Maybe you have your reasons for intensely disliking him, but it is too early for me to rule him out, so I’m choosing to keep an open mind. I’m sure whatever there is in his past will come out in the campaign, and then we can all judge for ourselves.

BTW, I agree that HC is cool and calculating- but that in itself doesn’t rule her out as a viable candidate. Mostly, I’m interested in a competent centrist candidate, who will lead the country out of six years of disasterous Republican rule.

“The Democrats now square off in what is effectively the party’s first primary, the competition for campaign donations.”

This is true of the GOP primary as well, and campaign donations come overwhelming from a range of Americans who could be described as the extremely well off to the obscenely wealthy. Before 98% of Americans ever get to vote on a candidate, that candidate has to pass through the gates kept by the wealthy.

The problem with “centrism” in the US is that it is defined by the wealthy, and that ain’t democracy.

The reason that many consider him a good match for SOS (or a similar position) is because his idea of “working with someone” is telling them what to do and then getting pissed if they don’t do it. Even the usually-compliant Democratic legislature in NM has grown tired of being rolled over on every issue. He works well alone – bullying, cajoling, pushing, individual dictators, etc. in order to get a “reasonable result.” He is not so good when he has to deal with an equally-powerful branch such as Congress, especially the Senate, because they are less amenable to bullying.

As for problem-solving, I’ll be interested to see how much information comes out regarding his less-then-successful tenure as head of the Dept. of Energy under Clinton. The full story of his involvement in the Wen Ho Lee case has never been told and there were suggestions, never proven, that he was the “leaker” who identified Lee as this enormous security risk (and we all know how that one turned out).

You are absolutely correct that Richardson is not bound by ideology. He’ll take campaign contributions from anyone and he will never EVER put any ideology over his own interests.

I think he’s shown a proven ability as a problem-solver, and is more results-oriented than bound by ideology. I’m only interested in someone for ‘08 who is pragmatic and will work with Congress as it was intended.

would be an excellent Secretary of State

That’s what I was thinking as well Jason.

More than anything else the conviction that the candidate that receives their support can, in fact, be elected is presumably foremost in those voters’ minds. Ms. Clinton has nearly 100% name recognition; everybody has already made up their minds about her. Her negatives are about as high as her positives and she consistently polls as losing to either McCain or Giuliani.

It’s very unlikely that, if nominated, she’ll be elected. Democrats should get behind somebody who can.