An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Bill Richardson Presidential “Job Interview” 2008 Campaign Ad
Does this ad help him — or hurt him? (Yours truly believes the two ads via You Tube below are masterful because he gets across his message and also comes across as human. Plus, it’s put within the context of a “TV viewer friendly” bit — not a stiff interview with Tim Russert).
opinions powered by SendLove.to
12 Responses to “Bill Richardson Presidential “Job Interview” 2008 Campaign Ad”
Love the ads, don’t think he has a chance in hell of becoming president, but the ads are amazing.
A job interview is a good idea. This should be the structure of at least one debate in 2008. It was excellent in 2000 with Cheney and Lieberman.
He could be a VP for Hillary or Obama, Sec State, or Ambassador to the UN.
Also VP for Unity ’08 ticket with Mayor Bloomberg.
I have to say I like Richardson out of all the candidates of either party. Lynx is right, though, and since I’m registered independent, I won’t ever get to vote for him.
Clever and entertaining way to get across the quals, but, the format obviously minimizes his own speaking.
Maybe that was chosen to avoid him sounding like he was trumpeting his own horn, but I think he is being kept in the second tier in part because of his speaking style that doesn’t naturally grab and hold attention.
If someone could meld Breck Boy’s delivery into Richardson’s substance, the Dems would have one less candidate, but one remaining that was more electable.
For the record, I am currently planning to use my meaningless primary vote on Richardson unless something happens to change my mind. Meaningless because my state votes so late that there’s really no point in voting.
I get the Obama charisma/vision thing, so I know why he’s in the front of the pack. But, really, does Hillary have charisma or just her husband’s last name? I am not saying she isn’t qualified to be prez, but I have yet to figure out precisely why she’s a frontrunner other than popularity. Anyway, I don’t want to turn this into a Clinton discussion. It’s just sad that Democrats and Independents often seem to think Richardson is The Man but are going to vote for someone else anyway. It’s not like a 3rd party candidate where you are siphening votes away from your party. I do understand not voting for him if you don’t think he can sway Republican and Indie voters in the general election, but then that may be one of his strengths….
It seems like you don’t hear a lot of enthusiasm for Richardson, but you don’t hear much criticism, either. I get the impression that while voters aren’t wild about him, they could live with his presidency- as he’s a real centrist candidate.
Part of my problem in estimating the viability of candidates is that I don’t really watch TV. I only read the speeches and editorials they write. And so people can sound really quite good in text and be boring as hell in person. I voted for Wesley Clark in 04 because I liked most of what he wrote and I thought his military background would be a particular strength in the middle of Iraq and the GWOT. However, I understand he was a pretty mediocre speaker who rarely inspired. I still have never heard him. I am reminded now of Specter’s speech on Habeas Corpus recently, which sounded passionate and forceful in the written word. Then I saw a clip of him delivering it, and it’s a snooze fest. Of course, most voters get their opinions from TV, not from print. Actually most voters get their opinions from their social group, including myself I’m sure.
I found that watching the debates on tv really helped me see who had leadership qualities, and who stumbled. Also, watching the candidates on Meet the Press gives a good impression of their views in a one-on-one interview. Its important to me to see that they can articulate their views forcefully to others. The debates are invaluable, especially the GOP debate, where they seemed to be following this ideological script and kept calling on Reagan’s legacy.
I think the ads are great first-runs in places where no one knows who the heck he is. But I believe kritter gets the bottom line right above – he’s running for VP. Still, he’s been acting like a guy who wants to win, so who knows?
He’s a candidate that many Republicans wouldn’t object to -centrist, pro-gun and from the West. And he has the valuable international and diplomatic experience that many of the Dem candidates lack. The key would be to see if his personality gels with the top primary vote-getter-there might be a stupendous clash of egos going on. I just hope we don’t end up with the Democrat’s version of a Dan Quale.
If nothing else we’ve seen from this administration that a VP can be as powerful as a president, so the candidates for VP need to get the same scrutiny. Who would have anticipated back in 2000 that Cheney would lead a war cabal in his office and conduct a shadow diplomacy that was totally at odds with the Dept of State? Or lead a campaign to out a CIA operative who worked in ME nuclear proliferation? Honestly, I still see Cheney as the power behind the throne- probably the most powerful man in the government.