Who is this Democratic Presidential Candidate?

Do you know that one of our Democratic presidential candidates has the following on his/her resume:

  • 15 years in Congress
  • Secretary of Energy
  • Two Term Governor
  • Law Degree

Hmm, talk about having broad experience and having executive type experience. Who am I talking about?

Bill Richardson, the current governor of New Mexico.

I knew that he was running and frankly haven’t payed much attention to him. But I was listening to the Randi Rhodes show (as I sometimes do on Thursday afternoons) and she brought him up and pointed out how he had a better resume than any of the other Democratic candidates.

I hasten to point out that she is not endorsing him (or anyone else). This is him:


and this is his announcement.

So, what do I think? Sadly, I think that charisma is a big part of being able to win, and though he sounds great, he simply is not photogenic, and being photogenic is a large part of being popular enough to win.

Nevertheless, he is one darkhorse that bears watching.
Don’t get me wrong, I am still 100% behind Senator Obama. But I have to admire Governor Richardson.


February 15, 2007 Posted by | bill richardson, politics/social | 2 Comments

Frozen Blogging

A quick note from work:

Workout notes 2000 yards; main set was 10 x (25 fly, free, back, free) on the 2. The first was 1:48, then 1:45, 1:45, :43, :42: :44, then :42, :40, :39, :42. Then 500 pull in 8:09. After that, I did some yoga. I am not sure as to why I am swimming so much faster than this past summer; in fact, I’ve had some 10 x 100 on the 2 free sets slower than this.

One thing for sure: swimming isn’t as easy as the olympains (and other good swimmers) make it look; I sometimes feel like this:


Snow Notes I got two new shovels; it was easier to use them than the blower anyway. I managed to get most of the driveway clear; maybe I’ll get some sidewalks after work.

This photo from the Peoria Journal Star shows the situation:


Belated Happy Valentine’s Day, from conservatives (or those who approve of the current “Republic” Party, anyway 😉 ):

dependable renegade valentines

Hat tip to the Dependable Renegade.



Senator Obama will be visiting the University of Texas a week from tomorrow; I still consider Austin to have been “where I was from” and I did get my Ph. D. there. My sister says that she put in for tickets. There is an organization called Texans for Obama.

Speaking of which: obviously, Senator Obama should have to earn his support from everyone. But I am still bothered by the fact that some feel that he can’t win because he is black.

Two key political leaders in South Carolina who backed John Edwards in 2004 said Tuesday they are supporting Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s bid the Democratic presidential nomination.

State Sens. Robert Ford and Darrell Jackson told The Associated Press they believe Clinton is the only Democrat who can win the presidency.

Ok, fair enough; maybe you believe that Clinton is the only one who can win. But….

Both said they had been courted by Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, but believe his winning the primary would drag down the rest of the party.

“Then everybody else on the ballot is doomed,” Ford said. “Every Democratic candidate running on that ticket would lose because he’s black and he’s at the top of the ticket _ we’d lose the House, the Senate and the governors and everything.”

“I’m a gambling man. I love Obama,” Ford said. “But I’m not going to kill myself.”

Listen to that. Ok, I made one intentional omission: in the first line of the first blockquote, I omitted the word “black”!

This is South Carolina State Senator Ford:

senator ford

Again, there is nothing wrong with someone of any race, color, creed, sex or anything else backing Senator Clinton. But what I object to is people staying away from Obama because he is black. If it is for another reason, e. g., they simply like Clinton better, think she will do a better job, has more experience, or simply agree more with her policies, fine.

Speaking of Senator Clinton, Media Matters did an excellent job of gathering up some of the commonly held misconceptions about her and rebutting them:

Myths and falsehoods about Hillary Rodham Clinton

On January 20, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) announced the formation of her presidential exploratory committee. Yet despite the claim by conservative news outlets such as Fox News that the Washington press corps is “pulling for her,” media reports and commentary are already rife with myths and falsehoods regarding her record, her motivations, and Americans’ perceptions of her, as Media Matters for America documents below. Whether new or old, these erroneous claims reinforce the baseless and often demonstrably false characterizations of Clinton commonly perpetuated by the media — that she is “calculating,” “dishonest,” “vicious,” “ruthless,” “unelectable,” “unlikable,” and even “unqualified.”

The article goes on to tackle these one by one; I’ll reproduce one of these here:


Perhaps the most frequent line of attack against Clinton’s political prospects is the assertion that she is unelectable. Media figures have offered various rationales to support this claim — that Democratic voters would never nominate her, that she could not win a general election, that female voters will not support her, that her association with former President Bill Clinton would prove too big a liability. But recent polling rebuts each of these arguments.

Clinton can’t win the Democratic primary

A recent Newsweek article declared that Clinton’s polling numbers “will need to change for Democratic primary voters — now comfortable with assessing electability — to move her way.” But contrary to claims that Democratic voters are yet to “move her way,” recent polls show her leading her potential primary opponents:

* A January 16-19 Washington Post/ABC News poll asked Democratic or Democratic-leaning respondents: “If the 2008 Democratic presidential primary or caucus in your state were being held today, and the candidates were: (Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, John Kerry, Al Gore, Wesley Clark, Tom Vilsack, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, or Mike Gravel), for whom would you vote?” Forty-one percent of respondents said they would vote for Clinton. Obama received the second-greatest amount of support, with 17 percent, followed by former Sen. John Edwards (NC) with 11 percent.

* A Time magazine poll released on January 25 found that Clinton led Obama among registered Democratic voters by a margin of 40 percent to 21 percent. Edwards came in third with 11 percent of Democratic respondents saying they would vote for him.

* A January 25-28 Gallup poll surveyed 504 Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters and found that 29 percent backed Clinton for the nomination, while 18 percent supported Obama, and 13 percent chose Edwards.

Clinton can’t win the general election

On the December 29, 2006, edition of Hardball, Matthews claimed that Clinton would not “do so well” in “the center of the country, Ohio, Michigan, those kinds of states where people own guns and boats and have a certain attitude towards modern women.” But recent polls conducted in both Ohio and Michigan found that Clinton leads in head-to-head matchups with the current Republican front-runners:

* A Quinnipiac University poll released January 30 found that, among Ohio voters, Clinton leads Arizona Sen. John McCain (46 percent to 42 percent), former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (46 percent to 43 percent), and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (52 percent to 31 percent).

* A Detroit Free Press poll released February 3 found that, among Michigan voters, Clinton leads McCain (46 percent to 43 percent) and Giuliani (46 percent to 42 percent).

Further undermining claims that Clinton could not win the general election are several recent polls showing her beating potential Republican opponents at the national level:

* The January 16-19 Post/ABC poll also found Clinton outpolling McCain (50 percent to 45 percent) and Giuliani (49 percent to 47 percent).

* A Newsweek poll conducted January 24-25, showed Clinton outpolling McCain (50 percent to 44 percent), Giuliani (49 percent to 46 percent), and Romney (56 percent to 37 percent).

Clinton can’t win because of ambivalent female voters

In a January 28 Post opinion article, retired women’s studies professor Linda Hirshman suggested that because “white, married women” are generally less engaged in politics than men — and, thus, often consult their husbands when deciding on their vote — they may not strongly support Clinton’s candidacy. But recent polls appear to undermine Hirshman’s theory, showing that Clinton currently derives much of her support from female voters:

* The Post/ABC poll found that “Clinton receives significantly higher support among women than men.” Indeed, 49 percent of the Democratic or Democratic-leaning women surveyed said they would vote for Clinton over 12 other potential candidates from her party, while 29 percent of men supported her.

* An American Research Group (ARG) poll released February 3 found that, among females likely to vote Democratic in the 2008 Iowa caucus, 56 percent would support Clinton. As ARG president Richard Bennet said on the February 5 edition of MSNBC’s Tucker, “[S]he owns the women’s vote at the moment.”

Clinton can’t win because of her husband

Some in the media have suggested that Sen. Clinton’s association with her husband, Bill Clinton, may represent a liability as she vies for the White House. For instance a December 17, 2006, Washington Post article reported that the former president “could be a massive and messy distraction” on the campaign trail. But as Media Matters noted, the Post offered no concrete evidence that he is anything but an asset to his wife. Moreover, a May 2006 Post/ABC poll found that a strong majority — 60 percent — of Americans think Bill Clinton has “about the right amount” of political influence on Hillary Clinton, while just 9 percent thought he has too much influence. The same poll found that 47 percent of respondents stated that the way Sen. Clinton handled the Monica Lewinsky controversy had “not much impact” on their level of respect for her, and 34 percent respected her more for her handling of the situation.

Again, I am supporting Senator Obama. And I have problems with Senator Clinton’s war vote. Nevertheless, I don’t like seeing her get falsely trashed, and if she wins the Democratic nomination, I’ll support her 100%.

“Republic” Party Presidential Candidates:

Senator McCain has tried to bill himself a “straight talker.” Well, let’s see about that: (the video takes about 3 minutes)

Ok, you can say that some of this is unfair; for example, when discussing Iraq he may have well meant that the military operation (e. g., defeating the regular Iraqi military) would be relatively “easy” (and it was) when he talked about “easy”, but he didn’t mean to imply that keeping the peace afterward would be easy.

But he richly deserves to be hammered for his courting of the religious right after he had previously denounced them. In short, he isn’t as different from everyone else as he claims.

Now if you want to say “hey, that is what he needs to do to get elected”, fine. But don’t paint him as someone who is all that different in that area. He is no less “calculating” than, say, Senator Clinton; perhaps he is even more so.

Don’t get me wrong, I admire his work on campaign finance reform (read the book Citizen McCain for a good read on this, and Senator Feingold deserves some credit as well) and I admire his stand against our country using torture. He deserves credit for these things.
But please: he is no angel.

February 15, 2007 Posted by | hillary clinton, obama, Peoria/local, politics/social, swimming | Leave a comment