Bill Richardson And the Comets
Perhaps David Brooks has a point. In the clash-of-the-titans battle that is emerging between the Goliath Hillary and the righteous David, Obama, other candidates are being laid by the wayside. Edwards is the only other candidate getting much serious mention, and Villack has already withdrawn.
In any other year, a candidate like Richardson would be exciting, especially to middle-of the-roaders like myself. Brooks points out that Richardson:
A.) Was Energy Secretary
B.) Was a two term western Governor, reelected with 69% of the vote
C.) Has 14 years of experience in Congress
D.) Worked for the State Department
E.) Was the U.N. Ambassador
F.) Is not a Senator (And since 1961, no Senator has ever won the Presidency)
Now some of the charges Brooks slyly levels against Richardson’s opponents are just silly: Richard, he writes, “was in college in the late 1960s, but he was listening to the Beach Boys, not Janis Joplin. He was playing baseball in the Cape Cod League, not going to Woodstock. He idolized Humphrey, not McCarthy.”
But Brooks has a point: that people who are active in Democratic politics have already fallen into a Hillary-Obama dichotomy, whereby their battle to lock up major fundraisers and take each other down a peg leads to ignoring other candidates. In 2004, Dean was little but a long shot, buried under the Kerrys and the Clarks, until he experienced a spectacular emergence and followed by an ever more spectacular burnout. Could 2008 be similar? Richardson has a compelling resume, and a compelling political history and clearly has the talent, the energy, the drive and the skills to be a President. Does he have the same sort of rhetorical flair that Obama has? No. Does he have the same level of name recognition that Hillary Clinton has? Absolutely not. Should that discount him as a serious candidate worthy of a vote? The answer is certainly no.
In any other year, a candidate like Richardson would be exciting, especially to middle-of the-roaders like myself. Brooks points out that Richardson:
A.) Was Energy Secretary
B.) Was a two term western Governor, reelected with 69% of the vote
C.) Has 14 years of experience in Congress
D.) Worked for the State Department
E.) Was the U.N. Ambassador
F.) Is not a Senator (And since 1961, no Senator has ever won the Presidency)
Now some of the charges Brooks slyly levels against Richardson’s opponents are just silly: Richard, he writes, “was in college in the late 1960s, but he was listening to the Beach Boys, not Janis Joplin. He was playing baseball in the Cape Cod League, not going to Woodstock. He idolized Humphrey, not McCarthy.”
But Brooks has a point: that people who are active in Democratic politics have already fallen into a Hillary-Obama dichotomy, whereby their battle to lock up major fundraisers and take each other down a peg leads to ignoring other candidates. In 2004, Dean was little but a long shot, buried under the Kerrys and the Clarks, until he experienced a spectacular emergence and followed by an ever more spectacular burnout. Could 2008 be similar? Richardson has a compelling resume, and a compelling political history and clearly has the talent, the energy, the drive and the skills to be a President. Does he have the same sort of rhetorical flair that Obama has? No. Does he have the same level of name recognition that Hillary Clinton has? Absolutely not. Should that discount him as a serious candidate worthy of a vote? The answer is certainly no.
