Report: Richardson will seek presidential bid

[Freddie Stubbs]

Staff and wire reports
February 8, 2005

Although Gov. Bill Richardson has been coy since last November's election about whether he plans to run for president in 2008, he has told party leaders he will run, according to a Monday report by The Associated Press.

Richardson is one of several Democrats and Republicans mentioned in the report. The story didn't provide any details as to which party leaders Richardson talked to or when he allegedly told them.

Richardson spokesman Billy Sparks downplayed the story -- but he didn't deny it.

"As the governor has said many times before, he is focused on this legislative session, running for re-election and being chairman of the Democratic Governors Association," Sparks said. "After that, the governor has said, 'We'll see what happens.' "

more: http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/10236.html

[mopinko]

1. good luck bill

see how easy it is to get elected in a rigged election. and see who will stand up for the counting of YOUR votes.

[Eloriel]

13. Amen -- and well said. Not only that

He's a Clintonite, by which I mean heavy DLC influence, on the wrong side of issues like NAFTA, energy policy (many friends in the industry), etc.

The pitiful thing is I LIKE him personally. A lot. But his politics stink. Those are irreconcilable differences in my book.

[Freddie Stubbs]

16. Didn't Howard Dean support NAFTA?

:shrug:

[inslee08]

2. Where does he stand on Hispanic issues?

In other words, having a Hispanic face likely won't be enough to win over the Hispanic vote (which only favored Dems 55-45 or something, IIRC).

But good luck Bill, as of right now, you definitely have my primary vote.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

3. Why didn't Kerry pick him for VP?

Some think it would have put us over in key states- Florida, NM.

[AP]

4. Because 50% of voter exit polled in FL, LA, GA, WI, OH, MN, MO...

...etc were saying they wanted Edwards on the ticket, and they were picking him over homestate favorites like Gep, Landrieu, Kucinich, Nelson and Graham.

How would it make sense to pick Richardson to help win FL, when 50% of Democrats in FL are telling you they want to see Edwards on the ballot?

[MidwestTransplant]

11. I supported the Edwards pick

but if they did it because "that's what Dems. wanted" then that's just stupid. The goal is getting non Dem. votes too.

[AP]

12. If the goal was getting non-dem votes, than he was still the best pick:

In contrast to conventional polls and the primaries to date, where Kerry has maintained a wide lead over Edwards, our participants came to like Edwards as well or better. After deliberating, on a "feeling thermometer" (scored from 0 to 100) they rated Kerry at just over 55 degrees and Edwards at just over 56. On another set of questions asking how well the traits “sincere,” “intelligent” and “thinks like I do” describe each candidate (a scale also scored from 0 to 100), Edwards was perceived significantly more positively than Kerry, averaging 66 versus 61.


Edwards' strength vis-à-vis Kerry appears to stem from a greater appeal to Republicans and Independents. Post-deliberation, our Republican participants rated Kerry's traits at about 43 (somewhat to the negative side of the neutral point of 50) but Edwards' at 57, a statistically significant difference. Our Independent participants rated Kerry at 61 but Edwards at 66, a close to statistically significant difference. (Our Democratic participants rated the two about the same.) Among both Republicans and independents, these ratings are significantly more positive among the participants than in the control group for Edwards but not Kerry, indicating that deliberation increased Edwards' advantage.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/march04-poll.html

So 50-80% of Democratic voters in swing & southern states either voted for him or wanted him on the ticket, and Republicans liked him a great deal. Sounds like the perfect VP pick.

[President Jesus]

22. please. Edwards was a flop, and you know it.

Picking a candidate from the midwest or southwest would have really given Kerry a chance.

[AP]

28. I think he made a big difference in WI, MI, and MN, and I think he was

a plus in OH and not a negative. And I also don't think that the K-E campaign emphasized his strengths, which was talking about the big picture and about progressive values.

I also think the media ignored him. I saw at MediaTenor.org that Cheney got something like twice the media coverage in September and October. There's nothing you can really do about that if you're not on the top of the ticket and the media is not forced to deal with your candidacy.

I also don't think there was a better candidate for VP, and that's supported by the evidence: a lot of people liked Edwards (check out the exit polls from all the late primary states: people really wanted him on the ticket). Furthermore, his trajectory was never down. He was never a loser. If his message got out, like in WI and OH, he went up as primary day got closer. And I think the deliberative poll I cited above is extremely instructive. People did like him. The more you knew about him the more you liked him (and Republicans and moderates were really swayed by having more information).

At that same web site there's an analysis of the GE (a deliberative poll for Kerry vs Bush).

It's very intersting, and not very suprising. To me, the deliberative polls reveal potential. They say that if you can get your arguments past the media and out to the people, you can expect the results revealed in the deliberative poll. I think they show that Edwards had a greater potential than Kerry to stack up against Bush, and since Kerry lost be so little, the big difference the poll shows might have been enough to win the election.

In the GE, the deliberative poll showed some big swings in sentiments about Kerry. Nonetheless, there was little change in pre- and post-deliberation voting intentions, and notwithstanding being well-informed, most voters stille gave Bush higher marks than Kerry in a few important categories. Kerry had very little margin to improve, no matter how much more information you got. So, when you try to figure out what happened in the mid-west, rather than blame the VP (someone all the evidence suggests people liked the more you knew about him) it might be worth thinking about what was going on on the top of the ticket with the candidate who still couldn't get people to really go crazy for him when stacked up agains Bush no matter how hard they thought about it.

[President Jesus]

32. In politics, if 'the media' ignore you, it's YOU'RE fault...not theirs

The reason he was ignored was he brought absolutely nothing new to the table when he spoke. Of course Cheney's is going to get more coverage because a) the guy is the sitting vice president; b) many view him as the co-presdent (at least); c) he actually goes off script and says some controversial things. All of those earn interest from the public, and therefore media coverage. Crying about this is a chump's game, because a dynamic candidate overcomes these obstacles to win.

Sorry, if your argument in favor of Edwards is that he helped win states Kerry was already favored to win, I'm not buying. Does that mean Joe Lieberman (an equally impotent candidate) helped win those states in 2000?

[AP]

43. We see this in completely different lights.

I'm totally content that all the evidence indicates that Edwards was a great pick and a great candidate.

The swing states were not in the bag for Kerry. He won most of them. Edwards was very popular in those states. There's no way Edwards hurt this ticket.

What are we going to do? Argue back and forth? I think '06-'08 will prove who's right about this (even though I think there's enough evidence from '03 & '04).

[merh]

57. You have got to be kidding me?

"In politics, if 'the media' ignore you, it's YOU'RE fault...not theirs"

Where have you been? They ignored both Kerry and Edwards during the campaign because that was their orders. The weed that would be king received more coverage than Kerry and Cheney more than Edwards. The media ignores anything that is anti the boy blunder and his band of theives and thugs, haven't you noticed? Or is the Gannon story in the MSM today and I just overlooked it?

[President Jesus]

60. Have you ever noticed that the losing side is always the one to whine...

...about the media? It's time to stop acting like losers around here.

I'm not claiming the system is fair. I'm stating as fact that if you're a pol and you can't generate media interest, you are going to lose.

Spare me the 'marching orders' crap. I'll grant you 'the media' are subject groupthink and crass ratings hunts, but the moment you start talking about some grand puppeteer pulling the strings is the moment you show everyone how divorced from reality you are.

[merh]

61. It is not group think, it is the honest to goodness truth!

The only group think here is yours, assuming that what the media tells you about honest reporting is honest reporting.

I have a mind of my own and was able to discern that the media covered the boy blunder's every move, never questioned his violations of the Hatch Act when he campaigned on military bases, never questioned his incomplete service in the Guard, never called him on the cuff about his position changes or his adoption of Kerry's policies regarding the "outreach to our nations and working with the UN and NATO".

Kerry's campaign stops were rarely covered and when they were, it might have been a 2 minute story as opposed to a 5 minute for the weed. The crowds at the weeds were 10's of thousands and at Kerry's thousands (when the reverse was the truth). There was never any MSM coverage of the loyalty oaths and the bused in crowds and attendance at the campaign stops by invitation only.

Kerry generate media coverage, he tried, the only coverage they would give him was Swift Boat Vets and anything negative. You live in a fantasy world if you think otherwise and if you think it is so damned easy, let me know when you run for an office, any office. I will donate to your campaign.

Guess what, I can think for myself, apparently you cannot since you believe the spin. I believe you have been roved, how the f' does it feel?



On Edit: We didn't lose, they stole it. Kerry won despite the distortion of the MSM and the efforts to ignore him and paint him as a loser. You ought to get a grip on reality!

[fishwax]

45. exit polls from the primaries, I assume?

Most of those people are going to vote for the candidate no matter who he picks as a running mate. But most of the people who vote in the general election didn't vote in the Democratic primary. So letting primary exit polls determine your vp candidate would seem unwise.

[MaineDem]

5. Richardson refused to run

Said his commitment was to the state of NM and being Governor.

I respect him for that even though I would have supported his run for VP.

[jrthin]

6. Oh gawd. n/t

[dave123williams]

7. Somebody should tell him that he's not photogenic...

Plus, he was Secretary of Energy...kind o' booring.

[DeaconBlues]

8. I wish we could go back to the day when presidents didn't have to be

photogenic. It would vastly improve the quality of people who hold elected office. Give me a Lincoln over a Bush and yes even a Clinton any day.

[trogdor]

23. Nixon was one ugly bastard.

[DrRang]

9. Half-full, half-empty

Richardson's got some negatives, and he's pretty abrupt, but he's pushing alternative, renewable energy big time here in New Mexico. And he's stood pretty firm against *'s lust to drill everything in sight. Richardson teamed up with the Gropenator to push a Southwestern strategy for reducing fossil fuel use. Not perfect, but way better than most, considering the mentality of Western states with lots of oil, gas and coal.

[davidinalameda]

18. and the scandals that happened on his watch at the DOE

more fodder for the Repukes

[lancdem]

35. Those scandals happened under Hazel O'Leary

not Richardson.

[Placebo]

24. because W is so pretty?

and congressman + ambassador to UN + secretary of energy + governor of NM = doesn't sound to boring to me!

i guess oil man + governor of TX = happy! happy! joy! joy! for you :eyes:

[dave123williams]

29. No, the ex-governor of VT would be happy-happy joy-joy.

[Placebo]

33. You got him as DNC chair...

what more do you want? He's never going to be President, get over it. Move on.

[RetroLounge]

48. "get over it. Move on"

Now where have I heard that before...

RL

[jimfromthebronx10469]

54. retro...i love that george w. display

how do you do that? you should include willful woeful..
:toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :mad: :mad: :crazy: :crazy: :dem:
:hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi:

[dvaravati]

10. no thanks

this isnt ukraine.

[fishwax]

47. what?

i guess i'm missing the allusion :shrug:

[agitpropagent9]

14. run, bill, run!

he'll be a strong primary candidate and it'll be interesting to see where he fits in the cast of dems.

go bill!

[RetroLounge]

15. Yawn, more of the same...

Jeb Bush would beat him in 2008 without the need for Diebold...

RL

[lancdem]

36. Jeb isn't running

[neverforget]

17. Good grief! With the comments above the Dems might as well not

even run a candidate in 2008 because of Diebold, not photogenic, not liberal enough, etc.

[Placebo]

25. you said it

*sigh*

[DainBramaged]

49. Depressing, isn't it

The Thuglies have NO ONE to run in 2008, what do we say about them? Or do they think Newtie the cupie doll is going to convince our youth that he has a clue (or women for that matter)?

Oh wait, there's this guy in Maryland that's been recycled in politics a few times, maybe they can give him a call.

[Renew Deal]

19. I would support him in the GE.

He's probably not my first choice, but I could support him.

[Gloria]

20. No thanks, he screwed us on the recount here in NM...

His Sec. of State said some very stupid things about how people just didnt feel like voting for President--yeah, they came out to vote for County Commissioner?

No, absolutely...NO

He couldn't even deliver New Mexico, and he didn't seem too interested in dealing with the fraud here, either.

Then there's his mess as Energy Secretary at Los Alamos and his own business dealings. He's just got a helluva lot of baggage and Democrats don't know how to shout down this sort of stuff when the GOP gets going.

[dolstein]

21. "He couldn't even deliver New Mexico"

Well, Bill Clinton couldn't deliver Arkansas for Michael Dukakis.

Jimmy Carter couldn't deliver Georgia for George McGovern.

Hell, Tom Vilsack couldn't deliver Iowa for Kerry. Mark Warner couldn't deliver Virginia for Kerry.

Does Ed Rendell get the nomination by default, since Kerry carried Pennsylvania?

Good lord, when will DU'ers get a clue and realize that the days when a politician could "deliver" a state for the Democratic nominee are long gone. There just aren't enough voters out there who would support an otherwise unacceptable candidate simply because the state's governor supports him.

[Gloria]

53. He was under pressure to do it...but he didn't.

And the fact that he wasn't willing to fight for really getting an accurate vote leaves BIG QUESTIONS. It's really unacceptable.

He would have a very good chance of LOSING his home state, I think.

[Horse with no Name]

34. Makes me wonder if

one of the reasons that he was so "gung ho" on clearing the machines in NM and not investigating election fraud in his state was due to his own political aspirations?

[Cha]

38. That's what I was thinking.."he

couldn't even deliver New Mexico" and it seemed like Kerry should have won there.

[orleans]

55. I was reading about his non-stance on the recount

and it didn't look good.
I kinda liked him for awhile there--but when he started ignoring voter problems and began wiping the slates (machines) clean before anyone could take a second look at them it reminds me of...
gore & kerry

we don't need another candidate who can't be bothered taking a stand when it comes to counting our votes. if he acted that way he wouldn't get in anyway.

i won't vote for him.

[himitsu]

26. HECK no...

I work for DOE and he was one of the WORST secretaries we have ever had. He showed up here at our lab a couple of times and came across as slovenly and ignorant of much of what we work on (I'm in environmental science) and unwilling to learn. Then his actions at the hearings during the security scandals were simply shameful. I would NOT vote for that man, I found him an embarassment to the Democratic Party when he was SOE. Sorry, New Mexico, he's done some good things since his tenure as SOE, but you all can keep him. Please.

[newyawker99]

56. Hi himitsu!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[flyarm]

27. he can go to ...

hell in a handbasket!! ohh he didnt want clean elections this time in n.m. but now he wants to run himself..well that low life coward , chicken crap turd!!
he can go to hell!!

fly:puke: :mad: :wtf:

[queeg]

30. He's got my vote

remember when the North Koreans refused to talk with anyone in washington...Bush had to beg Richardson to talk to them.

[President Jesus]

31. All I've got to say: Wen Ho Lee

[w4rma]

37. He's very pro-free trade from what I understand. No thanks. (nt)

[VegasWolf]

39. Wonder if Bill Clinton is still getting it on with his wife?n/t

[Lost4words]

40. Richardson didn't do a damn thing re the voting irregularities

A major disappointment to me and I live in his back water state!

doesn't matter though, as I never intend to vote again.

[candice]

44. Richardson thwarted the Green Party recount--I won't vote for him

[applegrove]

41. Way to go - this guy has a chance!!

After being duped for 8 years Americans will fall in love with someone real. And Richardson is it.

Every credible leader has to be for free trade because the only wealth will be made in China, India, Russian and Brazil in the next decades. In 40 years - these economies will have markets 10 times the size of that of all of today's Western Nations. Ten times. So any leader that tells you that you can go protectionist is a fool or is lying.

Yes joining world markets is hard. But the USA is either on top of this last "big growth spurt" on the Planet or the USA is out of it (as Argentina was in the 20th Century).

The market is something we all need and rely on. Unless you are a subsistence farmer - you rely on the market to give you anything over and above food grown on your own land. All of that extra cash is from a market economy. The right has been trying to get Liberals to separate from themselves by encouraging them hate the market. When in fact freer trade that came out of the industrial revolution was in fact a Liberal thing. It is liberal to want trade and openness. Don't let the neocons steel this from you. Liberals like change and improvements and growth. We have to manage how our economies are affected by open markets and help reeducate workers, etc. But the future wealth (everything beyond the food you grow on your land to feed your family) depends on markets opening up. The good news too is that it will help the poorest people in the world too.

The South Americans are so pissed off with the USA that they may not join NAFTA and may just start their own trading block (so that all the wealth from increased trade within - stays with them instead of USA corporations). Trading blocks are the way to go. For the next 100 years - as all the huge populated countries become middle class - trade is the way to go!!

So do not let Neocons separate Liberals from themselves by convincing you that you can live without this 21st Century Expansion. If you miss it - all the wealth will go to people in China, Brazil, Russia and India (which they may not mind). But USA and Western nations can only participate in this huge amount of wealth crated if they participate.

Go Richardson Go!! A true old time Liberal he is!!! Ready to jump in and trade and make the USA a better place while keeping his compassion for the needy. Go! Go! Go!

[VegasWolf]

42. Yawn. Snore. n/t

[Stevepol]

46. Look, Wake up, NOBODY CAN BEAT DIEBOLD!!!!!!!!!

All this positioning and maneuvering is the reankest hypocrisy and stupidity when the elections are so transparently being rigged by the voting machines. Who gives a damn if Richardson runs? Jesus Christ couldn't win with the voting machines. Meanwhile, the Repubs could win if they let Judas Iscariot or anybody else run pretending to be JC. Or pretending to be anybody else for that matter. Unless and until the voting machine con-game is stopped, voting is useless.

[Freddie Stubbs]

50. Richardson managed to win

Perhaps he has figured out a way to beat the system?

[applegrove]

52. Not everyone thinks the soft ware in the machines are a republican plant!

Not everyone thinks the soft ware in the machines are a republican plant! There could be lots of business reasons for the software links in the machines (like future business plans like using the voter lists in marketing, etc.). Businesses do that all the time (in anticipation of future expanded business).

Now electoral reform at the State Level - so that intimidation of population comes with automatic handcuffs - now that is something worth looking into. The Democrats need to reform electoral process a the state level so that the things we know and have proof that the repugs are doing are stopped. There needs to be consistancy in electoral methods. And really - being from Canada - the paper ballot works fine and actually takes about 20 minutes to be counted after the doors close.

So don't shoot Richardson down because he still believes in verifiable proof before you accuse something of being nepharious. That is no reason at all the dislike him. In actual fact it makes him someone who the centrist will vote for (centrist get played off of democrats using 'conspiracy theorists').

I could see it in Republican plans to put computer voting machines up that absolutely do not have a recount method in backup. I could see that as a way to ensure that democrats loose the ability to call for a recount as a way to stall for a few minutes while their lawyers prepare a complaint about race targetting at the polling stations.

So many reasons for electoral reform. Do not focus on something as unproven as Diebold. Why even bill gates tried to make it impossible for his users to use netscape. Business types do notty things all the time in software - it does not mean it was meant to fix the vote.

[Laurab]

51. I agree - and also

I would never support anyone who did not support election reform. It's far too crucial to our democracy (or lack of one). First, tell us what you're going to do about election reform, THEN tell us if you're thinking of running. Otherwise, say goodbye, democratic party.

[merh]

58. He opposed the recount in New Mexico

He could have helped in the recount efforts, but he didn't. He doesn't deserve to be on the ticket in 2008 and I will actively campaign against him.

He is a sell out DLC :puke: - rethuglite - sellout! :puke:

[MadisonProgressive]

59. No way, Jose

You PREVENTED a legal recount in you own state! You might as well not even bother running. No way you can win after that!