sombrero?
I can't quite believe that the New York Post's headline about Richardson said he was throwing his sombrero into the ring. Pretty sure I've never seen the gov in a sombrero. Also, I mean I'm not a particularly PC person, but that's just about as racist as the Journal using gumba in a headline (and, perhaps, the exact East Coast equivalent? The '08 equivalent of blue state/red state? East Coast/West Coast?) Oh, and speaking of racist. Very nice. Very nice indeed.
Anyway, this guy thinks Richardson could be the most "dangerous" candidate in '08 because he's the one who could have dirt on Hillary (because Richardson worked for Bill Clinton and, ostensibly, knows stuff from the inner circle). I've never known/seen Richardson to do the dirty laundry thing, but then again he's never run for national office before. And, presumably, if he's got dirty on Hillary then she's got dirty on him too. Hey, does Hillary's name really have two lls in it? Why yes, yes it does. OK, just checking.
Bak to Obama, this piece by Dante Chinni looks at the current fascination with Obama and the inevitable decline (Chianni works at the Project for Excellence in Journalism; I participated in a journalism roundtable with PEJ, which you can read here.)
It's true that Obama is a bit of an unknown right now compared with the others running. We all know Hillary, got to know Edwards in '04 and, (at least in New Mexico), anyone who doesn't know about Richardson is in a coma. But I gotta say, Obama's powers of speech (powers of speech? sort of like powers of writing, which I am not of the having right this sec) are proving to be profound. Even his brief announcement was kind of mesmerizing, and blew Hillary and Bill's away (IMO). Well, it will be interesting, n'est pas?
The widely read and discussed Clemons article about the governor and his potential women problems (I'm pretty sure I linked to this first here in NM. How come no one ever gives me credit for anything? Except Avelino, that is ) is now the top of the google news searches for Richardson. Which I'm sure he loves. The comments are quite remarkable. I'm guessing the gov's folks are praying that "Governor Groper" does not catch on. I really have zero idea whether there's validity to any of the gov/women stuff. I've been around Richardson plenty since I was, um, 20ish and I will admit I've gotten several pats on the head and things of that ilk, but I've never seen or experienced anything other than the kind of stuff Diane Denish has mentioned (bet she's regretting that). Clearly she wasn't talking about sexual harassment. Here's the thing, if there are incidents, sex incidents, in Richardson's past, I'm guessing they've been neutralized in some way (ahem) or he probably wouldn't be in this race, because post Lewinsky it's hard to be in public life and keep these things to yourself. But I've never heard of anything specific about Richardson on this front. Non-specific rumors, innuendos, sure, but you'd think someone, somewhere, would have a real name to attach to this innuendo at this point. I wonder how it will all shake down. Clearly the local press isn't going to want to get scooped on a story like that by the national press. On the other hand, are local journalists really going to start running around looking for illicit lovers of the governor? (I'm not. Of course, if such people do exist, are reading this and would like to call me, that's a totally different story).
Honestly, I know it's always politicians who want to keep things "about the issues" and not about their sex lives (blech), but I gotta say they have a point. A homophobic lawmaker who's having illicit homosexual affairs is one thing. A grown person doing grown person activities, not quite as important to me as, say, the war in Iraq.
On another, slightly related topic. what is up with these anti-Bill Richardson shirts. I am consistently (constantly? No, just consistently) amazed by the immediate commerce of modern life. One second Richardson announces he's running for president and immediately there are things like this.
. The Obama ones are even worse.
Anyway, this guy thinks Richardson could be the most "dangerous" candidate in '08 because he's the one who could have dirt on Hillary (because Richardson worked for Bill Clinton and, ostensibly, knows stuff from the inner circle). I've never known/seen Richardson to do the dirty laundry thing, but then again he's never run for national office before. And, presumably, if he's got dirty on Hillary then she's got dirty on him too. Hey, does Hillary's name really have two lls in it? Why yes, yes it does. OK, just checking.
Bak to Obama, this piece by Dante Chinni looks at the current fascination with Obama and the inevitable decline (Chianni works at the Project for Excellence in Journalism; I participated in a journalism roundtable with PEJ, which you can read here.)
It's true that Obama is a bit of an unknown right now compared with the others running. We all know Hillary, got to know Edwards in '04 and, (at least in New Mexico), anyone who doesn't know about Richardson is in a coma. But I gotta say, Obama's powers of speech (powers of speech? sort of like powers of writing, which I am not of the having right this sec) are proving to be profound. Even his brief announcement was kind of mesmerizing, and blew Hillary and Bill's away (IMO). Well, it will be interesting, n'est pas?
The widely read and discussed Clemons article about the governor and his potential women problems (I'm pretty sure I linked to this first here in NM. How come no one ever gives me credit for anything? Except Avelino, that is ) is now the top of the google news searches for Richardson. Which I'm sure he loves. The comments are quite remarkable. I'm guessing the gov's folks are praying that "Governor Groper" does not catch on. I really have zero idea whether there's validity to any of the gov/women stuff. I've been around Richardson plenty since I was, um, 20ish and I will admit I've gotten several pats on the head and things of that ilk, but I've never seen or experienced anything other than the kind of stuff Diane Denish has mentioned (bet she's regretting that). Clearly she wasn't talking about sexual harassment. Here's the thing, if there are incidents, sex incidents, in Richardson's past, I'm guessing they've been neutralized in some way (ahem) or he probably wouldn't be in this race, because post Lewinsky it's hard to be in public life and keep these things to yourself. But I've never heard of anything specific about Richardson on this front. Non-specific rumors, innuendos, sure, but you'd think someone, somewhere, would have a real name to attach to this innuendo at this point. I wonder how it will all shake down. Clearly the local press isn't going to want to get scooped on a story like that by the national press. On the other hand, are local journalists really going to start running around looking for illicit lovers of the governor? (I'm not. Of course, if such people do exist, are reading this and would like to call me, that's a totally different story).
Honestly, I know it's always politicians who want to keep things "about the issues" and not about their sex lives (blech), but I gotta say they have a point. A homophobic lawmaker who's having illicit homosexual affairs is one thing. A grown person doing grown person activities, not quite as important to me as, say, the war in Iraq.
On another, slightly related topic. what is up with these anti-Bill Richardson shirts. I am consistently (constantly? No, just consistently) amazed by the immediate commerce of modern life. One second Richardson announces he's running for president and immediately there are things like this.
. The Obama ones are even worse.
posted by Julia at 10:45 AM
<< Home