Radiotony posted a thoughtful list of reasons why Bill Richardson would make a poor VP choice. I disagree. Here's his cons and my pros for Richardson as VP (I also think Clark would make a good choice). What do you all think?
"has said he doesn't want it"
Means nothing. It would be interesting to see what percentage of VPs once said they didn't want it. And it's not all about the primary. Richardson could have other reasons related to his current position, etc. My feeling is that Richardson would take the position if offered. He's playing coy.
"he was at the Energy Dept. during a time period when numerous nuclear secrets were leaked to American enemies, according to a Senate Intelligence Committee report in 1999"
This is your strongest point, most likely, and it's certainly the line on why not to want Richardson for VP. But I don't really think that either our base or swing voters will care. That's a line that the wingnuts will go for, but not voters who matter.
"Richardson didn't forward any meaningful energy legislation to hold the automobile industry to increase gas mileage in cars, promote alternative energy like solar or wind to make the country energy self-sufficient"
Kerry is strong enough on the environment. This won't matter.
"New Mexico only has five Electoral College votes so it isn't a very strategic choice"
Here is where we really disagree. I think Richardson will make a significant difference--not just in New Mexico, but in Arizona certainly, and, I believe, through out the midwest and to some extent in Florida. I disagree with your statement to the effect that Hispanics won't be swayed by Richardson. Ethnicity does matter. Richardson's appeal is not limited to a state or region. It cuts across lines and will send a powerful signal to Hispanics all across the board.
It's not just about ethinicity, either. Richardson's is a charming, endlessly positive, upbeat, good-humored man. His personality balances Kerry's quite well.
He was nominated for the Nobel peace prize (twice if my memory serves me).
He has lots of foreign policy experience. With his open-heartedness and modesty, I think that he will make a fine diplomat (obviously a big part of being a VP -- nevermind Cheney).
Richardson will send a powerful message to Hispanic voters and the liberal base. Personally, he is my first choice. My second pick would be Clark.
My two cents. What are your pros and cons about Richardson as VP?