The Fall of the World’s Great Optimist
I admit to bias, but isn’t the undercard of the “Obama beats Hillary at fundraising” story that Bill Richardson ($7M) did nearly as well as John Edwards ($9M). Both are far behind the two leaders, but surely Richardson’s dough means that he’s at least as credible an alternative to the Big Two as Edwards now. It’s either a two-person race or a four-person race, but it’s not a three-way.
Comment by Thoreau —
July 2, 2007 @ 7:59 am
If Richardson looks like he has a chance on the day of the California Presidential Primary then I will vote for him.
Otherwise my vote goes to Ron Paul.
(IIRC, in CA you can register non-partisan and vote in either major party’s primary. The open primary law was overturned, but after it was overturned the parties voluntarily opened their primaries. I assume that option is still available. If it isn’t, I’ll register Democrat to keep the Richardson option open.)
Comment by govtrends —
July 2, 2007 @ 8:25 am
It is a sad day for all of us when our political system hinges on who collects the most money.
It lowers the status of politics to the equal of a monopoly game.
In other words whoever has the most money usually wins. Why is this so?
If the candidates ideas were fresh and a benefit to our society, why all the money for campaigning? Voters would listen and make their choices acording to what individual candidates are saying.
Otherwise, they appear to me to be buying the vote, with slick paid advertisements, (made up by someone else) and speeches, written (by someone else), that they most likly forget in about 2 days.
Is this “smoke mirrors and money” the method of choice, for selecting the best candidate, for the leadership of our country?
Not in in my opinion.
Comment by Nell —
July 2, 2007 @ 9:13 am
@govtrends: Who could disagree? But Jim wasn’t celebrating the money race, simply observing it. Nothing is going to change between now and January 2009 in that department.
@Jim H.: I generally agree about Richardson, but his campaign unwisely dented the effect of this quarter’s catching-up by a rash boast that they’d outraise Edwards.
Comment by Nell —
July 2, 2007 @ 9:35 am
It’s also getting to be sadly common, and I think it’s really outrageous, that many major polls will only poll about the top three.
Comment by Nell —
July 2, 2007 @ 10:01 am
For those who want to generate Richardson optimism and buzz, this Iowa poll (an average of polls at pollster.com) is a helpful tool. Despite the efforts of many Democrats, the caucuses are still a vital springboard.
There’s a lot of time left for things to change there. I think I can fairly say that Edwards is toast if he does not come in first in January.
Comment by Nicholas Beaudrot —
July 2, 2007 @ 11:02 am
If we look at both quarter together, Richardson has raised $13M while Edwards has raised $22M. So, not really, no. And as Matt points out, Edwards is in first in Iowa. This sort of makes Edwards the Dick Gephardt of 2008, in the sense that he may not be first in the money race, but other electoral fundamentals make him a formidable challenger.
Comment by Joshua Holmes —
July 2, 2007 @ 11:12 am
It is a sad day for all of us when our political system hinges on who collects the most money.
I don’t really care, but I do want to point out that the Athenians could have told you this 2500 years ago. They said elections meant oligarchy, and they were right.
Comment by DB —
July 2, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
Richardson isn’t running for president. He’s running for Vice President. Politically, he’s almost as savy as the Clinton’s, and he’s playing the long game.
Comment by Madeline F —
July 2, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
A couple weeks ago I went to give money to Richardson, and entered “richardson 2008″ into Google to find his website. It wasn’t even on the first page of results. I had to find it from a link from some other website, and then there was a ridiculous “intro” screen once I got there. I sent the web team a “You muppets, this isn’t 1997, get Googleable or get out” email…
I just now repeated the Google and found the official website 3rd, with no intro screen. I’m pretty happy with those results. The “Contribute” button turned bright red and the following screen is much more sensible… It’s like they actually listened! I guess I will give him money after all.
Comment by moocat —
July 2, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
Nicholas Beaudrot said:
Yes, and I remember how formidable Gephardt turned out to be… in 1988… and 2004…
Comment by Stephen Fox —
July 2, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
Dear Editor:
I am so glad to see websites like yours are warming to Richardson’s campaign. Richardson is my governor, and I have known him personally for 30 years. What Richardson has achieved vis-a-vis the New Mexico Legislature is remarkable, but I won’t recite the accomplishments. I do want to see him President, but I am in no way connected officially to his
campaign.
The so called “top-tier” candidates together, all 3 of them, have a collective resume lesser in quality to Bill Richardson’s!(Incidentally, Pollster.com determined very recently that Richardson henceforth shall be considered in the “top-tier,” based on his being the only candidate who has substantially risen in Iowa!) I am certain that Richardson’s real genius and his strongest suit is in international affairs, and that will be vital (and I don’t mean as just a future US Secretary of State!), if we are going to even attempt to rebuild the shattered US image internationally, after six
years of Halliburton-driven corporate
kleptocracy. His debate skills have not been as honed and polished as the 3
lawyers in so-called “top tier,” but that is fixable. His biography is great
(Between Worlds: the Making of an American Life), and the new book on Energy Policy will be just as good.
Here is what I consider the bottom line: you don’t have to be a Marxian or Hegelian or a Ph.D Economist to realize that our domestic economy is suffering and going to get worseresulting from the on-going international implications of the screwed up foreign policy of this administration, so thoroughly based on corporate needs and demands; as long as we continue to see appointments like Bush’s trade negotiator Zoelick made over into President of the World Bank to replace “Wolfiewits,” don’t expect ANY major improvements in the last two years of Bush’s tenure, especially in trickle down economic realities improving the lives of individual American consumers.
Richardson has repeatedly made it clear that Congress should deauthorize the
Iraq War, and that he personally would end it the first day of his Presidency.
My prediction: Richardson is going to win in Nevada, and he is going to do
very very well in Iowa, New Hampshire, Tennessee, and California, I think
winning in at least two of those states. May I suggest that you and your readers directly communicate to David Contarino and Amanda Cooper, his Campaign Manager, and Deputy CM, or to Richardson directly through the email function on his NM governor website? These people are very open to new ideas, questions,strategies, insights, etc., and I encourage anyone reading to take the time to contact them by phone or by email, even if you have just one question on a policy matter, or want to tell Bill Richardson what YOU
think.
If you wish, please google the title of my most recent major article, RESOLVING THE WORSENING CRISIS AT THE FDA, published at many websites in many nations.
Truly,
Stephen Fox
New Millennium Fine Art,
217 W. Water St.,
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501
505 983-2002
Comment by Steve Rankin —
July 4, 2007 @ 6:09 pm
Both major California parties invite independents to vote in their state and congressional primaries. (These are semi-closed, not open, primaries.) However, only the Democrats are inviting independents to vote in their 2008 presidential primary.
So, unless the California GOP changes its mind, you’ll need to be a registered Republican in order to vote for Ron Paul in the 2008 California primary.
BTW: It was California’s blanket primary that was struck down in 2000. (All candidates of all parties were listed on the same primary ballot.)