’d be wrong.
Texas Democrats tried that a few years back when they made Tony Sanchez the nominee for governor. It didn’t help a whit, since the Latino turnout was even lower than usual. Republican Rick Perry won without breaking a sweat.
The Hispanic vote is a sleeping giant that COULD become a mighty force, but apparently, it takes more than a Spanish name to get Latino voters excited enough to go to the polls. Bill Richardson is a smart, capable guy, but I don’t see Latinos getting excited over him.
I don’t know yet what it WILL take to get them excited enough to vote in huge numbers.
Edwards/Kucinich would be the kiss of death.
That’s unfortunate, because I like Kucinich.
[QUOTE=astorian]
The Hispanic vote is a sleeping giant that COULD become a mighty force, but apparently, it takes more than a Spanish name to get Latino voters excited enough to go to the polls. Bill Richardson is a smart, capable guy, but I don’t see Latinos getting excited over him.
I don’t know yet what it WILL take to get them excited enough to vote in huge numbers.
[/QUOTE]
Pat Buchanan getting the Pub nomination ought to do it.
If Hillary gets the nomination, I’m hoping her running mate will be Edwards. He would “balance the ticket” in two ways: He’s a Southerner, and he’s visibly further left than Hillary.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
If Hillary gets the nomination, I’m hoping her running mate will be Edwards. He would “balance the ticket” in two ways: He’s a Southerner, and he’s visibly further left than Hillary.
[/QUOTE]
I want the Democrats to win. I have wanted them to win for a few years now.
I knew they were doomed when Kerry picked Edwards as a running mate, because of the potential for “President Edwards.”
Ya’ll are getting sold a big buttload of snake oil. John Edwards is a lying, self-centered, anything for a buck weasel. It is incredible to me that the gap between what he says and what he does is so invisible to so many.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
If Hillary gets the nomination, I’m hoping her running mate will be Edwards. He would “balance the ticket” in two ways: He’s a Southerner, and he’s visibly further left than Hillary.
[/QUOTE]
And we saw how popular Edwards was in the South- he couldn’t even deliver North Carolina for John Kerry. And he won’t carry a single Southern state if he gets the Democratic nomination this time. (In fairness, he might not HAVE to- all any Democrat needs to do is hold on to the states that went for Kerry and Gore, and flip one or two others).
Vote for Edwards if you like him and if you think he’s got the best platform. But don’t delude yourself that he has any regional appeal.
[QUOTE=astorian]
And we saw how popular Edwards was in the South- he couldn’t even deliver North Carolina for John Kerry. And he won’t carry a single Southern state if he gets the Democratic nomination this time. (In fairness, he might not HAVE to- all any Democrat needs to do is hold on to the states that went for Kerry and Gore, and flip one or two others).
Vote for Edwards if you like him and if you think he’s got the best platform. But don’t delude yourself that he has any regional appeal.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t get the appeal of Edwards at all. I don’t think he’s insincere; in fact, I think the only thing he has going for him is that he’s uber-sincere. He’s like that guy everyone likes who gets unanimously voted to be leader of the local bible-study group. He seems nice enough, and his focus on poverty is nice, but:
He doesn’t come off as strong or forceful enough to run anything, much less the US government. He can’t say anything bad about anyone, including the people he’s running against, and whenever he’s asked his position in a debate, he cherry-picks the bits of other people’s answers that he likes, ie: “I agree with Barack about the sanctions, and I like what Hillary said about the PR problem of negotiations, and Joe has a good point about the regional importance of the silent majority. That’s really what I think.”
His earnestness makes him look too eager to please and placate.
He never answers a question directly. He always re-frames the question into something he’d rather answer. And that would be fine and exactly what we expect of a politician, except he’s so obvious about it that it’s irritating, and it makes it seem like he can’t come up with a good way to answer the question that was asked.
In my view most importantly: He really has no more experience than Barack Obama, and arguably less. He had exactly one term in the Senate, was then on the ticket of a losing campaign, and hasn’t worked in government since. So his qualifications are… a single term in the Senate, apparently. He was underqualified the last time he ran and isn’t any more seasoned now.
[QUOTE=Zahava424]
He can’t say anything bad about anyone, including the people he’s running against
[/QUOTE]
Bizarrely enough, his campaign seems to have delegated this role to Elizabeth Edwards.
Of course - she’s safe. She’s got cancer, for heaven’s sake - who’s gonna call her on it no matter what she says?
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t know anything much about Richardson, but Obama has something of the air of JFK. If the Democrats can exploit that, then they’re golden.