Amid all endless hype about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, along comes conservative NYTimes columnist David Brooks -- of all people! -- to take a serious look at New Mexico governor Bill Richardson. Turns out Richardson might be the most qualified of all the major contenders for the Democratic nomination:
He’s a successful two-term governor who was re-elected with 69 percent of the vote in New Mexico, a red state. Moreover, he’s a governor with foreign policy experience. He was U.N. ambassador. He worked in the State Department. He’s made a second career of negotiating on special assignments with dictators like Saddam, Castro and Kim Jong Il. He negotiated a truce in Sudan.
Most of all, he’s not a senator. Since 1961, 40 senators have run for president and their record is 0-40. A senator may win this year, but you’d be foolish to assume it.
It's my considered opinion that the media's preoccupation with Clinton and Obama -- still 10-some months before the first primary votes are cast and the better part of two years yet before the general election -- is going to have the same effect on those two candidates that all the early 2004 hype had on Howard Dean. They're going to mutually self-destruct before a single vote is cast. From such carnage, its entirely reasonable that somebody like Bill Richardson could emerge.
Of course, that's assuming that Al Gore keeps enjoying his meals and stays on the sidelines, buying carbon offsets.
A New Mexican ruling the world? Now there's a thought! Great to see you guys in Memphis, by the way.
Posted by: M | March 15, 2007 at 08:21 AM