I think Richardson would be a very good Prez...but boy his campaign is a mess...

[SaveElmer]

His debate performance so far has been less than stellar...and now this...

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2007/06/20/oops_missed_one.html

Oops, Missed One

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson attacked his Democratic primary rivals yesterday for supporting recent legislation on Iraq. One problem: Richardson himself once supported one of the bills. Compounding Richardson's problem: Ryan Lizza documents how Richardson's campaign tried to scrub his website for all references to it. Of course, another campaign had copies of the old web site. They also missed a press release still on the site touting his support for the bill.

"Note to the Richardson campaign: if you are going to change your position on Iraq and then rid your Web site of all evidence that you ever held that position, you'll want to take down every incriminating example."

[Captain Hilts]

1. Yeah, I hope he can turn it around. He'd be a terrific president. nt

[On the Road]

2. I Liked His Answers to Chris Matthews Yesterday

and I would like to support him. But he is so laid back. It just isn't what the country needs right now, or what will win and election.

In 2000, Gore turned his campaign around with his "I will fight for you" theme. If Richardson can do something similar to generate excitement and conviction, he has an excellent chance at the nomination. If not, he has no shot.

[riqster]

3. He's an Election Fraud Enabler

Remember how he blocked the 2004 recount in New Mexico? Nice for him to play hero now, but I do not trust him.

Feet of clay

[rinsd]

4. The attack on the big 3 is a sign his camapign thinsk they are doing well.

Those supposed leaked fundraising numbers for the 2nd Q had his high end at $7M. Not bad for a guy who gets very little press.

[PurityOfEssence]

5. Shades of Dean and Clark

They both accused Edwards and Kerry of having voted for the Bush tax cuts and got caught flat-footed doing it. Dean got slammed early about it, but I don't know if he ever responded. Clark simply bungled by doing it well after Dean had already been called out about it and compounded the deed by ignoring Edwards' direct, public request for an explanation by firing a fusillade of distortions about Edwards' voting records.

Dean's a loose cannon, but I think he's done a bang-up job as party chair, and he deserves great praise for fighting a 50 state offensive. He didn't get the credit he deserved for the success of the last election.

Clark, too, has been a great voice for rational change, and the gravitas he has from his rank and career really drives this home to many who would otherwise swallow the reactionaries' party line.

Sorry for the digression.

You're right: Richardson just keeps stumbling. He's had some dreadful appearances on pundit shows and his performances in the debates have been bad, worse and only occasionally rousing. In the New Hampshire debate he was all over the place; he was befuddled and acted almost as if he was drunk. The idea that one can scrub history in the age of the internet shows pure imbecility as well as dishonesty.

So far, his is the greatest story of the campaign: he was moving up and really threatening Edwards, he had broad support and a big chance to pull a Villaraigosa and marshall a huge hispanic vote, the media was interested in him as an underdog candidate, and he just goofs right and left. Dean made spectacular blunders, but at least it was scampering about and slamming into things, which is much better theatre than Richardson's wandering confusion.

Still, the guy's got something, and if he could get his act together, he's still got a shot. It's just that he's up against some serious star-power and showmanship and the clock is running out.

We'll probably know who our nominee is in about eight and a half months after the idiotic front-loading of Super-Duper Tuesday.

I must say, though, this is all a great show.