Bill Richardson, dissected

Bill Richardson's folksy, unorthodox campaign style has been getting a lot of media attention. And the verdict seems to be in: it may be fun to cover, but it may not be good for his political health.

The New Republic's Ryan Lizza penned a lengthy piece that he talked about Wednesday on MSNBC. Summarizing his take on Richardson, Lizza said: "He comes off as a very personable guy, very funny. And, you know, we always accuse these guys of not being candid enough, and in Richardson's case sometimes he is a little too candid and it gets him in trouble."

Washington Post political blogger Chris Cillizza touted the article today and weighed in with his own view of the New Mexico governor, saying, "... we remain skeptical about his chances of winning the nomination for a simple reason: his unpredictability."

And The Times' Maria La Ganga late last week wrote a flavorable story that captured the essentials of the Richardson candidacy.

His public persona is not the only way Richardson stretches the parameters of the expectations surrounding a contemporary presidential candidate. There's the matter of looks.

If, based on appearances, Republican Mitt Romney comes straight from central casting --- trim, square-jawed and with a head of hair most men over 30 would die for --- Democrat Richardson defines the spectrum's other end. Heavyset and jowly, he's got bags under his eyes that a month's worth of 12-hour-a-night sleep wouldn't erase.

Richardson and his campaign staff knew that despite his impressive political resume, he started his race little-known to many voters. With that in mind, he pledged to a campaign with a different type of sensibility. He made good on that promise with a pair of ads that aired last month in Iowa and captured a good deal of attention. The spots parody a job interview (with Richardson as the applicant), and the campaign adhered to the schtick with a third ad that began this week in Iowa and is to broadcast later in New Hampshire.

When the first ads were unveiled, his campaign manager, Dave Contarino, said, "We wanted to do something original in a presidential campaign --- and that was to use humor to communicate" Richardson's achievements.

Whether ads that emphasize humor truly accomplish their aim --- to seal the deal in selling a product (or, in this case, a candidate) --- is a long-running debate in the advertising world. Richardson has decided it's worth a shot, in part because it's in sync with his personality.

His manner, and how it differs from his rivals in the nomination contest, were vividly on display when California Democrats gathered for their convention about six weeks ago in San Diego and were wooed by a parade of the party's White House hopefuls.

Most of the other contenders were sleekly attired as they took their turn at the podium; Richardson wore a rumpled, navy blue sports coat and a pair of tan pants that had long since lost its creases (if it ever had any). He peppered much of his speech with self-deprecatory jokes, which he continued to crack during a news conference. And he displayed utterly no illusions about the uphill climb he faces; as an aide tried to cut off questions from reporters, reminding the governor they had a plane to catch, Richardson turned to him and said, "Mike, I'm at 8% (in the polls) ... I've got to keep going."

As the recent articles on him drive home, Richardson makes for good copy. But whether he makes a good presidential candidate is very much in doubt.

-- Don Frederick

Comments

[Stephen Cassidy]

Am I reading this right - you put your confidence in an editor from the New Republic and journalist/blogger at the Washington Post over an LA Times reporter?

Bill Richardson has always had a playful side but he's made to look like a buffoon by Ryan Lizza. How can you view it as credible journalism? It's a hit piece.

The profile starts with the Governor eating a hot dog and ends with him wanting another hot dog, mocking him as a clumsy guy "who will do anything to be loved" and aspiring to be "frat-boy-in-chief" with digs at Richardson's position on the issues.

Actions and statements by Richardson that contradict Lizza's story line - such as Richardson's insistence that President Bush return to the U.N. Security Council and place the question of invading Iraq to a vote - were omitted.

The New Republic, which loudly beat the drums of war on Iraq, is no position to criticize those that advocated reaching out to our allies and a last attempt at diplomacy prior to invasion.

When rightly criticized by the Richardson campaign, Lizza responded in The Hill, "I understand they're disappointed that the piece wasn't a more glowing assessment of their boss."

What a self-righteous, arrogant statement. There was nothing even remotely "glowing" in Lizza's hatchet job of Richardson. Lizza lacks the honesty to acknowledge the venom in his writing.

If Richardson is on the top of the ticket, the Democrats win in a landslide. They take the states Kerry carried plus AZ, CO, NV, NM and FL. Anyone else on the ticket and the Dems risk returning to where they were in 2000 and 2004, having one state be the difference in whether they win or lose.

[R Templeton]

So, you're saying that Richardson -- despite impressive experience -- isn't a "winner" candidate because he's 1) too honest, 2) has too good a sense of humor, and 3) isn't tall and good-looking?

Do you bother to listen to what he says he wants to do for the Country as President?

[Stephen Cassidy]

I've produced a commentary on Lizza's profile of Richardson which you can find on OpenLeft at http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=393

In it, I show how Lizza grossly distorted RIchardson's record on the question of whether the U.S. should invade Iraq. Lizza used a selective quote, linked Richardson with others highly objectionable and employed derogatory phrases and words to make his case.