New Mexico governor interviewed as possible Kerry running mate

[chimpymustgo]

Thursday, Jun 24, 2004

New Mexico governor interviewed as possible Kerry running mate

BY ANASTASIA USTINOVA

Chicago Tribune

WASHINGTON - (KRT) - Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, one of the nation's most prominent Latino elected officials, has been interviewed as a prospective running mate for likely Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.


According to sources familiar with the process, Jim Johnson, who leads Kerry's vice presidential search team, recently met with Richardson for an extended discussion.


Richardson, who spoke Thursday at a conference organized by the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials in Washington, said he does not know anything about the status of the vice presidential search.


"I am not seeking this," Richardson said. "I am a governor of New Mexico. I love this job. I've made a commitment to stay there for four years."


Richardson, 56, served 15 years in the House of Representatives, before being appointed as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in 1997 and then serving as energy secretary in 1998.


He was elected governor of New Mexico in 2002. As the country's only Latino governor, Richardson could attract swing Latino voters in what is expected to be a close election in November, political analysts contend.


Richardson joins the list of potential vice presidential candidates known to include Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.).

-snip-

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/news/nation/9005612.htm

[NMDemDist2]

1. He is a good man, but when I saw him live, I don't think he'd add much

to the ticket. He isn't a great speaker and altho he's Hispanic who would know and why should it matter?

I think Gep or Clark or Edwards (not necessarily in that order) are all better choices

[Warpy]

5. He's a DLC DINO

who will add NOTHING.

He campaigned on eliminating the regressive tax on food. The first thing he did was lower taxes on the rich, which caused enough of a budget shortfall that he had to get special legislative permission to dip into the state's emergency fund to pay teachers a promised pittance of a raise.

A little over a year later, he got shamed into tackling the sales tax on food, but twisted himself into a pretzel making it "revenue neutral," meaning he jacked up taxes elsewhere and giving many folks a net nothing tax break.

Phooey on him. He's just another one who wants to fiddle the tax code to fatten plutocrats while socking it to working people.

Kerry can do better. Hell, Gephardt is better.

[JI7]

2. see, this is why we can't believe any of the stories 100 percent

just before this some stories claimed it was down to 2. gephardt and edwards. and they were sure of it. but now there is news of this. if it was really just down to those two why the need to interview richardson ? maybe it's to throw people off.but before this there were some that said clark was the choice.we just don't realy know. but people get so worked up over the vp thing. but in this case only kerry will pick. not the media or anyone else. kerry is a smart guy. he really wants to win and he will pick whoever he feels will at the least not hurt in getting there.

we will have to see when kerry actually announces his vp pick and then we can go back and see which news stories were accurate and which ones were way off.

[sallyseven]

3. Richardson has already said no.

If he were to run the whole country would know that right away. Call him a liar we have the biggest ones in office now both
cheney and bush.

[JI7]

6. true, but that's not an unusual answer for possible vps

why else would he agree to do the interview. ifhe really didn't want it he wouldn't even do the interivew . and this isn't the first time.

[Gloria]

8. Richardson really means "no." He told a NM paper that he'd

rather "put a gun to his head" than vie for the VP spot....

[Leilani]

4. Clark has been vetted...

& he had a meeting with Kerry.

Why is never mentioned?

[Scoopie]

7. Because people who don't know

do all the talking, while people who DO know, stay silent.

In any case, I'm going to start a thread that says, "My Yellow Cocker Spaniel had a secret meeting with Kerry for VP" and it would be just about as accurate as most of this speculation frothing out of the mouths of the media magpies.

[Doosh]

9. no doubt

I believe Clark has been vetted, but I think thos article is talking about those who have been vetted and are still in the running for VP. Warner was also vetted but it doesn't mention him.

[Quixote1818]

10. I have no doubt Richardson would take it!!! He really wants it bad!

I live in New Mexico and worked on Richardson's campaign here in Albuquerque and I absolutely assure you if he were offered the VP slot he would grab it and not let go. He says he does not want it just like they all do but if the offer were their he would come out and say that after many hours of thought he felt he was needed on the ticket and he didn't want to let the Democratic party down. He would act like Kerry twisted his arm and it was something he felt he had to do even though he already is watering at the mouth for the position.

I am beginning to think he would be a good choice considering Hispanics now number 40 Million here in the US. He would assure Kerry New Mexico and he might bring in states like Nevada, Florida, and Midwest states like Ohio, Iowa and Missouri which have just enough Hispanics to turn the tide. Richardson also brings Foreign Relations experience to the table. He would certainly stir things up. I don't think we would see so many "Viva Bush" stickers. Hispanics are being courted HARD by the Right and we need to put a stop to it. Too many Hispanics are starting to vote Republican and that HUGE block absolutely cannot be ignored by the left any longer. Hispanics use to vote 90% Democrat now it's getting to be more like 60/40.

Are their any Hispanics here that can give any input on this?

[JI7]

11. right, why else would he agree to do the interviews for vp ?

if he really didn't want it as he says then he would not be doing the interviews and other things they are asking of potential vps.

i'm not sure how much of a good choice he would be. and i'm not sure how much he really wants the job, but i'm pretty sure if offered he would accept. because if he really had no intention of accepting he would not have agreed to the interviews. and the kerry campaign would not be wasting time with it.

the only other reason i can see for this is they want to try to throw people off of what the actual choice would be.

but with all the info coming out i still say we have no idea where the vp thng stands and who is in consideration. too much conflicting info. we will only know once the choice is made and when we look back on the articles about vp to see which were accurate and which were just rumors or speculation.

[FrenchieCat]

12. Funny how Clark's not mentioned.....again.....

Gee...maybe the VP evident is hiding in "plain sight".

This is an excellent article about what John Kerry can and should consider when naming a VP.....

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=7927

The Last Hurdle
John Kerry's biggest problem -- still -- is the national security gap. Here's how he can close it.
By Kenneth S. Baer
Web Exclusive: 06.23.04

Print Friendly | Email Article

In Washington, the only question on anyone's mind is: WWJD -- What Will John Do? Everyone has a theory about whom John Kerry will pick (or should pick) as his running mate, and journalists are scrambling for any angle on the story that they can find.

Last Friday, The Washington Post ran one of the most interesting accounts of where Kerry's thinking may or may not be. While the article was filled with rampant speculation by a panoply of unnamed sources, one observation stuck out. According to the Post: "Friends say Kerry believes he has passed a national security threshold with voters that has freed him to tap a vice presidential candidate who complements him in other ways."

If these "friends" of Kerry were really his friends, they would inform him that, sadly, this is not the case. In fact, the only thing keeping George W. Bush in this race is that John Kerry has not yet met this "national security threshold" with the electorate. Voters still give the President a commanding lead on the questions of who can best protect the nation from terrorists and who is a stronger, more patriotic leader. Fortunately for Kerry, these sentiments say more about the Democratic party -- and voters' lingering doubts about Democrats and defense -- than they do about the candidate. Kerry has enough time to close this national security gap -- and must close it if he hopes to beat Bush this fall.

Despite one question on a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll that showed Kerry with a one-point lead over Bush on the question of "whom do you trust to do a better job of handling the U.S. campaign against terrorism," data within that same poll and in others show that the security gap stubbornly persists.

Much more of this article at the Prospect site. I always respected Prospect writers' views. There are some of the smartest journalists around...unlike the pressititutes who keep pushing certain candidates on us....

[mzmolly]

13. Clarks NOT MENTIONED?! This threads about Richardson and contains

30% Clark posts you guys sheesh! :eyes:

[mzmolly]

14. He's conservative on some issues, and I forget his position on Iraq.

Anyone care to enlighten me?

Iraq is a key issue for many.