NY TIMES David Brooks picks Bill Richardson to be Democratic nominee.

[muntrv]

Op-Ed Columnist
Neither Clinton, Nor Obama
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: March 4, 2007

So there I was, sitting in my office, quietly contemplating suicide. I was watching a cattle call of Democratic presidential candidates on C-Span. In their five-minute speeches, they were laying it on thick with poll-tested, consultant-driven clichés of the Our Children Are Our Future variety. The thought of having to spend the next two years listening to this drivel set me wondering if it was literally possible to be bored to death.

Then Bill Richardson walked onstage. He was dressed differently — in slacks and a sports jacket. He told jokes that didn’t seem repeated for the 5,000th time. He seemed recognizably human, unlike some of his overpolished peers. He gave the best presentation, by far.

Then a heretical question entered my head: What if Richardson does this well at forums for the next 10 months? Is it possible to imagine him as a leading candidate for the nomination?

When you think that way, it becomes absurdly easy to picture him rising toward the top. He is, after all, the most experienced person running for president. He served in Congress for 14 years. He was the energy secretary (energy’s kind of vital).

He’s a successful two-term governor who was re-elected with 69 percent of the vote in New Mexico, a red state. Moreover, he’s a governor with foreign policy experience. He was U.N. ambassador. He worked in the State Department. He’s made a second career of negotiating on special assignments with dictators like Saddam, Castro and Kim Jong Il. He negotiated a truce in Sudan.

SEE MORE AT LINK BELOW
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/opinion/04brooks.html?th&emc=th

[NYCGirl]

1. Brooks is a conservative republican, which could somewhat temper the joy. NT

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. Brooks is seldom correct about anything.

Not that I have a problem with Richardson -- I just don't take seriously anything that asshat says.

[Forkboy]

3. That's hardly a positive.

Poor Bill doesn't deserve this.

[bigtree]

4. these article have to be taken for what they represent

this is a rabid conservative's view of Richardson. Republicans like Brooks will be voting in 2008 as well, some of them in open primaries.

[NYCGirl]

6. Yep, they'll vote for republicans. NT

[bigtree]

8. that's clever and cutting, but I know republicans who are considering Richardson

over the current pack of republican losers who've announced

[NYCGirl]

9. I'm lucky. I only know 3 republicans — and none of them would vote for

any Democrat.

[bigtree]

11. my frickin job is full of conservatives, most of them don't vote

the ones who do, don't already have an instant block to voting for Richardson and, I guess, are responding to the pass many republicans like Brook are giving Richardson right now. Not that they don't have their ridiculous criticisms of him, but we shouldn't ignore the appeal Richardson may have among so-called swing voters who tend to vote republican. Not that he should try to appeal to them, but I think there are aspects about his economic approach (tax-cutting) and other issues in his state where he's been less than partisan which could help to insulate him from the traditional republican attacks.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

5. "So there I was, sitting in my office, quietly contemplating suicide" Go on.

Awwww man I thought......never mind.

[laststeamtrain]

7. Brooks always KNOWS what the American people are thinking...

...another fantasy from the chattering class. Pun-dense.

BTW, I like Richardson OK. I can see him as Sec. of State.

"it becomes absurdly easy to picture him rising toward the top" when you stay inside your apartment too long making stuff up for your column.

[CTyankee]

10. Actually, this is one time that I kinda agree with Brooks (and usually he

makes my head explode). I find it hard to quibble with what Brooks had to say about Richardson. I will assume Brooks is factual about Richardson's track record as governor of New Mexico.

As for Republics voting for Richardson, I can see it happen with SOME Repubs. Most are too far gone, tho. However, there are prolly some newbie Repubs who have been seriously disillusioned about ever voting for one again or so alarmed at the general state of things in this country they vote for the Dem out of sheer terror at the thought of another Repub taking over the reins of government...

[TerdlowSmedley]

12. Why is Brooks always making suggestions and predictions re

the Democratic Party? And why does the New York Times print it? And why do people cite it and give it any credence?

[bigtree]

13. you take these things for what they are and reflect on them

How many posts about the 'leaders' in the race are about comments from the opposition? Don't pretend that the only folks DU are listening to are dyed-in-the-wool Democrats.

[dtotire]

14. The Next President Will Be Chosen By Independents

Most Democrats will vote for Hillary or Obama, but I don't believe the Independents would. I believe they would vote overwhelming for Richardson over any Repubican. In nominating a candidate, their vote should be considered.

[bklyncowgirl]

15. Ooops, sorry Bill, David Brooks has been wrong about so much so often.nt

[FrenchieCat]

16. He really, really should be talking about the Republicans......

and BTW, what is his "prediction" for the GOP nominee?

And while he's at it, who wins? :shrug:

Enquiring minds want to know, Mr. Brooks........