tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17206839.post979206262578710564..comments2023-09-09T09:26:22.175-04:00Comments on Andrew Samwick's Blog: Beyond Hillary and ObamaAndrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13514024573333057559noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17206839.post-29799207688958851922007-04-04T20:19:00.000-04:002007-04-04T20:19:00.000-04:00Richardson is the most likely to win in a general ...Richardson is the most likely to win in a general election; in addition to his impressive CV, he also has what none of the other candidates have: brass cajones.<br><br>And I don't mean the cartoonish, stereotypical manliness so prized by the right. I mean the real thing.<br><br>No one would ever look Richardson in the eye and think 'wussy'.<br><br>He's a Dem cut from the old cloth. Think Danny Rostenkowski; good to his friends, brutal on his enemies.<br><br>And this is precisely what the Dems need to inoculate themselves from the 'Breck Girl' comments re Edwards or the Francophile slander of Kerry in the last cycle.<br><br>But of course Richardson has zero chance in the money race, so this discussion is completely academic. But he'd make a great VP candidate and could position himself for a future run, so it's worth it for him to stick with it until some votes are cast and the veep is picked.<br><br>BTW, the candidate next in line for machismo is Hillary. Strange statement, I know. But she's been brutalized by the Republicans for over a decade and has probably come up with some creative ideas for payback during the next election cycle. And having Bill in your corner isn't a bad thing.<br><br>Obama's a nice guy and all, but the Republicans would start by appealing to the (not so) cryptoracists in their party and just rolling that stone downhill from there.eightnine2718281828mu5http://www.blogger.com/profile/10719758054708390064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17206839.post-13066606923135990332007-04-05T09:07:00.000-04:002007-04-05T09:07:00.000-04:00Your related posting from this past January 29th: ...Your related posting from this past January 29th: "Things I Don't Understand" provoked some good comments on this issue.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17206839.post-77514068937214582482007-04-05T09:35:00.000-04:002007-04-05T09:35:00.000-04:00A couple quotations from Ezra Klein's blog bac...A couple quotations from Ezra Klein's blog back on Feb 20 and 21:<br><br>Feb 20 - Celebrity Politicians:<br><br>*I should probably say that I attended a small policy breakfast with Richardson and found him very underwhelming. He talked of tax cuts and making Democrats "the party of space." His is a resume without -- at least thus far -- an inspiring vision or a clear ideology, and it's worth saying that pure technocrats rarely win national elections. The hunger for celebrity is unfair, but the appetite for inspiration isn't necessarily off-base.<br><br>Feb 21 clarification of Feb 20 - Beyond Ageeable: <br><br>Richardson has said a lot of things I agree with, but nothing I'm motivated to get behind. He's offered no health care plan that would radically transform the country for the better, nor a humane Iraq plan that distinguishes his vision from the other contestants. For partisans, presidential primaries offer a field of people you basically agree with -- so the question is what they have beyond basic philosophical acceptability. Sometimes, the answer is electability, sometimes, the capacity to inspire, sometimes, a policy platform that rockets past agreeable all the way into achingly desirable. For now (and it's very early), Richardson hasn't distinguished himself on any metrics aside from experience*. And given that I think most any Democrat will be competent enough to pursue broadly popular, basically incremental policies, that's not enough.<br><br>*He's a very good diplomat, as it turns out. But that would seem to militate towards making him Secretary of State, not President.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17206839.post-74993340381450917602007-04-05T12:10:00.000-04:002007-04-05T12:10:00.000-04:00Senators are national media partisan advocates whe...Senators are national media partisan advocates whereas Governors are local media pragmatic administrators. As Presidential candidates, Senators carry around too much partisan baggage, Governor an administrative record of accomplishment. The latter is what the public desires. It actually helped that Kerry was such a quiet Senator during his career. <br><br>This Republican knows Richardson is stronger on top of the ticket than any Senator running. If President Bush were to call Governor Richardson, common interests would be discussed. If he were to call any Democratic Senator running, they would issue a cynical press release in rebuke, they can't help themselves.Fritzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09551356233624437730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17206839.post-9534905436341597732007-04-05T15:35:00.000-04:002007-04-05T15:35:00.000-04:00---But that would seem to militate towards making ...---<br>But that would seem to militate towards making him Secretary of State, not President.<br>---<br><br>Personally, I don't think the positions are mutually exclusive.<br><br>I would have much rather seen Colin Powell in the oval office than its current resident.eightnine2718281828mu5http://www.blogger.com/profile/10719758054708390064noreply@blogger.com