Richardson Obama: Land of Enchantment, Land of Lincoln
Commenting on a pro-Richardson post as well as on another post on Western Democrat, I suggested a Richardson Obama ticket. But it is also possible that we could see an Obama Richardson ticket. Either way the ticket would have some obvious strengths. Both Richardson and Obama aren’t saddled with explaining a vote for an increasingly unpopular war, Richardson because he was a governor at the time and Obama because he wasn’t a senator at the time. Both appeal to minorities while appealing well beyond that base. Both would be able to highlight domestic issues as well as foreign policy issues, the latter being a Richardson strength. Both are very popular in their home states, but less well-known nationally than some of the current 2008 favorites. Their polling numbers could increase quickly with more name recognition. Both are moderates who could appeal across party lines. Add the moderates to the liberals and not only keep but energize minorities, and you have quite a large following.
If this comes to pass, life will imitate art. Fans of The West Wing will remember the final season where the charismatic Hispanic Democrat Matt Santos (Jimmy Smits) running with the more experienced Leo McGarry (John Spencer) as his vice-presidential nominee narrowly defeats the popular, but aging, moderate Republican, Arnie Vinick (Alan Alda). At the time I saw Bill Richardson as Matt Santos. But it could be that Bill Richardson will play the experienced Leo McGarry (without the heart attack) while the charismatic Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, leads the ticket.
The route to this ticket runs through the newly prominent Nevada Caucus, as readers of Western Democrat know, but it is the possibility that Senator Obama could enter the race that changes the whole dynamic of 2008. Illinois is just across the Mississippi from Iowa. Imagine a Richardson win in Nevada and an Obama win in Iowa or even strong showing against Governor Vilsack, Iowa’s favorite son. Those two events could break the 2008 contest wide open. Much of Hillary’s support comes from the black community, and the black community is a big portion of the Democratic vote in the South and in the industrial cities of the Midwest and Northeast. Heading into these areas, an Obama campaign could pick up steam, while Richardson could take primaries in the West including the big prize of California. 2008 could be very interesting.
Leo Brown | November 22, 2006 | Comment on This Post (5 so far) |
Your Name: Your Personal Note: | Your Email: Friends' Emails*: |
Comments
While I have some energy for a Richardson - Obama ticket, I have greater enthusiasm for the grassroots effort to draft Al Gore. Then, let's look at a Western VP choice. I believe this ticket would have strong Western appeal, as well as across the country.
So, why Gore?, and why now?
Most importantly, Gore was the first national "heavyweight" individual to speak out, strongly, against the oocupation in Iraq, whle the rest of the national Dems figures were singing in the pro-war choir.
Secondly, of course, is his brilliance pertaining to the preiminent crisis facing the world today - global warming.
Thirdly, as is evident in his film, and from his speech on the occupation, this is a man steeped in his soul and purpose. This brother knows his path in life, and his film shows that he is ready to do service for others. To me, this is a deep sign of a man with priorities straight.
Gore has GRAVITAS.
Lastly, we must remember that the netroots were as major a factor as any in our winning 2006 elections. Would the netroots get behind Richardson? Maybe. Would they get behind a Gore movement? I believe so, and in fact, the netroots would probably be a deciding factor if Gore were to indeed win the nomination, as evidenced by our success this year. I really believe the netroots would take to Gore.
Also, I understand there is significant money and groundwork being prepared for his candidacy; this is well beyond Gore's involvement, and to the extent of his involvement, I certianly do not know.
So, let's turn to the VP possibilities. IMHO, I strongly believe it's time for a woman VP, and a serious candidacy (not akin to 1984's example of Ferraro). I believe our party needs to fast track capable women, as an alternative to you-know-who, who BTW, I feel positively toward.
So, high on my list are two extremely capable and wildly popular governors. In AZ, Janet Napalatano; in Kansas, Kathleen Sebalius. And I must admit I hold this admiration without at all knowing the landscape for either as well as I should. I am not a resident of either state, and only view them from afar.
Could someone shed more info on these two women as potential VP choices?
Finally, I am so thrilled with our success in the West and congratulate you folks for Tester and our other incoming progressives!
Blessings
Frederick
Posted by: Frederick | Nov 22, 2006 8:18:35 AM
Hello,
I think that the US is ready for a female president. This is why I have always supported Hillary Clinton if she decides to run for President in 2008. I believe that she is the strongest Democrat at this point.
I do not think the US is ready for a president or vice president of color. I am a native american man and would love to see a person of color like Obama or Richardson as President, but its not feasible at this time. Maybe in 15-20 years would the country be ready.
The reality is that people of color have only had the right to vote since the voting rights act of 1965. In the space of 40 years, actually less, we have started to get people of color in a large way in congress, the senate, and in the governors offices across the country.
The west will lead this movement to have a person of color as president, because as the west grows its latino and other minorities become majorities in states such as California and Arizona. When California elects a person of color as Governor, the US will be ready for one as President.
Daniel
Posted by: Daniel C. Cardenas Jr. | Nov 22, 2006 9:24:15 AM
Let me just say that Iowa is still up for grabs because all the polls that I have seen coming from Iowa, Vilsack as been doing horrible. Also, Labor Unions in Nevada will support John Edwards if he runs so that will be a huge factor in determining who wins the Nevada caucus.
Posted by: ketu | Nov 22, 2006 1:38:19 PM
Everyone has made keen observations. Yes, Iowa and Nevada are up for grabs. Yes, 2008 may be the year for a woman to win, or maybe not. I once suggested a Richardson-Napolitano ticket, and the post still looks good to me. http://www.westerndemocrat.com/2005/11/a_southwestern_.html
And I like what Al Gore has done since his loss in 2000. All I can say is that 2008 could be very interesting, and I hope a Western Democrat is on the winning ticket.
Posted by: Leo Brown | Nov 22, 2006 8:18:55 PM
Richardson-Obama sounds like a dream ticket to me and I hope Richardson gets his organization going soon. C'mon Bill--declare!
As for an Obama-Richardson ticket, I have my doubts simply because Obama is so green. Other than show articulateness and representing a "faith caucus" within the Democratic Party, what has he actually accomplished yet? More than Dan Quayle to be sure, but not enough to claim the top of the ticket. Most worrying is that Obama has no executive experience--something Richardson can claim heaps of.
Posted by: Zak J. | Nov 30, 2006 9:43:56 AM
Ads by Google
(and yes, we know that sometimes they're very, very wrong. Other times, they're right on.)
