Gee... Even if Hillarity beats him he can always go play for the Kansas City A's!

JustOneMan

I had agreed with the notion that he was the best qualified however upon re-examining it became clear that Hillary is the most qualified.

She actually knows what it is like to be president of the United States. One of the most jarring things that most newly elected Presidents is the adjustment to the post. The shock of the magnitude of the position is astronomical according to previous place holders. Hillary knows what it takes to be President.

That should have been "One of the most jarring things for.........."

"She actually knows what it is like to be president of the United States."

Zedd,

Hillary knows what it is to screw the president of the United States. No matter how much one talks of co-presidencies, the weight of the responsibility for the defense of the United States was on her husband's shoulder's alone - not hers.

Had Clinton suffered a stroke in office - as did Woodrow Wilson in 1919 - and had Hillary attempted to govern without allowing the vice president to take control (one could see this occurring, even though it didn't), then you could legitimately say she knew what it is to be president.

Whatever I think of them, it is the weight of responsibility that ages all of these guys in office the way it does. Hillary never had that weight on her shoulders.

Hillary knows what it is to screw the president of the United States.

And now she wants a chance to screw the people too...

Sorry, couldn't resist it.

As for her qualifications, they really can't compare. A term and a half in the Senate compared to ambassador to the UN, secretary of energy, 7 terms in congress and two terms as a governor? Even if you just add up the years of service, counting her time as first lady, Richardson has more than twice the time in office, and the variety of experience is something we haven't seen in a presidential candidate in ages. Maybe since Teddy Roosevelt.

Dave

Even if Hillarity beats him he can always go play for the Kansas City A's!

He's a bit old and he has a bad shoulder, which is why he's stuck with politics, I imagine. However, if he did go back to playing ball and Castro made a comeback we could have a real team.

Dave

Hillary knows what it is to screw the president of the United States.

I doubt it - otherwise why'd Bill turn to the fat chick?

...and if that's enough to justify a presidential run...

"Monica 08!"

Nobel prize nominations mean nothing anymore; f'chrissakes, someone's even nominated that fat pimply drug addict Rush Lardbottom for one. How low can you go? What next - Dick Cheney?

Nobel prize nominations never have meant anything; as with all of that type of thing, it's the win that counts.

I do not understand the point of this piece.

Bill Richardson is an okay guy. I met him when I lived in Santa Fe and he was a NM congressman.

But he doesn't have a chance--precisely because he is from New Mexico.

A fair number of voters think that New Mexico is part of Mexico (to be fair, it WAS, but has been a US state since 1912).

For that reason New Mexico Magazine used to have--and perhaps still has--a monthly column called "One of Our Fifty Is Missing", that included all the hilarious mistakes folks in the US make in regarding New Mexico (the 6th largest US state) as part of a foreign country.

Some uninformed person on blogcritics even made a similar mistake a while back.

So, Bill won't get anywhere because he will be seen by the majority of US voters as a Mexican who lives in Mexico.

Besides, the most qualified candidate the dems have is Al Gore.

He also has the advantage of having already been elected president of the US....

The point of this piece is to introduce Bill Richardson as a candidate to those who aren't familiar with him, and provide some links so that they can find out more about him. Same point as the Giuliani and Ron Paul pieces I wrote earlier and others in this series authored by myself and other participants.

I don't think that just being from New Mexico damns you as a candidate. There's a lot more to it than that. It's certainly a disadvantage, mainly because of the state's paltry number of electoral votes, but he is hispanic, and that's a big voting block and might offset any disadvantages.

And whether he can win or not, he has some good ideas to offer which other candidates might pick up on, and he'd make an excellent Vice Presidential choice as well.

Dave

Having good ideas and what--5 bucks, now?--will get you a coffee at Third World exploiter Starbucks.

It won't get you a presidential nomination--not with the number of rubes, boobs and tube addicts in the US.

ROTFLOL, MR-! Ah-someone just told me it's $6.25 around here.

While I don't really think a person's political/governmental resume really tells us much about his ability to be President (I mean, in terms of job experience, George H.W. Bush was as "qualified" a candidate as it gets), I like Bill Richardson. I like him better than either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. And when it comes time to pretend that the DC primary has any larger meaning whatsoever, I'm going to vote for him.

But I don't think he has a chance either. The Clinton/Obama thing is just too much star power to shine through.

The Obama thing I just don't understand. He's even less qualified than Clinton is. Should you get elected based solely on one good speech?

Dave

Dave,

Rubes, boobs and tube addicts.

Obama is like one of those pretend capuccini products boosted on the tube--all chemical foam.

He's a non-threatening pretend African American.

And he's addicted to cigarettes, so lots of rubes, boobs and tube addicts can identify with him.

Should you get elected based solely on one good speech?

Abraham Lincoln did.


But it's irrelevant, I'm telling you. Qualifications do not Presidents make.

Here I'd thought it was the series of Lincoln Douglas debates that got him elected, not a single speech...the infamous Gettysburg address was after he was President, so I wonder what speech you are talking about Michael?

Just so I could give it a read.

Rubes, boobs, and tube addicts are the only people stupid and easily manipulated enough to make any serious correlation between cigarettes and Obama's candidacy.

The Civil War is clearly not Michael's strong point.

And as far as that goes, he seems to believe that folks don't make "serious" correlations between themselves and folks they vote for.

They keep getting burned by the addicts: Clinton (sex, power), Bush (war, booze, drugs, power, deciding....) but that doesn't stop them from putting them in power, precisely because THEY are addicts, too.

D'oh, I was referring to the "A House Divided" speech.

It, and the Lincoln-Douglas debates, were actually in the 1858 Senate campaign, not the 1860 presidential campaign. But the "House Divided" speech was the one that articulated his views on slave laws and their effect on the union.

To my way of thinking, both Obama and Edwards are running for VP...and for that Obama could be very potent indeed.

One could only hope in vain for a general election between Hagel/Rudy and Biden/Obama.

A fantasy, I know...but one can Dream, eh?

the Tao of D'oh.

Thanks for clearing that up, Michael.

I had thought that the debates were the big thing that tossed Lincoln into major prominence, and spread familiarity with his abilities to the public.

The "House divided" speech is indeed good stuff, and I can see how one could say it cemented his place in the national consciousness at the time.

but we digress...

The only qualifications for becoming President of the US are being a US citizen, having LOTS of money to buy PR, dirty tricks specialists, spin doctors, & the rest of the scum, and being willing to be a whore to the big multinationals & sell out the very people you swear to serve & protect.

Good Lord, moonraven. I certainly don't believe you're making a serious correlation between people and the candidates they vote for.

And would you care to rebut me on what I said about Lincoln, or were you merely planning to suggest my ignorance on the subject without actually demonstrating it?

I think Lincoln was elected in spite of his stand on slavery--not because of it. He really represented the industrial power of the North.

But then, I am a political cynic.

Thanks, D'oh.

My main point, which I should have actually articulated, was that Lincoln had exactly the same amount of experience when elected President as Obama does now in elected office. Remember, Obama was an Illinois state senator for 8 years, plus his 2 years as a U.S. Senator; Lincoln had 8 years in the Illinois House of Representatives and a single 2-year term in the U.S. House of Representatives, and that was it.

So in terms of job experience, Obama is at least as qualified as Lincoln...

And I can certainly see that enough boobs, rubes and tube addicts voted for their own likeness in Bush to allow him to put him in the ballpark to steal 2 presidential elections.

Michael says - "So in terms of job experience, Obama is at least as qualified as Lincoln..."

Quoted for Truth

I think Lincoln was elected in spite of his stand on slavery--not because of it. He really represented the industrial power of the North.

You think that, based on what?

I figure that I'd best get to work early this cycle...

the d'oh of taos

Obama and Hillary--Which one is Fluffy and which one is Puffy? Zero substance. And even less on the Republican side.

These elections are getting to be a real embarrassment: Last time it was Tweedledee versus Tweedledum(b).

Of course Dum(b) turned out to really be Humpty Dumpty.

But that stuff happens on the other side of the mirror that narcissistic folks from the States spend their time in front of. (For the new century, a high-resolution flat screen....)

Michael:

I thought I made that clear: based on my being a political cynic.

But if you want to get into motivational analysis 150 years after the fact, I believe that slavery was a red herring--just like the WMDs or any other excuse--that the northern industrialists trotted out to make a grab for the agricultural production of the south--considering that the more powerful northern states had land fertilized with rocks.

Ultimately, hard to say, given that history is written by the winners--not the losers.

Oh troll...you know yer my Hero in many ways around here.

But I have to dissent on the latest...far better to vote for a dead person to register your dissent than to abstain from the process and just be part of the herd and not heard at all.

Could just be me.

For troll...

the Tao of D'oh.

like war I long for the (federal) election to which no one comes

You made it clear that you were a political cynic, but that's far different from providing some evidence to support your beliefs. Which is what I was actually hoping for when I asked "based on what?"

So, looking past the fact that by the time of Lincoln's election, slavery had been a major hot-button issue in U.S. politics for 40 years; that for the ten years between the Compromise of 1850 and Lincoln's election, it had been the dominant issue in U.S. politics; or that for the three years since the Dred Scott decision it had been almost the sole issue in U.S. politics...on what evidence do you base your suggestion that the slavery issue was irrelevant in Lincoln's election in 1860?

Michael, a lot of historians have argued that broader economic issues were bigger in the election of 1860 than slavery was. Even southerners were pretty sure slavery was going to have to go by that point, they just weren't sure how to do it.

But the entire country was in the middle of a serious recession. Southerners believed that northern banks were exploiting them and forcing them into bankruptcy and the loss of their land and property. Northern workers were losing their jobs and believed that southern Democrats were to blame for sucking massive funds out of the north to subsidize southern agriculture. None of this was entirely true, but the economic issues of the time went far beyond just slavery.

Dave

Yes, follow the money--or the lack of it--is never a bad plan for unraveling the balls of political bullshit.

Besides, if slavery REALLY had been such a big deal issue in the US, it would have been abolished years before.

Hell, in most of Latin America slavery was abolished when countries became independent--almost 50 years, on the average, before Lincoln's proclamation that supposedly led to the Civil War.

Michael, a lot of historians have argued that broader economic issues were bigger in the election of 1860 than slavery was.

Indeed they have. And a lot have also argued that slavery was THE key issue in all of American politics after Dred Scott v. Sanford (although some go further back to the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854). It was unquestionably the key issue in secession--which not even Southern historians argue anymore.

Even southerners were pretty sure slavery was going to have to go by that point, they just weren't sure how to do it.

I've read, heard, researched, and debated that argument many a time, and found little reason to support it. Certainly not among the slaveowners, who vocally and hysterically had no intention of ever giving up the institution.

But the entire country was in the middle of a serious recession. Southerners believed that northern banks were exploiting them and forcing them into bankruptcy and the loss of their land and property. Northern workers were losing their jobs and believed that southern Democrats were to blame for sucking massive funds out of the north to subsidize southern agriculture. None of this was entirely true, but the economic issues of the time went far beyond just slavery.

It went beyond slavery, but not FAR beyond slavery. Remember that with the Kansas-Nebraska act, Dred Scott, and the rise of the Republican Party (and even the Missouri Compromise) were about preservation of the socioeconomic balance between--not the northern and southern states, but the slave and free states. Some have argued that
"north" and "south" states are interchangeable terms with "free" and "slave" states but remember too that Dred Scott affirmed the rights of slavery in the American midwest -- and into territories, in that case the decidedly northern territories of Minnesota and Iowa.

I don't doubt the potence of economic factors in causing the rift that eventually broke out into civil war, Dave...but I do suggest that (1) slavery was the lens through which those factors tended to be viewed (because the divide was as much between free and slave territories as northern and southern ones), and (2) slavery remained the more--the most--controversial, divisive, and important issue in the buildup to war. There may be quite a few historians that disagree, but there ain't no shortage of those that agree, either.

Lincoln's proclamation that supposedly led to the Civil War.

Lincoln's ELECTION led to the Civil War. States seceded before he'd even assumed office, and the war broke out a scant seven weeks after he was inaugurated.

His "proclamation" (and I presume you mean the Emancipation Proclamation) came right smack dab in the middle of the war, it didn't cause it.

You know, moonraven, this whole argument came about because your statement that "The Civil War is clearly not Michael's strong point," which I took as a questioning of my intellect (and obviously as a questioning of my knowledge on the subject). But so far in the discussion here, you've made at least one serious factual blunder, a number of wholesale historical assumptions, and an absolutely incredible and narrowly conceived estimation - that slavery obviously wasn't THAT big a deal. (Even the most apologetic pro-Confederate historian wouldn't try to convince you that slavery wasn't a HUGE deal.) And you've done all of this without evincing any of it, although you do ride on the coattails of Dave's argument a bit and follow it up with platitudes and brief, nonspecific discussions of other countries.

Your initial comment implied that you have a much better historical foundation in the Civil War than I do. Where is it?

Yeah, well, that's no reason to shit your britches when I told you I adhered to the economic theory.

Especially, if you are aware of the arguments for that theory.

It's rather a moot point, as in the 2004 election the slave states "won". Something to be said for persistence, I suppose. Nixon thought so.

Uncle Tom's Cabin, after all, was a novel written by a liberal preacher's daughter from Connecticut.

When has the majority in the US ever been liberal?

I still do not believe you understand the dynamics of the Civil War. This cynic believes you to be naive. Your historical foundation, as you call it--since history I REPEAT is written by the winners--is not the issue here.

If I had intended to write The Emancipation Proclamation, I would have done so. Don't ASSUME anything.

Believe what you want. Certainly you've given me no reason to believe you understand the dynamics or anything else about the Civil War, so I don't suppose I can stop you from believing what you will.

If you had intended to write "election" would you have done that, too? If so, perhaps you can enlighten me on exactly what you meant when you said "proclamation."

Incidentally, just how did I ride on Dave's coattails when I proposed the economic theory in post 34 and Dave followed up on it in 38?

Arithmetic is not big with you either.

And I don't see that you have shown any big interest in the other countries in the hemisphere that abolished slavery sooner than the US, but here's a few:

Mexico (where I live) 1829
Chile 1821
Central America 1824
Haiti 1793
Venezuela 1821
Argentina (legal process began 1813, ratified 1861)
Uruguay 1842
Ecuador 1821

BTW: cynics are not big on platitudes--that's almost an oxymoronic concept.

MJW sez:

But so far in the discussion here, you've made at least one serious factual blunder, a number of wholesale historical assumptions, and an absolutely incredible and narrowly conceived estimation - that slavery obviously wasn't THAT big a deal. (Even the most apologetic pro-Confederate historian wouldn't try to convince you that slavery wasn't a HUGE deal.) And you've done all of this without evincing any of it, although you do ride on the coattails of Dave's argument a bit and follow it up with platitudes and brief, nonspecific discussions of other countries.

That's vintage moonraven.

Lots of generalizations, appeals to her own "superiority," heavy on the unsubstantiated opinion, and plenty of insults and ad hominems.

Very little substance.

If I had intended to write election, yes, I would have written it.

I have only been writing professionally since 1965. And I did not get my PhD from a box of Cracker Jacks. So you can stop condescending to me any time.

I am giving you permission to ASSUME that I what I write is what I intended--with the exception of typos.

Clavos:

Pissed in the box again.

A really substantial piss, too.

Perhaps I should have written "substantial"--so folks don't get confused and think I was complimenting...?

Incidentally, just how did I ride on Dave's coattails when I proposed the economic theory in post 34 and Dave followed up on it in 38?

You proposed the economic theory in #34 using vague generalities and no actual facts. Dave in #38 presented an actual, substantial argument. In #39, you added (and yes, I'm paraphrasing here), "Yeah! What he said!" That constitutes riding Dave's coattails.

Arithmetic is not big with you either.

Now this you did get right. Not a fan of arithmetic. I prefer reasoned discourse with substance, which apparently is not big with you.

And I don't see that you have shown any big interest in the other countries in the hemisphere that abolished slavery sooner than the US

You're right here, too. I haven't shown any interest in those other countries in the hemisphere that abolished slavery sooner than the U.S. Because that point is entirely irrelevant. How does internal policy in other countries dictate the internal political rifts in our country--especially in a period where we were officially isolationist? It's like saying, "Other countries have banned guns and the U.S. hasn't, so the gun ownership and restrictions must not be much of an issue in the U.S." How is knowing that Mexico abolished slavery in 1821 supposed to make me think that slavery was an unimportant issue in the U.S.?

If I had intended to write election, yes, I would have written it.

Great. Then perhaps you can enlighten me on enlighten me on exactly what you meant when you said "proclamation."

MJW,

You are pissing up a rope trying to dialog with Moonie.
Her reference to other "North American" Countries is solely based on her belief that we are no more significant than any of her little latin countries and she is just showing her demeaning of our country, her former one.

In fact, I would contend that she has nothing positive to say about Candidate Richardson, because of his views on Legal Immigration, which I'm surprised that Dave Nalle did not mention or reference.

She is writing off Richardson, as she believes the US writes off Mexico and all her other beloved Latin American countries.

IMO

Isolationist, huh?

Then what was the (1823) Monroe Doctrine all about? Or do you consider isolationism to be congruent with interventionism?

That was a rhetorical question; do not answer it.

I proposed the economic theory in post 34. Proposing a theory does NOT, so far as I know, obligate one to give a full argument and barrage of facts.

I have almost no interest whatsoever in US history, yet I am aware of the ramifications of that theory and have read a fair amount about it. However, I did NOT write an article about it for this thread that we are discussing.

And don't try to paint me as a Dave Nalle sidekick--clavos has that job. I did NOT even imply "Yeah, what he said", but made a general statement about economics being at the basic of political acts.

I believe it to be true in EVERY case.

If you don't like that belief--fine--but you are in no position to have a tantrum because I do.

Martin:

1. I said Bill Richardson was an okay guy. Sorry if that is not positive enough for you. My point was that he has no chance to win the presidencu--or even the nomination--because he is from New Mexico. Not only does New Mexico have absolutely no clout in an election--a good percentage of folks in the US do not even know it is a state.

2. I said nothing about his position on immigration, as that is not the overriding factor in his candidacy's not prevailing. It would not matter one whit what his position was or is.

3. Please indicate the reference I made to "other North American" countries. I mentioned Latin America, as well as other countries in the hemisphere.

4. The US DOES have less importance for me than countries in Latin America. That should be obvious from the fact that I do not choose to live in the US--and have not chosen to do so for almost 15 years. My being a US citizen does not obligate me to believe that the US is the center of the universe. Nor of the planet. It is precisely that kind of jingoistic thinking that has turned almost every other country on the planet against the US.

I suggest that you try analyzing the motives of someone else, as you do not seem to do very well with mine--you can't even quote what I write correctly.

"My point was that he has no chance to win the presidencu--or even the nomination--because he is from New Mexico."

Sorta like a guy for Arkansas a few years ago heh.

"It is precisely that kind of jingoistic thinking that has turned almost every other country on the planet against the US."

Having lived in various countries in Asia, I can tell you most exhibit this kind of "Jingoistic" thinking. It is perfectly natural to place more importance on the country you live in.

I proposed the economic theory in post 34. Proposing a theory does NOT, so far as I know, obligate one to give a full argument and barrage of facts.

Actually, you proposed the economic theory in post #27. I asked you to explain how you arrived at that theory in #31, and in #34 you re-stated your proposal of the economic theory in broader terms. My challenging your theory in #31 might be seen as obligating you to give a full argument, although you apparently didn't see it that way. So far, you've clearly felt no obligation to present facts or a reasoned argument.

I have almost no interest whatsoever in US history, yet I am aware of the ramifications of that theory and have read a fair amount about it. However, I did NOT write an article about it for this thread that we are discussing.

I didn't suggest you'd written the article. I suggested you had implied that my knowledge of US history was inferior to yours, although your posts since then have demonstrated just the opposite. It's a good thing you have almost no interest in U.S. history, as from all appearances you have almost no knowledge of it either. (You certainly have shown complete ignorance of the Monroe Doctrine, but I'll honor your request to let that one slip by.)

And don't try to paint me as a Dave Nalle sidekick--clavos has that job. I did NOT even imply "Yeah, what he said", but made a general statement about economics being at the basic of political acts.

I didn't suggest you were a Dave Nalle sidekick. It's fairly obvious you're not. But yes, you absolutely implied "Yeah, what he said." He made points and examples about the economic situation between north and south, and you followed that up with "Yes, follow the money--or the lack of it--is never a bad plan for unraveling the balls of political bullshit." Not being a sidekick doesn't mean you can't use his reasoning to your advantage.

I believe it to be true in EVERY case.

Well, I believe the world is not so black-and-white (or, for that matter, black-and-white at all). The idea that there is any one root cause of all political events is, to my mind, a vast oversimplification of the way people work.

But even so, you're perfectly free to follow the Marxian interpretation of history and politics that you're talking about here. I don't object to that in principle. I just ask you to provide logic, reason, and facts to support that interpretation. Frankly, you have so far pointedly refused to offer any of those things.

If you don't like that belief--fine--but you are in no position to have a tantrum because I do.

Again, I really have no idea how you get this idea that I'm having a tantrum because I've asked you to defend your statements. I can only guess that it's some attempt to discredit me by casting me as emotional and irrational.

Moonraven,

I've got your number and you know it.
You sit on your computer in Mexico (linked through China? ;-) ) and converse with Americans all day long. You either love us or you hate us or you just love to hate us.
You antagonism is more enjoyable to you than your beliefs and your beliefs bore even you to death. Arguing them, is your excitement.

If I wasn't mistaken, I'd even venture to guess you might even be Dave Nalle under another phony name as you seem to love ridiculing other people's beliefs, ideas and postings as much as he does.

Apparently the little donkeys you play with in your backyard are not as much fun as the asses you play with in America (excuse me the US).

And you betch your sweet arse this election will be more about immigration this time than any other issue, which is exactly why Bill Richardson is running now.

IMO

"Again, I really have no idea how you get this idea that I'm having a tantrum because I've asked you to defend your statements. I can only guess that it's some attempt to discredit me by casting me as emotional and irrational."

It's a typical female chauvinists ploy copied from numerous manipulation techniques used by male chauvinists to decry women as being hysterical or emotional. She uses this technique quite well to get weak willed intellectual men to crap their pants and defend themselves even further. All the while she laughs from behind the screen with dots wondering when the next male hormonal pill will kick in....

And DAVE VOXPOP NALLE:

Why did you gloss over Richardson's record on Immmigration and Illegal Immigration?

That's what he will win this election on and where he will secure votes within the Republican Parties constituency.

* Declared state of emergency on Mexican border

* Path to legalization if illegals pay taxes & learn English

* Reduce immigration; no automatic citizenship for kids

Martin,

Path to legalization if illegals pay taxes & learn English

I just accessed his site and read through his "path to legalization" policy, because I emphatically think the illegals should NOT be allowed to become citizens, although they should be allowed to stay as tax-paying guest workers for a specific length of time.

As indicated on his site, Governor Richardson does not advocate citizenship.

I like a lot of what he's said so far.

Martin, I didn't gloss over it. I went into as much depth on it as on any of the other aspects of his record - remember, this is just an introductory article - to wit I wrote:

"For example he supports a pathway to citizenship for all illegal immigrants and a guarantee of public services for illegals."

Which is true. You're sadly mistaken if you think he's an anti-immigration hardliner.

And Clavos, what it says on his site today and his past statements don't exactly match up.

I hate to even use this material, but it's so convenient - check out the links provided by this blatant white supremacist website to prior actions by Richardson which clearly indicate a very pro-immigrant stance. The site may be run by whackos, but their links are to legit news stories for the most part, and boy do they hate Richardson and his little brown buddies.

Dave

Moongal: "I do not understand the point of this piece."

As I mentioned elsewhere:

It's meant to distract from current controversies about LIES, FAKE NAMES, DELETED COMMENTS, AND COVERUPS.

It's like Nalle/Vox is feeling SO GUILTY that he's gotta pop into every thread and say the equivalent of "Hi everybody! Anybody want some candy?"

Either that, or he's posting some EXTREMELY well-researched, well-balanced, semi-non-partisan new essay of importance to the universe in order to distract from his NEW ROLE as A DECEPTIVE LYING FRAUD.

Like he gives a fuck about Richardson vs Hillary.

======

Nalle on Vox: "I've seen figures similar to the ones Vox quotes."

Vox on Nalle: "Of the characters in The Magnificent Seven, the picture unquestionably looks most like the Robert Vaughn character."

Like he gives a fuck about Richardson vs Hillary.

Right now I see a fairly real possibility that I might have to consider voting for a Democrat in the next election. If that happens I'd like it to be someone like Richardson or Bayh and not Hillary. Is that such a bad thing?

Dave

"Right now I see a fairly real possibility that I might have to consider voting for a Democrat in the next election.

Dave."

Vox Populi Nalle is tempted to go that route too, no doubt.

Martin--I fail to see why you have apparently spent so much time figuring out what I do all day.

I have absolutely NO interest in you.

Very fishy.

Shark:

Yes, I know it was a distraction. That's why I asked--apparently too subtlely--what the point of the article was. Thanks for pointing it out!

It also explains the pile on of personal attackers I have had to put up with since I pointed out the obvious.

New Mexico is one of the few states I can still tolerate spending some time in--because although there are more anglos then there were in 1984 when I moved there--there is still a strong multicultural ambience.

Precisely for that multicultural identity, it has never been acknowledged by the rest of the folks in the US as being part of the group. Although it's a big state, there are still less than 2 million people--and around 30% live in Albuquerque. And its piddling 5 electoral votes based on that tiny population do not exactly make it a major player in the presidential elections.

Arkansas, with its hillbilly image, is not at all germane to the way New Mexico is perceived. Hillbillies are seen to be mainstream, okay folks--especially by RED STATE VOTERS.

New Mexico is perceived to be populated by WAY too many Mexicans and Native Americans to be acceptable. The fact that the eastern half of the state is populated with professional shitkickers from equally shitkicker east Texas is conveniently forgotten about because most folks look for ways to DISQUALIFY candidates, not qualify them.

Moonraven,

Though I see your point, I do have to say you aren't looking at this the way that people like myself do (supporters of Richardson). It isn't that he is bringing New Mexico to the table, its that he is bringing the latino vote to the table. The latino vote represents 18% of the vote. It also means that he has a good chance of changing Texas and Florida from Red to Blue. The latino vote also tends to trend slightly Republican, I feel he could move that trend significantly to the Blue. So don't think in terms of New Mexico think in terms of all states with a strong latino presence.

New Mexico is one of the few states I can still tolerate spending some time in--because although there are more anglos then there were in 1984 when I moved there--there is still a strong multicultural ambience.

Finally something MR and I can agree on. NM is indeed a lovely state, and the multicultural level is just right. It has the charm of Mexico without the full dose of corruption and degradation.

Dave

Nalle: "Right now I see a fairly real possibility that I might have to consider voting for a Democrat in the next election. If that happens I'd like it to be someone like Richardson or Bayh and not Hillary. Is that such a bad thing?"

It wouldn't if we could trust your word.

Vox on Nalle: "Of the characters in The Magnificent Seven, the picture unquestionably looks most like the Robert Vaughn character."

Nalle on Vox: "I've seen figures similar to the ones Vox quotes."

Vox on links HE provided (as Nalle): "The claim that this article is 'GOP spin' is an interesting one, since it seems to be based on reports direct from Iraqis inside Iraq if you follow the links."

Charles,

You are a new person on this site, I believe.

So you are probably not aware that I lived in New Mexico for 10 years before moving to Mexico late in 1993. Mexico is my home--and although Dave runs it down by talking about corruption (Enron, Halliburton and others are of course really Mexican-based companies, per Dave) and degradation (whatever degradation means to someone like Dave is not clear)--and from my village (the birthplace of Zapata) I can see all the ins and outs of why folks feel forced to go to the States to survive. Since one of the things I do here is produce campesino theater, one might even say Ihave some expertise in the area.

So no one is more interested in seeing "latinos" (hate that word, by the way, and have written several articles decrying its completely unacceptable term for LATIN AMERICANS) increase their voice in an "anglo-dominant" political context than I am.

That increase, translated into power, might even drop the numbers on Latin Americans being murdered by white racists. Clearly, I am all for that. That power might also start bringing the reality of abuses against undocumented migrants out into the open and clamping down on all of them.

Might. Because the US is a violentally racist society.

Which is all the more reason, from MY perspective, for Richardson NOT to run for president. He is not going to be nominated and he is not going to win--because his state has no electoral clout. I am not even sure that he would be picked as VP--unless whoever the presidential candidate turns out to be is shown by the polls to be an absolute shoe-in.

So, why waste time promoting a candidate like Richardson?

Why not suggest that Bill spend his time promoting a candidate of Mexican antecedents from a big state like California--which has major electoral clout and a lot more voters of Latin American?

Some common sense never hurt--even in politics.

"Because the US is a violently racist society."

Ah, so that's why I keep seeing lynch mobs and KKK rallies here. I just thought those people got together for BBQ.

Moonraven,

I apologize if I offended you by the term latino. I also didn't mean to step into the argument you are having with Dave.

I'm a resident of New Mexico myself for 10 years now, and having seen the things that Bill Richardson has done for this state I believe in his campaign for the presidency.

Ok, I was trying to understand exactly what you are saying. To summarize you (I apologize if I get this wrong) you think the U.S. is too racist to nominate a Hispanic presidential candidate so why bother having one run and why bother supporting one that is running. With all due respect, that is precisely the kind of cynicism that keeps America from nominating a minority candidate (especially one that is as qualified as Bill Richardson).

Charles

Wrong, Charles!

What I said was what I said, and I am going to rephrase it:

1. Bill has zero chance to win--PRIMARILY not because he is a "latino", but because he is from New Mexico.

2. If he were from California, I would say: RUN, and LET THE RACISTS EAT YOUR DUST!

3. Because he has no chance but fundamentally has some influence in the party, he should--in the name of all "latinos" (still hate the word)--put his EGO in his pants pocket and support someone from a BIG state like California or Texas which has enough voters--aka electoral college votes--to have a chance.

Now, Charles, I am NOT going to say this again. If you didn't get it this time, it's because you don't want to.

PS: If you harp on Dave again, I will think you are a ringer.

MR seems to have missed the point that it doesn't look like any other qualified latinos are going to run.

And Charles, on this one issue, my only argument with MR is that I think that it IS possible for a candidate from a smaller state to win if he's an appealing enough candidate, and I think having the latino constituency to draw on more than outweighs being from a small state.

Think of it this way. If the latino population of the US were a state, it would be bigger than California and almost as big as California and New York combined. That's a BETTER place to come from than a mere state.

Dave

And so there is zero room for doubt, Charles: the candidate from the BIG state should be of Mexican antecendents.

Dave,

Has it occurred to you to think about the number of roobs, bubes and tube addicts (the biggest percentage of the electorate) who would immediately shout down a Richardson nomination based on the fact that he is not a US citizen because he is from New Mexico?

It sure did to this bird. I have seen it happen--over and over and over again.

And Dave, what makes you so sure that no other "latino" candidates are going to run?

The first primary, if I remember correctly, is sometime NEXT year.

What it comes down to, Dave, is that one of us is going to be right on this, and one of us is going to be wrong.

Either Richardson will get the nomination, or he won't.

Either another "latino" candidate will run, or he won't.

Trying to bully me by saying that I "missed the point", is not going to change that.

And what if the republicans decide to put that scumbag Gonzalez on their ticket as VP?

Fastest way I can think of to kill the "latino" chances....

Has it occurred to you to think about the number of roobs, bubes and tube addicts (the biggest percentage of the electorate) who would immediately shout down a Richardson nomination based on the fact that he is not a US citizen because he is from New Mexico?

You may have a point, but I don't think our population is generally that stupid. Plus he does have a nice anglo-sounding name. More likely the furor over illegal immigration would count against him just because of his hispanic ancestry, even though he's only a quarter Mexican.


And Dave, what makes you so sure that no other "latino" candidates are going to run?

I've seen not even the slightest hint of any intending to do so. The last promising one was Henry Cisneros and he pretty much screwed the pooch. If there are potential candidates out there they don't even have Richardson's level of recognition and that will make it damned hard to run.

What it comes down to, Dave, is that one of us is going to be right on this, and one of us is going to be wrong.

Oh, I admit that I'm probably wrong and that Richardson is a long-shot. But I think it's worth it for him to run anyway. He might surprise us, and even if he just does his best he'll add a good voice to the babble at the debates, and he would make a fine VP.

Trying to bully me by saying that I "missed the point", is not going to change that.

You're way too quick to call people names like 'bully' and 'liar'. If you pull those names out so cheaply you might consider that you aren't really using them correctly.

And what if the republicans decide to put that scumbag Gonzalez on their ticket as VP?

Now who the hell would vote for him? More likely would be Jeb Bush with his hispanic wife.

Dave

There will be a lot of water passing under the bridge before the next US president is sworn in. Two years of it.

The US population IS that stupid. If they were not, Bush would not have had enough votes so that stealing the election in each case really came down to one state. And, although the election in both cases in New Mexico was its usual dirty Dead Can Vote (and Dance) self, New Mexico was not The Decider.

The fact that Richardson is only a quarter Mexican and has an "anglo" name would still make him a shotgun target in the next state over, Arizona.

Dave, I call you a bully and a liar because you have provided plenty of hard evidence that those are true characterizations of you.

Gonzalez as a VP candidate could happen--if Bush and Cheney are not impeached as part of a deal to give the dems a turn in the Oval Office (not at all unlikely) he would kill two birds with one stone: Be a "token" and kill any immigration reform package.

moonraven sez:

Mexico is my home--and although Dave runs it down by talking about corruption

What's this, a new-found pride in your place of residence?

moonraven on Mexico:

Tax revenues? You've got to be kidding. The budget has been kept from collapsing the past several years by SUPPOSEDLY (there is no transparency regarding revenues here) injecting ALL of the windfall petroleum profits. Nobody knows--except that they did not go into Pemex infrastructure. Or anyplace else where they might be traced. We are talking 20 billion dollars in the past 2 years alone. In Venezuela, one may not like where the windfall profits have gone--but the process has been transparent. Here in Foxilandia, hah!

and:

one of the largest states (Oaxaca) has become beyond ungovernable due to the aftermath of an election fraud and imposition of the PRI candidate for governor there in Dec. 2004 (the mirror of what is now happening throughout the nation)

And who could forget this gem:

Mexico is corrupt as hell--although not the issue on this forum--but "federales"?

All of the above are from just one thread.

Oh, and Charles:

As a bona fide Mexican citizen (as opposed to merely a Gringa living in Mexico), I can tell you that, moonraven's sensibilities notwithstanding, there is nothing racist or even wrong in referring to Latin Americans as Latinos.

Everyone,

I have obviously stepped into the vipers den. I tried to be very nice and diplomatic. I tried to not be condescending or insulting but it seems I've failed. Moonraven, I apologize for offending you with everything I said. I didn't come to argue just to add a few comments and get clarification of yours.

Thank you

By the way if you go to the Who We Are section you will see who I really am. I don't hide behind pseudonyms...

Bye

Charles, thanks for coming by, and I think it's great that you're working to develop grassroot support for Richardson. I think there's a lot more potential to his campaign than people may realize.

Don't let the vituperative environment here discourage you. People are passionate, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Dave

note from a 3rd district troll - word around the iron pool at Ojo Caliente is that the Gov is a petulant little Caesar with a penchant for skirts that would make Clinton blush...he might want to get some damage control going on the home front

...but there really is a difference between him and Hillary - he has a belly button

1st, Dave...

Thanks for the comments. I'm not necessarily discouraged just surprised and winded. I had tried to just add some comments and ended up getting slapped. But no problem...

2nd Troll...

These "Rumors" have been around for a long time and none of them have been proven true. Richardson has survived 7 elections as Congressman, 2 US Senate confirmations and 2 Gubernatorial elections without any evidence of these rumors coming out (and trust me with some of the Republicans he was up against it would have come out if there was anything). Troll if you have the evidence I would like to see it because I haven't seen any. Also you only need damage control when there is actual damage.

Charles

just repeating what I heard at the pools last week...if there is any real evidence concerning the skirts rumors then I'm sure that it will show up in the course of a national campaign

keep in mind that I've been in the third district for thirty years - met and voted for the man when he went to Congress

(Charles - the point of my comments was to alert you that the 'swift boating' has already begun...but I guess you knew that already)

Charles,

Monikers are standard fare on these comments threads. If you had not just shown up to shill for your candidate you would be aware that I originally posted under my real name on this site.

Frankly, if this is your standard MO, you are doing more harm to your candidate than good.

As for my newfound love for my country of residence--one can be critical about one's country of preference. In fact anyone who is not critical about his or her country is a zombie--and its you zombies that have allowed for the complete erosion of civil rights in the US.

I love Mexico--just don't agree with the dwarf who created the PAN version of a golpe de estado to take the power. I fail to see that it's any of clavos' business.

As from clavos, I don't see that he is doing anythng with his Mexican citizenship, so his comments are 100% bogus. [Personal attack deleted]

"As from clavos, I don't see that he is doing anythng with his Mexican citizenship, so his comments are 100% bogus. [Personal attack deleted]."

Interesting quote from someone who complains about bullying so often.

[As I have already said, the comments policy is now being applied to you political commenters. The laissez faire experiment has clearly failed as none of you seem to maintain basic civil discourse. Ergo, moonraven's insult, Clavos' response and the above have all been edited or deleted as required. Thank you. The Comments Editor]

"Don't let the vituperative environment here discourage you."
- Vox Populi

This from the same guy who calls anyone who disagrees with him a "moron" or a "dumbass."

Not just anyone, MCH. The world is full of morons and dumbasses. You can't blame me for pointing them out the way you like to point out 'chickenhawks'.

Dave

Even by the standards of the BC Politics threads, this one has reached spectacular new levels of childishness.

I just wanted to mention that New Mexico has been part of the United States since the Mexican War, during James K. Polk's Presidency.

It's been part of the United States just as long as Calfiornia, and longer than Texas.

It just wasn't admitted to the Union until 1912 because before then, Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah were 'too full of Indians and Catholics to be trusted with the vote,' as one of my professors said.

I believe I indicated the date of its statehood.

Since I live in Mexico you can be very sure I am fully aware of the facts surrounding the US invasion of Mexico and its outcome.

Mexican War, Iraq War--the US governments LOVE euphemisms. Invasions. Interventions.

I do love the Mexican war of 1847l. We invaded Mexico, conquered it, and decided we didn't like it and then forced the Mexican government to take it back over their own objecttions, while keeping all the good parts. Something so pure and opportunistic about it. Really refreshing.

Dave

Since I live in Mexico you can be very sure I am fully aware of the facts surrounding the US invasion of Mexico and its outcome.

Why does living in Mexico make it a certainty that you know what happened there 100 years before you were born? Just curious.

Mjw,

She just likes to remind us at every opportunity how noble she is because she lives in a jacal (shack) with a campesino family.

"I do love the Mexican war of 1847l. We invaded Mexico, conquered it, and decided we didn't like it and then forced the Mexican government to take it back over their own objecttions, while keeping all the good parts. Something so pure and opportunistic about it. Really refreshing."
- Dave (Vox Populi) Nalle

Yeah, wars are really "pure and refreshing," eh Nalle/Populi...as long as SOMEONE ELSE has to fight them...

Sarcasm, as usual, completely lost on MCH.

But I sure would like to hear your theory on how I could have volunteered to fight in a war which took place 160 years ago.

Dave

Someone else will have to come up with a theory for you volunteering to fight in a war at any time, Nalle/Populi. I don't deal in fantasies for phonies.

This is all very true about Bill Richardson..... Trust me i know. He is a wonderful govener. He protects everyone in this comunity!

REMOCRACY: An open letter to "Merck-y" Governor Bill Richardson

Item: New Mexico is on the verge of becoming the latest state to require sixth-grade girls to be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted virus that can cause cervical cancer, a spokesman for the governor said Monday.

"It's a public health issue, and I believe it's an important step," Richardson said Monday. "New Mexico has always been progressive on these issues. ...We've got to find ways for young women to be protected."

While federal regulators have approved the vaccine, the issue of making it a requirement for girls has been surrounded by controversy.

Merck & Co., the vaccine's maker, said last month that it would suspend a behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign to get states to require it for school-age girls because of pressure from parents and medical groups.

from The Washington Times

---

Item: John Edwards said Thursday that his wife is now battling an
incurable reappearance of cancer but vowed to continue his second bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a rival for the nomination, said he and his wife offered their prayers, and in a telephone call to The Associated Press, said: "If there is one message here, it should be that we should all redouble our efforts to lick that deadly disease."

from Yahoo News

---

Dear Governor Richardson,

These are noble words indeed from a man who, as Secretary of Energy, was content to sit back during the botched attempt to hang serious national security problems at LANL that have continued to this day on a Chinese-American scientist named Wen Ho Lee. I recall that Judge Parker felt it was necessary to issue a public apology for that fiasco. Ever the opportunist, we now see that you have decided to jump on the cancer bandwagon despite the fact that the University of New Mexico is still stone-walling the legitimate development of the vitaletheine immune modulator technology fraudulently discredited and co-opted by UNM, its former licensee, Floyd E. Taub, and/or the USPTO.

If you, Governor Richardson, are truly as concerned as you claim, Perhaps you will immediately look into the many murky reasons why this non-toxic method of stimulating the immune system, to treat not only cancer but an entire range of immune and regulatory diseases, has languished under the auspices of UNM for nearly the entire patent life of these scientifically-published compounds. Is your publically demonstrated resolve firm enough to actually get you out of bed with Merck and begin protecting and promoting the health and livelihoods
of the citizens you allegedly serve? Time will tell, but if you do
decide to expedite the development of this cancer treatment for the
"surviving" Americans who funded the initial research through an NIH
grant, you might just be able to pull off your bid for the presidency.
All you have to do is pick up the phone and tell UNM to honestly
develop the authentic discoveries or honor its contract with the Inventors as per its 1983 Patent Policy and return the undeveloped technology to researchers Galen Knight and Terence Scallen at no additional cost to these inventors.

The inventors can take it from there, and you, Governor Richardson, can take the credit for making it finally happen. Who knows, once cancer has been vanquished, perhaps as President you could then do something about the cancer of political corruption that prevents good things like cures for cancer from being developed in a timely manner in our home state of New Mexico, to the great benefit of the rest of the nation. DEmocracy obviously isn't working any more. Perhaps we need some REmocracy for a change, as in REaffirming, REestablishing,
and REvitalizing our political system!

Sincerely,

Kristofer D. Dale