He's got my vote (though not because of the kitsch).

Funny, I just sent an email to someone about this video. Here's a re-print of that:

Why is he ranking so low among the Democrats? I still think he's the pick of the litter on that side. In addition to everything they say in the ad, they don't mention (because they can't) that he's half-Hispanic and was governor of a border state and hence is uniquely qualified to deal with the theoretical "border problem" that people seem so excited about.

these are awesome! i heart bill richardson!

Jumbo in the white house in '08!

He ranks low partially because he's unknown. Most of the polls that are being released about the presidential race, like it or not, are pretty much name-recognition polls.

Still, Richardson is doing the best of the 2nd tier candidates. He's got great VP odds.

forget "VP odds." i seem to remember a pretty unknown democratic governor winning a presidential election in 1992.

to elaborate, i've begun to think of these elections in terms of (what else?) baseball prospects. it is extremely rare for very high-rated prospects to become superstars, and far more common that they burn out easily, or have trouble living up to the expectations set for them by scouts, general managers, coaches, and the media. more likely, superstars seemingly come out of nowhere. actually, it's true in football as well (tom brady was a 199th draft pick).

it is for this highly unscientific reason that i realized a few months ago that barack obama, for example, will never be president. you can quote me on that; i'll be surprised but not shocked if i'm wrong.

ah, a chance to bash my least favorite candidate. while i freely admit that i am fairly race-conscious, i am not a politician. so if i made a statement like this:

“The only reason I’m not there is because he’s [gonzales] Hispanic, and I know him and like him,” Richardson said, adding, “It’s because he’s Hispanic. I’m honest."

it might be some acceptable white liberal guilt coming from a non-politico's mouth. from a presidential candidate, however, it is a death knell. add to that the double chin, his citation of a Roe v. Wade dissenter as his model justice, his preference for cutting income & cap. gains taxes and instituting higher regressive sales taxes in NM (all the while criticizing fellow candidates as tax-n-spend), his hemming and hawing on health care (but standly firmly only in opposing single-payer), and i see a racist, pro-corporate fat-cat who parrots republican talking points, is dubious on choice and health care, and ... happens to have brown skin.

fuck, let's just put tancredo in blackface!

Wow, Flea. He's your LEAST favorite candidate? Based on what I saw in
the pieces of debates I watched there are a lot of other unsavory options as well. BTW, are you still supporting Mrs. Clinton? Or is your mind not made up?

I don't like him either. But I like his commercials. Therefore I will vote for him. I will also eat whatever new burger McDonalds is promoting.

Holy crap, Flea. That was one compelling rant.

What Justice does he like?

nah, slater, i'm ALL about the only person I see as a meaningful yet practical progressive, warts and all.. Edwards. Donated this week; I'm a believer. He is a man dedicated to volunteerism and civic responsibility - which matters to me - and seriously, did ANY other candidate go to public school???

He speaks to the issues that are most important to me - poverty, health care, education, open government - and while he's certainly not perfect (i.e., the so-bizarre-you-have-to-wonder-about-his-OCD-tendencies architecture of his house, see http://www.johnlocke.org/site-docs/images/edwardshouse-low.jpg -wtf?), I think he has the most detailed plans for topics that need real solutions, has the courage to admit his errors (unlike, unforgiveably, Hillary), manages to put social issues in a moral context that is at least conceivably appealing to conservatives, is at least remotely electable, and I really like multipronged argumentative sentences.

oh, Ingen, Byron White.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070429-113419-3477r.htm
"cuz he wuz a football player." meathead.

I have a sneaking suspicion that this election will, as usual, turn on the war element and not on domestic social issues. How is Edwards qualified to be Commander in Chief? I share your dislike of Justice Whizzer White, mainly due to his Bowers opinion.

Some info from his website:
On Choice:
"I am concerned that once the government regulates reproductive rights, those rights could fluctuate each time there are leadership changes in our government. I was deeply alarmed when China began to mandate abortions. That is why it is so important we prevent the state from controlling individual reproductive rights in our own country.

As a Catholic, I am personally opposed to abortion. As difficult as this decision is, I am committed to protecting the right of every woman to make her own decision and will continue to support the rights of the individual against the mandates of the state.

I believe we can work together to make abortion safe, legal and rare. And we should do everything we can to support quality prenatal care and early child healthcare so that newborns and infants have the support they need to grow.

In January 2007, I was honored to have received the “Champion of Choice” award for my commitment to a woman’s right to choose. As President, I will continue to support policies that protect this right."

On Healthcare:
http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/issues/HCplan_exec_summary
Just check the site.

Oh--the bad architecture at the Edwards' house might be the secret service add-on.

No way, the shanty-town is pure Edwards!

The best part of that picture, beyond the shanty town itself, is that the parking lot in front of the barn (a) exists and (b) is full. The guy has a house with a parking lot! A big one, too. Do you think it's for when he throws handball tournaments on his indoor court?

I'm still honestly floored by his choice to purchase the most expensive house in his county while preparing to run for president as the 'poverty' candidate. It doesn't make his beliefs insincere, it just him a bad tactition. I promise if he wins the primary, you're going to see that house in every TV ad with a caption like:

"John Edwards spent $14 million to buy the most expensive house in his county, and now he wants YOU to pay higher taxes to support poor."

"John Edwards spent last weekend playing handball on his $14 million home's indoor court, and now he wants YOU to pay higher taxes for welfare cheats?"

It's just, why open yourself up for that? It seems like an Obama-esque mistake.

Flea - That article is weird.

"I was thinking really fast -- I didn't know, was he dead or alive," Mr. Richardson said yesterday. "I don't regret what I said. I make mistakes."

If you made a mistake, why wouldn't you regret it? I always regret mistakes. If I don't regret them, they aren't mistakes.

Prompted by moderator Brian Williams of NBC for "someone who is among the living"

And, seriously, what does Brian Williams have against zombie Supreme Court members? That stick-in-the-mud.

Flea, I agree with you. Edwards is the person right now. My brother is trying to get on his campaign. Although if Gore chooses to make things interesting, well... (I obviously haven't entirely given up hope yet-- and yes, I'm all for a whimsical American comeback story)...

P.S. I think Edwards is handling his $400 snip and indulgent house the best way he can-- which is to say, basically, wouldn't everyone want this (or something like this) if they could have it? It does seem to resonate as a theme that people from lesser means might "get." It's us intellectuals that potentially find it bothersome. Although I agree with Ingen-- it makes easy foder for attack ads.

Geoff, I'm just not buying into the 'war president' frame. This country is exhausted, and they're looking (at least 70% are) for someone to lead us OUT of the wilderness. In that sense, Edward is certainly a vocal advocate for careful withdrawal, and, certainly more than Bush, seems to be an analytical, legal thinker who I actually believe WILL listen to generals on the ground re: realism and tactics. His plan, while not unique, is one that gets us the spork out while recognizing the existence of a power vaccum ["Under my plan, we would cap funding at 100,000 troops to stop the McCain Doctrine of escalation and force an immediate withdrawal of 40-50,000 troops, followed by a complete withdrawal in 12-18 months."].
Plus, isn't he handsome enough to convince people that he can suavely solve a Cuban missile crisis (an amazing example of inexperiences presidential fortuity)?

Also, for me, the most important foreign policy tactic is investing in alternative energies. I think Edwards is emminently qualified in that regard.

I'm with flea on that one. I think the insistence that there is such thing as "qualifications" or "necessary experience" for a civilian Commander-in-Chief is delusional. A strong moral compass, analytical skills, and the ability to listen/delegate to military generals is what is needed.

I agree that the country is sick of the war. Both Eddie and Richie want to get us out of Iraq. Does that mean they are a wash when it comes to capability/experience in foreign affairs? No way. There are additional foreign policy matters that i don't think Edwards has distinguished himself on: diplomacy, negotiations, a track record of success. Richardson is the clear choice in foreign policy. In fact, that is the thrust of those clever ads.

Monk, I also value most of the things on your checklist of leadership skill (except for that crap moral compass element--which is just another way of saying you like the person). But I disagree that the idea of qualifications is delusional. Aren't the items on your checklist qualifications? Why if having a moral compass less of a "qualification" argument than wanting someone with diplomatic experience?

Edwards is more interested in domestic issues--that's great, he should run for senate again. The prez is more of a foreign policy position. Because I think Americans, during a time of military conflict, look for diplomatic and military experience, I believe Richardson is the better candidate.

LOL: "legal thinker!" you're killing me.

Geoff, I'm going to come to cm's defense on the moral compass element.
Bush = no moral compass. He's hypocritical even when it comes to his supposed "core values." He's a corporate shiller. No moral compass. McCain, on the other hand, is a little bit of a slimeball at this point, but I still believe he has a moral compass. Romney, regardless of what he personally believes, I perhaps incorrectly perceive that he has a moral compass. Hillary is a little suspect, largely because I think she didn't leave Bill because of her hunger for power. And that worries me. Everyone wants the power of course-- it just comes down to what they are willing to do to get it. So far, Edwards has shown that his chosen path to get there has the strongest moral compass- he gives geniunely thought answers in regard to specific policy questions rather than rhetoric.

I think the trial lawyer thing could come back to haunt Edwards. I like trial lawyers, but I think the business lobby has convinced most of America not to (right up until they're victims of med-mal or insurance bad faith).

Still, Geoff is right that my criteria are still, of course, "qualifications." What I was complaining about is the insistence that the only proper qualifications for commander-in-chief is that 1) you've been a governor; and 2) you're a hawk. Certainly, Richardson's diplomatic experience is a plus.

But how is Edwards qualified to be commander-in-chief? By being sincere, thoughtful, respectful of the international community, and intelligent. If you think the bar has been set low for the presidency, perhaps it has, but that's the fault of one man.

Most importantly, I think that the job of the president is so unique, that no set of qualifications will necessary guarantee that you'll be right for the job. The person makes the job, not the other way around.

You're right, Monk. the presidency is unique. But let me say that the qualifications you see in Edwards (being sincere, thoughtful, respectful of the international community, and intelligent) also seem present in Richardson. I don't dislike Edwards at all--I wish he could be the third senator from NY. I also don't think Richardson has a chance in hell. But he's my guy because I think he'd be a fantastic president. It doesn't matter anyway since I don't vote.

The governor "qualification" does hold some weight. Being a chief executive is very different than being a senator if only for the silly reason that you are less likely to have a record showing you flip-flop on issues. Does that mean senators make bad presidents? Nope. But it makes them less likely to be elected. This doesn't bode well for the entire slate of likely democratic nominees (Edwards, Obama, and Clinton). On the right: Rudy G (Gov), Romney (Gov), Huckabee (Gov). Kennedy was the last senator to get the Oval, right? How many before him?

Slater, I feel where you are coming from, but I still don't know how to tell a moral compass from the absence of one. It still seems to me to be a personal call related to whether you like someone's policies or not.

I don't think anyone said you couldn't do the job without the "qualifications", but having Richardson's history makes me feel like he could handle it. It at least points in that direction.

Rumor Mongering: The rumor is that he (Richardson) has some Bill Clinton-esque skeletons in his closet, though, that people are just waiting for the right time to spring. Who knows how true that is, might just be scuttlebutt. If that's the case, then I'm a big jerk for repeating it.

Rudy G was not a governor, but I get your point.

I think the Justice White quote from Richardson is indicative that he's perhaps not always thoughtful, but perhaps it can be chalked up to a normal mistake.

"A personal call" -- I think that's what voting for the president is. There's no magic formula.

Richardson: he's supposedly touchy-feely. Not sure if that translates to infidelity.

a friend of mine has had many of the major candidates come to his office for donations, and tells me that richardson rambled weirdly and made random jokes about bush taking lots of vacations. I had vague fondness of him before hearing this and am now somewhat suspect.

Just as a random note of interest on presidents and their performance based on their experience- I agree with crazymonk... there's no correlation based on precedence at this point (John Q. Adams, Hoover, Lincoln). So here's the random note: my brother requested some presidential biographies for Christmas... and so I investigated what were generally considered to be the best reads. Supposedly there's an out of print bio on Chester A. Arthur that's really funny because Arthur was known for his scandalous shenanigans and then became a prude once he became president. I look forward to finding it and reading it some day.

And, Geoff, I agree that it's hard to articulate clearly what a moral compass is, but I don't think it's just agreeing or disagreeing with some one's policies. For instance, if Bush or McCain wanted to stay in Iraq and actually voiced opinions that were logical and based on some humanitarian or lesser of two bads worldview (an actual one-- not a rhetorical one) I would disagree with the decision personally, but still think they had a moral compass. The problem is that Bush does not really show he has one because of his refusal to accept the advice that would actually give his goals a better chance of succeeding. This is what I ultimately consider a lacking of moral compass. It's not about Iraq anymore or the wishes of the American people, it's about Bush and his stupid pride/reputation.

Oh, right. I'm such a bad New Yorker.

"The problem is that Bush does not really show he has one because of his refusal to accept the advice that would actually give his goals a better chance of succeeding. This is what I ultimately consider a lacking of moral compass."

So, a lack of a moral compass is the same as acting irrationally (economically speaking)? If i really want a hot dog and my neighbor gives me directions to go down the street and turn left, but i drive eight miles away and get a cheeseburger instead, I lack a moral compass? There has to be some content, not just efficiency. And I don't know a standard regarding the content that is not subject to very different interpretations.

I think that it moves beyond being just "irrational" once ethical issues are at stake. Buying a cheeseburger rather than a hot dog is not, in this context, an ethical issue. If it were between a hot dog and a veggie dog, then we might be in that territory. In other words, my rather unpolished stance is that

being irrational + when ethical issues are at stake = bad moral compass.

I can be rational and still make a bad choice, but have a good moral compass. Of course, sometimes probably each of us is "irrational" from time to time when ethical issues are at stake.

Yes, yes, I know I deserve a few pats on the back for this tidy and flaw- proof conceptual model. :)

Meh, unsurprisingly I'm not convinced. The reason is that ethical issues are themselves subject to interpretation because of the as-yet unspecified definition. Chances are that on any random issue I'd agree with your ethical determination. But a Southern Baptist and I likely have orthogonal opinions on a wide variety of topics.

uh-oh. i hear word that richardson is a yankees fan. if these allegations are true, i withdraw all support and he can go straight to hell.

He did lie about being drafted by a major league baseball team for forty years, which is lie of such awe-inspiring scope that I think we can all get behind him as a candidate.

This conversation makes me think Chris Dodd would be a better vp.

I like Dodd