Follow GOVERNING on:
TwitterFacebookLinkedIn

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Web
Ballot Box

May 2010

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          

« Nothing Is Spookier Than Legislative Malfeasance | Main | Good Economic News for Governors »

April 04, 2008

Bill Richardson: The High-Risk, High-Reward Running Mate

posted by Josh Goodman

Billrichardson2_2 Bill Richardson would make a perfect running mate, if he weren't so imperfect.

Sure, you could make that statement about anyone, but, given the renewed buzz surrounding Richardson since his endorsement of Barack Obama, it's worth considering the New Mexico governor's many strengths and many weaknesses.

For a bunch of reasons, Richardson matches up well with Obama as a ticket mate (I'm guessing a Clinton-Richardson ticket is out of the question at this point).

Consider Obama's running mate dilemma. He could choose a Washington veteran, but what about that "change" message? He could choose an outsider, but doesn't he need someone with experience? Enter Richardson, the outsider with experience.

Richardson has his famous resume: Congress, the U.N. and the Department of Energy. But he's also spent the last 5+ years as a governor and governors, almost by definition, are outsiders.

If Obama is concerned that his problems with Hispanics will linger, Richardson may be the answer. Plus, New Mexico is a pure swing state (it went for Gore in 2000 and Bush in 2004) and Richardson is popular enough back home to win it for Obama.

In sum, Richardson helps Obama promote broad campaign themes, court a key demographic group and carry a specific swing state. Who else could do all that?

But there are also lots of problems with Richardson as a running mate. Richardson's long resume means he has a long record to criticize. Remember the Wen Ho Lee scandal and those missing hard drives at Los Alamos?

He also could unsettle some Democrats. Richardson, who cut taxes as governor, declared during the campaign, "Democrats, whenever we have a solution, we want to tax." He also said that homosexuality is a choice. (UPDATE: An e-mailer points out that Richardson retracted this statement. He later said he had misunderstood the question.)

Perhaps more importantly, Richardson has earned the dreaded "gaffe-prone" label -- and not without reason. Let me give you just one example.

I was reporting on state water policy several months ago and one of the topics I covered was the Great Lakes Compact, a deal between U.S. states and Canadian provinces to prevent water from the lakes from being diverted outside the region.

The compact requires legislative approval, which had stalled in several states until it received new life from (among other things) a comment by Richardson. When discussing national water policy, he remarked, "States like Wisconsin are awash in water."

That statement stoked fears that dry states want to steal water from the Great Lakes. The Toledo Blade editorialized, "Hands off our water." The editor of the Capital Times (in Madison, Wisconsin) declared, "State must act now to protect Great Lakes." In the Detroit Free Press, it was "United we fight for our lakes."

My point is not that Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin have such a grudge against Richardson that they would reject an Obama-Richardson ticket because of him. Rather, the comment reflected a tone deafness that hampered his presidential bid and that would likely hamper a vice presidential candidacy too.

Individually, none of these drawbacks would disqualify Richardson from winning the vice presidential sweepstakes. But, when taken collectively, Obama would have to show quite a bit of audacity to pick Bill Richardson.

Previously in my vice presidential series: Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine and Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland.

Comments

Tony Iovino

First, Clinton apparently got all red-faced with the California superdelegates when he said Richardson lied to him, and he wagged his finger--so we know Clinton was lying. The finger wag is a dead giveaway.

Second, if Clinton was telling the truth, I can see why he was so upset. After all, didn't Richardson learn in Bill's Cabinet that the only time you are allowed to lie is when you are under oath?!?

viagra online

This is truly a Revolting Development as William Bendix use to say on TV in a different generation or two ago. Maybe three. I'm thinking seriously now about Mac and also about selling my stock.

The comments to this entry are closed.