• You are using the old High Contrast theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

Meet Hillary's toughest opponent: Bill Richardson

Status
Not open for further replies.
Face it people,
All the available choices are lacking.

Some lacking in moral character, some in ability.

The Dems are the New Socialism in very thin disguise.

The Republicrats are lacking in commitment to their own stated principles

The Libertarians lack depth and experience

The Greens are whacked.

The rest lack support from anyone outside their immediate family.

Time for a change of world shaking proportion but the peepul lack the courage.

We are well and truely sodomized.

Sam
 
This is Hillary's toughest opponent.

Hillary will, more than likely, carry the female voters and partyline Southern Dems, she has name recognition and Bill to stump for her. Watch her carry NY & CA and the female/south, but not flyover/FLA and firearm owning male vote. She might even be the rare Senator, elected to the WH.

Don't be so sure. There is a reason she ran in New York...she couldn't win anywhere else. She would have the same problem nationally...you only hear about her because of the NY Media. She has a lot of baggage to carry around and has done nothing worthwhile nationally. Pray that she runs.

Our problem is who is going to get the Republican nomination...all I see clearly now are RINOs.
 
I had "Bill Richardson for President" in my sig line a little after Bush got re-elected. People thought I was joking. Many probably still think it is a joke.

He's making his proverbial shift to the middle with his immigration policy lately. Positioning himself for a run. However, I don't think his run will be in earnest, because I think he's probably going to be Hillary's running mate. I don't like Hillary, and I don't want her in office. I hope she loses in the primaries. With Richardson, she'll get the Mexican/Hispanic American vote, and that will be enough to put her over the top in a lot of places.

The only blame for Hillary getting in will be attributed to REPUBLICANS. The Bush apologists that see no wrong with the current administration and hate her with a passion are serving to bring it upon themselves. Cultivating the backlash, so to speak.
 
Okay, let's get serious: the only Republican presidential candidate who can stop Hillary and is also someone most of us can live with is...

Condi Rice.

I wish she had some experience in elective office but it is what it is. The prospect of the Clintons back in power should scare the bejesus out of us. Go Condi!!!
 
I am not convinced Rice would be able to defeat Hillary. Maybe, but maybe not. If she is going to be a viable candidate, I think Bush will have to ask Cheney to step aside and let Rice be VP for a couple of years first.

If I see Cheney resign in 2006, to be replaced by Rice, I will conclude she will probably be the Republican nominee, and might (or might not) be able to beat Hillary.

Rice will carry a TON of Bush baggage that most people would like to forget.
 
Condi may have a neo-Con link or two but Hillary is Marley's ghost by comparison. Clank, clank, clank, clank!!! Hill has a chain a block long.

The demographics, if not the Zeitgeist, point to '08 as Condi's moment.
 
Lone_Gunman: "We'll see Longeyes, I am not convinced. It is tough to make predictions, especially about the future."

As opposed to, say, predictions about the past? ;)

So far I haven't heard any objections about Richardson strong enough to make me believe that he wouldn't be a good choice for the Dem's. Not that I want him to win, but he seems like a very good choice.

It frightens the daylights out of me that there isn't a strong Republican candidate being groomed. McCain has already said he'll probably run. I have a "Rice '08" sticker on my car, and I'm mentioning her name to the usual suspects in the Republican party locally, but it's probably spitting in the wind.

One name that keeps popping up is Romney. Now there's a great idea. I think I'd vote for Richardson first.
 
Longeyes, I wish we had just two Americas...

Imagine Yugoslavia writ large... :eek:

In each state... :what:

We are divided in more ways than anyone can keep track of.

This is why we face our current conundrum.

I see no way out, you can not make over 250 million people agree to respect each other's rights when they can not even agree on what those rights are.

So we will fight over those definitions, and the end result will be pretty bad, unless we get lucky.
 
If the election comes down to Richardson vs. McCain or Gulliani... I will most DEFINITELY vote for Richardson.
 
Bill ichardson

Three things the Dems.are going to have to do to win in 08.
1. A candidate not from the blue states.
2. Dump the radical left groups that call the party home,(A.N.S.W.E.R.,Moveon.org.,their actions caused the loss in 04 more than they like to admit.
3. Tell the Hollyweid left to "shut up".
 
"Longeyes, I wish we had just two Americas...

Imagine Yugoslavia writ large...

In each state...

We are divided in more ways than anyone can keep track of."

The issue, of course, is whether the major schisms can be healed. Like you I no longer feel they can be. Gridlock may helps us or a push for stronger states' rights and de facto regional autonomy. A darker, apocalyptic scenario would involve civil war--a war of secesssion and/or expulsion. But maybe the USA will fragment, as the USSR did. Russia, pared down, is still here after all. And the U.S. might pick up--while we're speculating--a big chunk of Canada and maybe even some of Mexico. It's hard to know just what might happen here. I can't imagine the America I believe in surviving too long with the Clintons back in power for eight years, to be honest. Can Hillary really be our Commander-in-Chief? Welcome to Rome and a run of bad Caesars.

I think Condi Rice, with or without prior elective experience, is the GOP's best hope, and ours, to keep America America.
 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051014/ts_nm/korea_north_usa_dc_1

New Mexico Gov Bill Richardson to visit North Korea Thu Oct 13,11:32 PM ET

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson will soon visit North Korea as preparations intensify for what could be a crucial round of six-country talks on reining in Pyongyang's nuclear program, current and former U.S. officials said on Thursday.

Richardson, a Democrat who served as energy secretary and U.N. ambassador under President Bill Clinton and is mentioned as a possible contender for his party's 2008 presidential nomination, is expected to make the trip "very soon," a former official told Reuters.

The trip has been under discussion for some time and has privately drawn mixed reactions from U.S. officials and experts. Only recently has Assistant Secretary of State Chris Hill, the chief U.S. negotiator with the North, agreed that Richardson could make the journey, several U.S. sources said.

Richardson, who had been invited by the North Koreans and has maintained contacts with them for some years, "asked Chris Hill to go. He wanted to go. Chris Hill finally obliged him," the former official said.

Richardson discussed the trip in an interview with the New York Times, which reported that he would make the journey next week. "I am not an official envoy, but I am supportive of the administration's new policy to engage the North Koreans through dialogue and diplomacy," Richardson told the newspaper.

A State Department official, who spoke on background, said Richardson would not carry a special message to the North Koreans from the Bush administration nor would his talks be considered part of the official U.S. negotiations with Pyongyang.

But Richardson, as a former cabinet official, is being accorded the privilege of using a U.S. government plane so the trips could be seen as implicitly approved by the Washington.

Officials said he would be expected to reinforce the firm U.S. position that Pyongyang must dismantle both its uranium-based and plutonium-based nuclear programs.

After more than a year of stalemate, the most recent round of six-country talks in Beijing ended last month with an agreement in principle that the North would give up its nuclear programs in return for political and economic incentives.

The talks are to resume in November but the sides are far apart on when Pyongyang must dismantle its nuclear weapons programs, how the agreement might be verified and whether there are any circumstances under which the North would be allowed to have a nuclear program for peaceful energy purposes, officials and experts said.

Hill has dropped hints that he was considering visiting Pyongyang ahead of the next negotiating round. But officials and experts were divided on whether that might happen.

One U.S. source said he understood the North had put conditions on Hill's visit, namely that the United States agree to the peaceful nuclear energy program.

Some experts, who spoke on condition of anonymity, were cool to Richardson's trip, saying he was indulging his presidential ambitions and could bring little substantive to the debate because he was not an official negotiator.

It is Hill, with the authority of President George W. Bush behind him, who needs to visit Pyongyang in order to advance a negotiated deal, they said.

But others argued the administration, which is much distrusted by Pyongyang, has little to lose in allowing Richardson to mediate. They said Richardson is "someone they trust" and may be able to better communicate U.S. concerns.

The top members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Republican John Warner of Virginia and Democrat Carl Levin of Michigan, were planning to visit the North soon but that trip has been delayed, several U.S. officials said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top