B. Rich
January 6, 2008 8:36 PM Subscribe
What are some popular criticisms of presidential candidate Bill Richardson?
I'm interested in why he came in at two percent in Iowa given my personal research. Is it a campaign finance issue, or are there some serious criticisms (on the dem side of course) that I am unaware of?
Thanks.
I'm interested in why he came in at two percent in Iowa given my personal research. Is it a campaign finance issue, or are there some serious criticisms (on the dem side of course) that I am unaware of?
Thanks.
There's an article on Salon.com today about the "water wars" and it mentions that Richardson's comments about "importing" water to the Southwest from the Great Lakes cost him a lot of support in water-rich areas of the USA. Or something like that; I wasn't paying a lot of attention!
posted by Dee Xtrovert at 8:45 PM on January 6, 2008
posted by Dee Xtrovert at 8:45 PM on January 6, 2008
According to local blogger Joe Monahan:
The seeds of defeat were sown long ago, in a disastrous "Meet the Press" appearance that infected the national media and blogosphere and which he had difficulty turning around because of lackluster performances in the numerous TV debates. The modern form of campaigning simply did not suit Richardson's demeanor or personality. He is an in-person politician, not an on-camera one.
But the trouble was even deeper. His first wave of TV ads were clever, presenting in an entertaining way Richardson's lengthy resume, but the campaign appeared to be stuck after that, insisting on an experience theme in the face of overwhelming evidence that the Iowa Dems wanted change--major change-- from the politics of the past. In fairness, Hillary Clinton seemed to make the same mistake, faulting Obama's inexperience and seeing the argument fail like a rubber-tipped arrow fired into steel. Richardson's answer was to become the most fervent anti-war advocate this side of Dennis Kucinich, but it did little to separate him from the other candidates who were also firmly against the war, just not as adamantly as the Governor, who also had authenticity issues because of his past support of the unpopular conflict.
posted by Sara Anne at 8:47 PM on January 6, 2008
The seeds of defeat were sown long ago, in a disastrous "Meet the Press" appearance that infected the national media and blogosphere and which he had difficulty turning around because of lackluster performances in the numerous TV debates. The modern form of campaigning simply did not suit Richardson's demeanor or personality. He is an in-person politician, not an on-camera one.
But the trouble was even deeper. His first wave of TV ads were clever, presenting in an entertaining way Richardson's lengthy resume, but the campaign appeared to be stuck after that, insisting on an experience theme in the face of overwhelming evidence that the Iowa Dems wanted change--major change-- from the politics of the past. In fairness, Hillary Clinton seemed to make the same mistake, faulting Obama's inexperience and seeing the argument fail like a rubber-tipped arrow fired into steel. Richardson's answer was to become the most fervent anti-war advocate this side of Dennis Kucinich, but it did little to separate him from the other candidates who were also firmly against the war, just not as adamantly as the Governor, who also had authenticity issues because of his past support of the unpopular conflict.
posted by Sara Anne at 8:47 PM on January 6, 2008
Ditto on the experience vs. change issue. Interestingly, despite what most people think, national policy experience is not generally preferred by voters even when leadership is valued. While Richardson was governor, he spent a lot of his career as energy secretary, UN ambassador, etc. Voters rarely elect Senators, for example, and senators successful in Presidential races are usually only tangentially so (Kennedy and Obama both represent change, Clinton has regard not as a senator but as first lady, etc).
I think charisma was an issue as well, particularly with early financing. Hillary Clinton has an obvious financing base, and Edwards was able to use contacts from four years ago. Obama's financing chances were aided by his coming to attention during the convention in 2004, etc.
In terms of Iowa specifically (I'm a liberal unaffiliated Iowan by birth), Iowa Dems are to a large extent the old union crowd. This is why Edwards does so well here and appeals to that base. Iowans also tend to be pragmatists, and so the Richardson position on Iraq was probably unsuccessful here because voters thought it unrealistic Disclaimer 2: I'm actually a fan of the Richardson Iraq strategy
posted by l33tpolicywonk at 8:59 PM on January 6, 2008
I think charisma was an issue as well, particularly with early financing. Hillary Clinton has an obvious financing base, and Edwards was able to use contacts from four years ago. Obama's financing chances were aided by his coming to attention during the convention in 2004, etc.
In terms of Iowa specifically (I'm a liberal unaffiliated Iowan by birth), Iowa Dems are to a large extent the old union crowd. This is why Edwards does so well here and appeals to that base. Iowans also tend to be pragmatists, and so the Richardson position on Iraq was probably unsuccessful here because voters thought it unrealistic Disclaimer 2: I'm actually a fan of the Richardson Iraq strategy
posted by l33tpolicywonk at 8:59 PM on January 6, 2008
Richardson is the least personable politician I've ever had the "pleasure" of meeting.
As much as I am loathe to admit that politics are a popularity contest, they are to an extent.
posted by FlamingBore at 9:03 PM on January 6, 2008
As much as I am loathe to admit that politics are a popularity contest, they are to an extent.
posted by FlamingBore at 9:03 PM on January 6, 2008
"he's a pro-gun democrat."
I can only really speak for myself, obviously, but I suspect if you start asking Democratic primary voters about their issue priorities, gun control ranks incredibly far down the list. It's just not a major issue today - economy, war, health care, constitutional violations, illegal immigration, general Washington corruption are all much more visible, contentious factors. In all the lefty media I consume - movies, blogs, magazines, general chatter - I can't even remember the last time guns came up as a topic, except when Republicans would declare that Democrats want to take them away.
...basically, some Democrats might 'take your guns away,' but right now, most of us really couldn't care less. I've certainly never heard anyone bring up gun control as a reason they do, or don't, support any candidate - and I know Gravel fans, for chrissakes, so it's not like everyone I talk to is just deciding which of the big three to support. Richardson seems to be generally perceived as highly skilled, but entirely too uncharismatic. Up against Hillary's celebrity, Obama's hyperbolically touted stage presence, and Edwards' affability, he just seems... grumpy.
posted by Tomorrowful at 9:14 PM on January 6, 2008
I can only really speak for myself, obviously, but I suspect if you start asking Democratic primary voters about their issue priorities, gun control ranks incredibly far down the list. It's just not a major issue today - economy, war, health care, constitutional violations, illegal immigration, general Washington corruption are all much more visible, contentious factors. In all the lefty media I consume - movies, blogs, magazines, general chatter - I can't even remember the last time guns came up as a topic, except when Republicans would declare that Democrats want to take them away.
...basically, some Democrats might 'take your guns away,' but right now, most of us really couldn't care less. I've certainly never heard anyone bring up gun control as a reason they do, or don't, support any candidate - and I know Gravel fans, for chrissakes, so it's not like everyone I talk to is just deciding which of the big three to support. Richardson seems to be generally perceived as highly skilled, but entirely too uncharismatic. Up against Hillary's celebrity, Obama's hyperbolically touted stage presence, and Edwards' affability, he just seems... grumpy.
posted by Tomorrowful at 9:14 PM on January 6, 2008
Sadly, at this time of primary season his biggest criticism is that his poll numbers suck. His gun record irks a sizable dem base as mentioned. He also can't debate very well. Clinton is a debate machine staying on task and answering each question just right. Obama and Edwards both have great passion in how they speak. Bill, well... he has made a few quips here and there but isn't the brightest star in this constellation of candidates.
posted by munchingzombie at 9:34 PM on January 6, 2008
posted by munchingzombie at 9:34 PM on January 6, 2008
Yup. As much as it pains me to say it, Richardson just doesn't have the presence that Edwards, Obama and Clinton have. They're... bigger, somehow. More presidential. He was totally eclipsed last night, and came across as a guy running for vice president.
posted by mumkin at 9:37 PM on January 6, 2008
posted by mumkin at 9:37 PM on January 6, 2008
His campaigning skills really don't inspire much confidence on the electability front. To continue from what Sara Anne, one of first things that springs to mind is his awkward performance at the Logo debate.
This is despite the fact that he has one of the better gay rights record of any of the candidates, as well as the fact that his larger point that he eventually lands at—that "choice" should be immaterial when it comes to equality—could be be argued persuasively. These are friendly forums where he's tripping up at, so I'm not sure he would do so well in hostile territory. Even in this lackluster year for Republican candidates (yay!), I'm not sure I would want to put him up against any of them.
posted by Weebot at 9:38 PM on January 6, 2008
This is despite the fact that he has one of the better gay rights record of any of the candidates, as well as the fact that his larger point that he eventually lands at—that "choice" should be immaterial when it comes to equality—could be be argued persuasively. These are friendly forums where he's tripping up at, so I'm not sure he would do so well in hostile territory. Even in this lackluster year for Republican candidates (yay!), I'm not sure I would want to put him up against any of them.
posted by Weebot at 9:38 PM on January 6, 2008
Ahem. Let's cut to the chase. He was a Congressman from a relatively unimportant, sparsely populated, relatively low-income state. He was Secretary of Energy. He was UN ambassador. And now he's the governor of that relatively unimportant, sparsely populated, relatively low-income state.
It's certainly a resume, but not a greatly impressive one to most Americans.
Now, he's up against a) one of the most recognizable women on the planet; b) a young, fast-rising star that happens to be a magnificent orator; and c) a popular Southern former Senator that was the previous cycle's candidate for VP, who also happens to be quite renown for his speaking and personable skills.
No gold. No silver. No bronze. Sorry, dude.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:46 PM on January 6, 2008 [1 favorite]
It's certainly a resume, but not a greatly impressive one to most Americans.
Now, he's up against a) one of the most recognizable women on the planet; b) a young, fast-rising star that happens to be a magnificent orator; and c) a popular Southern former Senator that was the previous cycle's candidate for VP, who also happens to be quite renown for his speaking and personable skills.
No gold. No silver. No bronze. Sorry, dude.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:46 PM on January 6, 2008 [1 favorite]
All good points above. And let's not forget that he's just downright painful to watch during the debates. The man cannot. make. his. point. He'll be asked a question and 10 minutes later he's still yammering around the issue. I don't doubt that he's a solid candidate, and he's been a very popular governor, but his speaking and public persona don't suggest "president."
posted by Bella Sebastian at 11:34 PM on January 6, 2008
posted by Bella Sebastian at 11:34 PM on January 6, 2008
I've always heard people criticize him because is unelectable. And yes, that criticism has always seemed like an lovely example of begging the question.
posted by tula at 12:13 AM on January 7, 2008
posted by tula at 12:13 AM on January 7, 2008
now he's the governor of that relatively unimportant, sparsely populated, relatively low-income state
That could be said of Bill Clinton.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:24 AM on January 7, 2008
That could be said of Bill Clinton.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:24 AM on January 7, 2008
As a former energy secretary during the Clinton administration, Richardson has presumably studied these issues. But here he demonstrates extraordinary ignorance (or perhaps extraordinary disingenuousness) about the economic impact of cap-and-trade systems. By contrast, Obama shows extraordinary clarity and honesty about the effects of the policy he is proposing.
posted by Kwantsar at 5:52 AM on January 7, 2008
posted by Kwantsar at 5:52 AM on January 7, 2008
That could be said of Bill Clinton.
Yeah, but it could also be said about Mike Huckabee.
posted by box at 6:09 AM on January 7, 2008
Yeah, but it could also be said about Mike Huckabee.
posted by box at 6:09 AM on January 7, 2008
For someone as accomplished as he is, Richardson seems to shit the bed in every interview I've seen him in. He seems to try so hard to get his precise message across he flubs talking points, gets flustered, makes incorrect statements, etc. I was interested in Richardson because he had both executive and foreign policy experience, but he just doesn't have the personal presence to be president.
posted by electroboy at 6:47 AM on January 7, 2008
posted by electroboy at 6:47 AM on January 7, 2008
There have also been persistent comments and rumors about his "touchy-feeliness." Perhaps people are afraid of another Bill Clinton.
And yeah, he is kinda smarmy in person. But who running for office isn't?
posted by answergrape at 7:35 AM on January 7, 2008
And yeah, he is kinda smarmy in person. But who running for office isn't?
posted by answergrape at 7:35 AM on January 7, 2008
In his home state, he is regarded by many as a sleazy, headline-hungry and mean-spirited politician who is disrespectful to women and plays fast and loose with data like job growth.
posted by M.C. Lo-Carb! at 8:16 AM on January 7, 2008
posted by M.C. Lo-Carb! at 8:16 AM on January 7, 2008
He never was able to get the big money, and he was never seen as a legitimate candidate by the media. I don't know which came first, but they reinforce each other and lead to a campaign death-spiral. Personality may have something to do with it, but when you look at the Republican candidates, they seem to get a pass on personality flaws.
I've heard rumors that he has a "Clinton problem," i.e., he can't keep it in his pants. The media may know, and be willing to keep a lid on it, but at the cost of poor coverage in general.
posted by rikschell at 9:00 AM on January 7, 2008
I've heard rumors that he has a "Clinton problem," i.e., he can't keep it in his pants. The media may know, and be willing to keep a lid on it, but at the cost of poor coverage in general.
posted by rikschell at 9:00 AM on January 7, 2008
Read Robert Scheer's coverage in the LA Times about Richardson's Wen Ho Lee witch hunt.
posted by HotPatatta at 9:06 AM on January 7, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by HotPatatta at 9:06 AM on January 7, 2008 [1 favorite]
I think another part of it is just a catch 22: he didn't get a lot of attention, so he didn't have a lot of name recognition, so he did bad in polls, ergo no one wanted to back someone that not many people had heard of in Iowa, when it was likely that he wouldn't make the 15%. And since he did bad in Iowa, not a lot of people want to vote for him in New Hampshire when it's looking so close.
Seconding briank
posted by fogster at 9:18 AM on January 7, 2008
Seconding briank
posted by fogster at 9:18 AM on January 7, 2008
He's not in favor of gay marriage or, I believe, even civil unions.
posted by jedicus at 9:56 AM on January 7, 2008
posted by jedicus at 9:56 AM on January 7, 2008
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by brandz at 8:41 PM on January 6, 2008