Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton tossed an intriguing teaser into Saturday night's Iowa Brown and Black Presidential Forum: Bill Richardson as vice president?
When the New Mexico governor referenced Bill Clinton's old job as governor of Arkansas, he said to Clinton, "Don't you think governors make good presidents?" according to the New York Daily News.
Clinton's answer -- "Well, Bill, I think they also make good vice presidents" -- left Richardson briefly speechless.
Speculation about Richardson as VP has been fueled by his refusal to criticize Clinton, and his willingness to defend her.
If you'll recall from our post on possible Vice President selections for Hillary, we noted that Bill Richardson is the only democratic candidate with experience in the executive branch. As much as we'd love to see the possibility of a Hillary & Bill dynamic duo, we also think the White House could use some fresh blood in the office. Richardson also offers a vast amount of experience with foreign relations as the former Secretary of Energy. Plus, it's no secret that Bill Richardson has been the only candidate with enough integrity to not attack Hillary Clinton during the debates and press releases. He has shown that he knows better than to do that, and I don't see him as someone who would get in the way of Hillary's proposals while in office. Let's face it, Hillary and Bill can take care of the White House just fine on their own. Whoever the Vice President happens to be, we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that they are anything more than a fill-in for a required position. The real reason Hillary should choose Bill Richardson? The Latino vote. In this day and age, alienating this important demographic is political suicide. The naming of Bill Richardson for VP along with her plans on immigration reform will by the winning combination for capturing the hearts and votes of Latinos across the nation.
5 comments:
"The naming of Bill Richardson for VP along with her plans on immigration reform will by the winning combination for capturing the hearts and votes of Latinos across the nation."
And nobody else.
In response to your comment on my blog:
I'm afraid I can't just take your word that Clinton is the best. Sorry. No, I need proof, I need action, not just words.
In the blog that you commented on, I said that Huckabee was leading in Iowa. Personally, I like Huckabee. I disagree with almost everything he says, and almost every position he has taken. But I like him because he really believes what he's saying. He isn't like Romney or Guiliani, who say whatever it takes to get elected. I like Huckabee because he's honest.
Another honest candidate I like is Barack Obama. He's quite truthful. His debate performances are terrible, and I like it on some level. Why? Because he doesn't do debate prep. He goes out there with his convictions and his beliefs. Nothing else. He doesn't go out with scripted one-liners or anything like that. He simply has his principles. I can't say the same for Clinton, who is nothing more (in my eyes) than another political hack.
She takes in more money from lobbyists than any other candidate in either party. She says that lobbyists represent real people. A minute later, she goes on to say that just because she takes money from lobbyists she doesn't actually listen to them. So she takes the money of people representing the people, but still doesn't listen to them? Strange.
So, as I said, I can't take your word that Clinton is the right candidate to represent me. And I don't think she'll represent all that well either. Trust me.
It's challenging enough for Hillary being the 1st female to run for president of the United States. Unfortunately, choosing "gun happy" Richardson as her partner in the White House may just be the equivalent of shooting herself in the foot.
Like she has a choice.
She'll "pick" whoever Billybobjob tells her to pick.
Post a Comment