Can Richardson win? Well this page and ad should help...

We all know Gov. Richardson has the best resume and the most foreign experience. But the question has always been, is he well known enough. Can he WIN?

Well I recommend everyone here at DK read this page about Iraq policy:

here

and also take a look at this great ad:

http://www.youtube.com/...

Reaching across a wall might not sit too well with some here, but the American people do want someone who can fix this mess we have in Iraq and the middle east. And Richardson is clearly the best suited for that.

I really like Obama. Smart man. I really like Edwards. Smart man also.
I would vote for either of them and be happy. Heck, I will vote for Clinton and be happy too. A woman as president would be a great thing. But Richardson really should get a good long look from not only the people here, but the people across American.

Dang we have a lot of good people running this year. Just goes to show what happens when Republicans have crappy people in office for 8 years and then have crappy people running to replace them...the Democrats can taste blood in the water and the best come out to fight and set the country back on the proper footing.

g

•  here's hoping

  the debates turn the conversation around progressive issues and options -- not personal attacks. We do have a lot of good people running this year -- people with different points of view (all of them better than the same-old neocon shoot and deny).

  by musicsleuth on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 12:29:01 PM PDT

  •  I'd be surprised

    if our field resorted to personal attacks.

    by ThunderHawk13 on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 02:06:18 PM PDT

•  Richardson is a good man.

  I'm not too sure he's got the political support to make it across the finish line, but he is definitely worth considering.

  I don't think its realistic to think we can get all troops out in a year and then start negotiating. I think he would have to break that promise immediately upon taking office. I'm not saying hes dishonest, but to me, its unrealistic. Once we start to leave, the situation is going to be even more chaotic than it is now, and we will have to sort through it. There wont be a government to negotiate with. There will be factions with scores to settle and oil to grab.

  We are going to have to let them fight it out until they beg us to intervene.

  by brooklynbadboy on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 12:32:08 PM PDT

  •  Richardson's plan is more than workable

    Espeacially since we've already identified those we need to negotiate with.

    They are:

    The Kurds, the Sunni Shieks, and specific leaders of southern Iraqi Shia militia, who reject both the leadership of al Sadr (and hence Malaki) and overatures from Iran.

    There needs to be a restructuring of the Iraqi constitution (promised before the current constitution was ever ratified) and local government needs to be instituted.

    None of which is even being pursued by the current administrtion, and all of which is possible to pursue even as we begin to bring our troops home.

    by jfhubbard on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 12:45:28 PM PDT

    •  What about sovereignty?

      I don't see what incentive the Shia have to negotiate when their people are being blown up by Sunni militants the Sheiks cant control. I suppose they figure they are better off with the way things are right now, so that when the Americans leave, they can subjugate the Sunni with an iron fist. Thats how they intend to bring peace: Saddam style.

      What STICK or CARROT do the Americans have to offer?

      by brooklynbadboy on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 01:04:32 PM PDT

      •  Plenty of reason for all parties to be involved

        Not all Shia are represented by al-Sadr mindset; in fact the majority of them aren't-- which is why al-Sadr's infleunce is limited to a certain region and gets weaker the further south from Bagdahd you get.

        And, just as Sadr doesn't represent the majority of Shia, neither do the Sunni attackers in Bagdahd represent the majority of Iraqi Sunni.

        The President's current strategy is reversed from what should be going on; he focuses on Bagdahd, and hopes to fix the rest of the nation from Bagdahd outwards.

        Really, our interests, and the interests of the Shia and the Kurds should be much more focused on Al Anbar, which is the primary route through which the Sunni attacks have thier weapons routed to them. If Anbar is solved, and the leadership among the Shia is shifted from Sadr loyalists, the violence in Bagdahd will dry up.

        Dealing with Al Anbar is also of strong interest to the Kurds, because that zone is right along thier border. They have a strong interest in seeing that the Sunni/Shia conflict is ended, so that the Saudi's and with them the Arab League don't get involved in supporting the Sunnis against the Shia, as has already been intimated to be thier plan should the US withdraw to let the Sunni and Shia fight it out.

        The table is pretty fairly set for a conferance of some sort to be held that brings together the right parties, which is what I've heard Richardson suggest. Such a conference has a strong chance of working; in fact it's the best alternative available.

        by jfhubbard on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 03:21:46 PM PDT

        •  well said.

          by brooklynbadboy on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 03:38:06 PM PDT

  •  Who ever said negotiate after?

    by pipsorcle on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 01:09:39 PM PDT

    •  Well he does say in the ad:

      "We can help heal Iraq by bringing our troops home within a year. Our presence there isn't helping. Only then can the hard diplomatic work really begin"

      I don't agree, however, with brooklynbadboy's interpretation of that comment to mean "Don't start negotiating until after all the troops are out."

      by Feanor on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 02:07:17 PM PDT

•  He's got my vote

  in a bag

  by Romaniac on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 12:36:07 PM PDT

•  It will be a lot easier...

  in the general election to have a Democratic candidate not from NY or IL (strong blue states).  And I would say given the trend in the mountain west and southwest, I like Richardson better than Edwards for winning the general election.

  WINNING THE GENERAL ELECTION...THAT IS ALL THAT MATTERS for me

  Given Obama's relative lack of experience, I still see him as a great running mate, helps (at least does not hurt) in the mid-west and hopefully excite the base.

  by dvogel001 on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 12:38:21 PM PDT

  •  I think Obama is better suited to a VP slot too

    Which will give him the experience he needs to win a general election in 2016.

    by jfhubbard on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 12:47:17 PM PDT

    •  I agree completely n/t

      by bleeding blue on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 02:06:00 PM PDT

•  Gov. Richardson is the real deal....

  No individual in the field can match his ability in foreign policy. He brings instant credibility to the table in that arena.

  Right now is much ado about money and poll numbers but I'm anxiously awaiting the debates.

  by Morgan Sandlin on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 12:39:30 PM PDT

  •  Richardson was also Sec. of Energy

    Something tells me that experience just might come in handy.

    by bleeding blue on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 02:10:11 PM PDT

•  I like BR's resume too but...

  Richardson was on Tweety's show yesterday. The topic was VT, guns, etc, and unfortunately Richardson didn't make a good impression. IMO he was long-winded but content lacking. I hope he'll have another kick at the can before all's said and done.

  by Heimyankel on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 12:40:59 PM PDT

  •  He was good on the Daily Show I thought

    Watch here.

    by candace in sonoma on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 02:25:13 PM PDT

•  I like his Iraq policy but

  I'm not so sure about his positions on trade or health care reform.

  I'm really looking forward to the debates when we can hopefully get into more of the substance on a variety of issues.

  by Feanor on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 12:58:50 PM PDT

•  It's sure a great metaphor for the 2008 election

  They build walls; we reach across them.

  by pdt on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 01:02:47 PM PDT

  •  Richardson Makes Cut For Top Echelon...

    Richardson is part of the front pack of candidates: Clinton, Obama, Edwards & Richarsdson that separated themselves from the rest of the pack.

    The more exposure Richardson gets the more Dem voters will like him

    by frandor55 on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 01:31:00 PM PDT

    •  exactly frandor

      He needs more exposure!

      by s marie on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 01:32:20 PM PDT

•  Thanks for this diary tg

  We definitely need to hear more about Richardson. I heard him speak on NPR a little while back and he did a wonderful job. As for the debates, I can't wait as well.

  by s marie on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 01:31:09 PM PDT

•  Everyone's saying the same thing.

  We'd love to see this guy get in, but it is all too unlikely that he can make it.

  I hope the next Democratic administrations sees what an asset he would be and offers him a cabinet position.

  So hard to pessimistic.

  by makemyday9 on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 02:13:22 PM PDT