Slate readers pick a VP
Today Slate.com released the results of their readers' running-mate nominations survey. Take a look.I've heard Chuck talk about Richardson for a while now, but never really took him seriously. I mean did you see that goatee? Goatees are about as unpresidential as tie-dye. Don't get me wrong, I like Bill, but I always thought that Obama's main consideration in his pick should be helping the ticket across the comfort threshold of the average American, not regional considerations or experience. Now Richardson has a fantastic resume, but the thing about impressive resumes is that low-info voters don't read 'em. They don't even skim 'em. They do however notice if you're dripping sweat on them as you're trying to slide it to them (remember those debates?). I hate to sound so cynical and shallow, but I still have reservations about a Richardson pick despite my love for the guy.
By Robert - 7/16/2008
12 Comments:
Jim Webb,
If you're reading this: please reconsider!
I say Al Gore! I wanna see his last 3 year's worth of tax returns! (Which is why he'll never run for public office again, btw).
I'm a bill Richardson fan, but not for VP. Webb would be far and away my first choice on that list, but he has been pretty adamant about not wanting it. I don't think the person Obama picks will even be on that list. In a change election, Obama has the opportunity to pick a non-traditional VP. I hope he does.
Bob, remember when we went into Richardson's New Hampshire headquarters? No staff, door open, and all you can collect Bill Richardson baseball cards?
That baseball card is priceless. Possibly the lamest piece of political collateral ever.
If Richardson isn't the VP pick I'll scan it and post it for everyone to mock.
Gee Russ, I thought guys with big fat tax returns were your kind of guys.
I want Richardson, but acknowledge he is risky.
But Bob, I completely disagree with Jim Webb. Not only is he likely to distract from the Obama message by making too many of his own headlines, and not only may he have more skeletons than Florida Bush's, but his past days as a Republican resulted in some pretty sexist stances. In the year of Hillary's run, we can't be picking someone that held views hostile to women.
As time goes on, I think he could very well pick a low profile pick like Senator Reed or Evan Bayh. I hope it doesn't do that, but it seems he may pick a dud.
But end of the day, I still think Clark is a very logical pick.
The Latino vote could get a little more energized with Richardson. I would love to see a ticket like this win by securing two large minority votes, and winning white liberals (hehe, another large minority!)
That would turn conventional wisdom on its head.
And Bob, let's see that baseball card, man. I know you guys have an interest in securing the election for the dems, but you are also part of the media, you shouldn't hide something that funny.
I'll see if I can dig it up next week.
Gee Russ, I thought guys with big fat tax returns were your kind of guys.
Oh! They are, Menck! I'd like the global-warming cultists to catch a glimpse of it, though.
Bill Richardson is fine, but I love Bloomberg. If Bloomberg isn't selected I would rather have HRC or Richardson than Biden. Anyone but Biden please.
Anon - I am right there with you. As I have said many times on this site, I would really like to see more hype about Bloomberg. However, I do like Richardson and I have always thought he should be in the cabinet as Sec. of State. I would be fine with him as VP. ANYONE but Biden. He talks way too much.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home