I have been saying for a while now that I consider Bill Richardson to be the best candidate the Democrats could nominate for president. He is clearly the most qualified candidate.
He has a much broader range of experience than any other candidate. He has served in the U.S. House of Representatives. He has been a special diplomatic envoy, securing the release of American prisoners from seemingly impossible situations. He has served as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. He has served in the White House Cabinet as Energy Secretary. And he has been a very successful governor. What other candidate can equal this depth of experience?
Richardson has some other things that would make him appeal to a broad range of the public. His being a Hispanic would help him appeal to minorities. His belief in the right to bear arms would help him to appeal to many conservatives. And his promise to immediately remove ALL of our troops from Iraq (something the other major candidates have not promised) would appeal to the left.
Obama and Edwards are both good candidates, but they don't have the experience that Richardson has. As for Clinton, I think that's who the Republicans want to run against. They believe that with her consistently high negatives, she is the candidate that offers them the most hope of an upset win.
I believe that Richardson is the candidate they would least like to run against, because of his experience and possible appeal to a wide range of different voters. Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, agrees with this assessment.
Sabato says, "He is unbeatable. It is amazing the Democrats haven't realized that. Republicans will tell you privately that if the Democrats nominate Bill Richardson the election is over. They know they will lose to Bill Richardson. He is perfectly positioned."
If you truly oppose the war. If you want the person with the right experience. And if you really believe that our country needs a Democrat in the White House, then Bill Richardson is the candidate you should seriously consider.
Although I don't agree with Richardson's stand on the war, I respect him as sincere, intelligent, and the one candidate on the Democratic side with the most well-rounded background of executive, legislative, and diplomatic experience.
ReplyDeleteWouldn't it be wonderful if nominees were chosen for their experience and ideas, not for their ability to raise money? It's a classic example of the Peter Principle - many a competent fundraiser has been promoted to become an incompetent office holder.