Richardson Dropping Presidential Bid

oh, not VP! He needs a real job, say, National Security Advisor or Secretary of State.

I agree, Richardson was my preference. Oh, well.

VP could set him up for President in 2016, mebbe :)

I like him, he should be our (Dems) front-runner, if experience and ability were truly important.

Undoubtedly, Gretchen. His is/was the best candidate in the field.

mebbe ;)

well i'm watching live the announcement..

he is done.

now we can only hope that mitt will follow shortly/

Once again? Can you give me an example where experience was ever valued (as opposed to ineptly challenged)?

Sorry, it's not MSM, it's us. And advertising.

Exactly. They wouldn't be the "mainstream" for long if they stopped giving the public what it wanted.

Thank you, Adipic.

I would love to see some analysis of citizens in an election year. It takes two - the citizen and the candidate - to tango. To stretch the metaphor, it is the citizen that chooses the music - whether ads, news media, meetings, etc. - and then complains loudly if a toe is stepped on, threatening to change partners or just tear up the dance card and walk out (Ok, that's quite enough). Noone's vote is prorated by how much thought s/he put into it.

One problem I have with the constant bleating about rights is the total ignorance of the responsibilities that follow with those rights. Yes, you have the right to vote, but that now means that you have the responsibility to educate yourself on the candidates and the issues and to educate others: not to constantly whine about the "MSM" or the system. It's juvenile to think things are going to be handed to you: anything worth having requires effort.

Thing is, rights are explicit, responsibilities implicit - what can you do?

Remind everyone that those who do not embrace their responsibilities often lose the tools needed to maintain their rights? I know, it's kind of pointy-headed, but dammit if people don't want to think I'm beginning to wonder if they are even worth saving from themselves.

"Tools" = what? You need money to sue, which should be illegal. It might look good on paper to complain about responsibilities, but it's not practical to expect people to use "tools" when the system has problems. The system changed for Rosa Parks.

To marginalize what is going on with the Obama campaign is to completely misunderstand its nature. Also, the form of 'good on paper' is still a form and does not entail substance (re: Bush Administration)

What is "good on paper" about the Bush administration? W stands for wastrel.

I have yet to see anything special from Obama, other than his Change mantra uttered over and over again. But what change? It's the same old Democratic policies of more government to manage the affairs of citizens lives.

Change, Change, Change. It's nothing but a smokescreen.

And Hillary is doing just about the same thing, except worse.

Sorry, both Hillary and Obama are accomplished scholars as well as students of their profession. As i noted above, the American electorate itself rejects in-depth analysis of ideas & competencies. Hillary's health care plan of the 90s may have been wrong or wrong for its time, but you cannot say she didn't work hard on it. Obama's record is thinner, but his record as a state rep in Illinois is one of a hard worker.

It's the same old Democratic policies of more government to manage the affairs of citizens lives.

Josh, you just don't get it. That's fine, I think most don't. This isn't about issues, this isn't about policy. It's social movement about how we treat each other in the political realm. It's about moving forward on the issues, but not based upon the issues in themselves. You may not think that that is viable. Perhaps you're ok with presuming all politicians are lying when they move their lips. Personally, I don't think that's worth holding onto and moving on is worth it.

Josh, you just don't get it. That's fine, I think most don't. This isn't about issues, this isn't about policy. It's social movement about how we treat each other in the political realm. It's about moving forward on the issues, but not based upon the issues in themselves. You may not think that that is viable. Perhaps you're ok with presuming all politicians are lying when they move their lips. Personally, I don't think that's worth holding onto and moving on is worth it.

Now, I don't get it. I do assume all politicians are lying when the move their lips, and I'd love to move past that. What's the connection I'm missing? Or is your assumption that only Republican politicians lie, and the Dems are ok?

If you can't trust anybody then you can't move past it. You have to be willing to put your trust out there and, to me, it looks like Obama is the most deserving of that trust.

But the main thrust of what I was getting at is that you think that the changes he's proposing are issue based (sort of like the triangulation that nobody really appreciates) when the change is procedural. It's a huge procedure to change and depends upon something entirely substantive (valuing others' opinions and letting them voice it in open and honest debate). Instilling trust is the main change he brings.

shall we tell him he's appointed? ;)

"we need to make sacrifices"

Exactly. At least he was honest about what he wanted to implement. He was even quoted saying it meant less liberty. Hell, a politician honest about what his policies really mean?

He just has a better understanding of what government actually means than the others.

He just has a better understanding of what government actually means than the others.

How do you know? The only thing I could tell is he had a worse understanding of how to get there than the others.

SU, so, he should treat us like children? If we get BS artists as candidates its our fault for voting based on BS.

Back in the 90s, I was a negotiator for two collective bargaining units dealing with two arts organizations. Company A would offer us the moon, we'd sign, and halfway through the contract they'd ask to renegotiate. Company B offered less, and often through insane nickel and diming, but they always made good. My constituencies, which largely overlapped, loved A and hated B. At a meeting, I commented that if I had to put money on which would be here 10 years from now, I would put it all on Company B. Sure enough, Company A went under 10 years ago. Company B did well until the original director stepped down. This director had a seemingly unartistic priority one - to run in the black. He succeeded. He also told us what we needed to know, not what we wanted to hear.

It's the electorate's fault if we fall to magical thinking.

urbane

I agree, we need to scrutinize our candidates, we need to know what the deal is. But Company A and Company B in your example are different from what we are talking about.

Richardson's campaign focused on 1) his resume 2) that we need to make sacrifices. But, how much better is his resume than the other candidates? I couldn't see that it was better, in fact, the opposite seemed to be the case.

And as to making sacrifices. Let your opposition point that out, they will, you don't need to make that point, you just need to acknowledge it and describe it as best you can. Consider this, the Republicans start campaigning on fewer social services, more war, more money to the biggest corporations and less rights for workers, while the Democrats campaign on tax increases, retreating, higher prices for consumer goods and greater restriction on employment.

My point ultimately boils down to a point of oratory. Making your case does not involve going out of your way to show the downsides of your position, it involves painting it in the best light possible.

Because he admitted that it is sacrafice, and everything government does costs something. Government is a parasite on the people it governs, and cannot survive without leeching money off of them. Likewise, any power or responsiblity the government takes on is necessarily a reduction in liberty. It's simple social contract theory, and at Richardson seemed to understand it and be honest about it.

None of this "Free" health care nonsense. Nothing is free.

SUS, OK you win. This week's editorial in the Forward basically asks, when are the Democrats going to stop nominating Adlai Stevenson? In other words, first the sugar, then the medicine. Tip of my hat to you.

Didn't he though?

I heard from, his own mouth, un-mediated by anything save a microphone and speaker, him mention his Latino heritage and in debates several times. It just doesn't have the same stick that woman and black man have.

pre-meditated hard-on

boy is that the mot juste of the day. Bravo.