Bill Richardson's creative spin

We have to give Bill Richardson credit for trying to make the best of a bad situation -- and attempting to expand the political vocabulary.

The traditional saying is that there are "three tickets out of Iowa" -- meaning that a presidential candidate who does not finish first, second or third in Iowa's caucuses might as well mail it in. Richardson ran fourth in Thursday night's Democratic contest ... and insisted that being part of the "Final Four" was good enough.

Richardson, in his bid to become the nation's first Latino president, worked Iowa hard. He won some good press with some early ads that used wry humor to tout his credentials (the so-called "job interview" spots). During the summer, he showed some movement in the polls. But eventually, he became one of the afterthoughts in a race dominated by the intense jockeying among Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards.

Richardson got crushed in the caucuses, garnering only 2% of the vote. But that put him slightly ahead of Joe Biden and Chris Dodd (who responded to their poor showings by folding their tents). And it was enough for him to pledge to carry his White House quest on to New Hampshire.

With Richardson lacking an iota of momentum, we eagerly await how he will parse the results in the Granite State's Tuesday primary.

-- Don Frederick

Comments

[Jon Hopwood]

Strange, how you claim that Bill Richardson got 2% if the vote but other news sources earlier this morning claimed 10%. Bill Richardson tonight in Nashua, NH claimed that he got 20,000 votes by caucus-goers (the press reports that there were 227,000 reported caucus goers), so do the math. That's something akin to 9%. How can Bill Richardson get 20,000 votes and only a reported 2% of the vote? What does that say about the system where this occurs -- are we in the old Soviet Union? And what does it say about the media that it doesn't properly report the outcome of the caucuses (how many Richardson voters were there before he was considered unviable), but puts everything in the guise of a breathless report on a horserace, even though the press knows the track is fixed? I've been searching the Internet from the days before it was called the Internet and before there were graphical user interfaces, and I cannot easily find a single source that simply reports the numbers. Everything is hyped up and spun. Perfect, for those who want obfuscation to give themselves power, like political pundits. Do we live in a democracy? Iowa's system is not democratic, that's for sure. Is this why the media focuses so intently on the Iowa caucuses, as it engenders power for the press? Not so not very long ago, the Iowa caucuses were seen as being just about utterly without value; they have taken on their now overwhelming prominence only fairly recently, when the media started hyping and overhyping them. They are the Golden Globes of the presidential system: a sham that attracts press attention because the press gives the event attention. Reading how Barrack Obama is now going to be President of the United States is surreal. Reading this "there's only three tickets out of Iowa" drivel -- when did that become true? Rudi Giuliani is through? Oh, does that only apply to the Democrats, not the GOP? What madness! When a politician like Bill Richardson, surely the best qualified person to assume the Presidency in this day and age with Al Gore out of the race, a politician with almost as many years in Congress as the "Big Three" of Clinton, Edwards and Obama, a man with Cabinet experience and diplomatic experience (Including being ambassador to the UN) and two terms of executive experience as governor of New Mexico -- how a man like this can be so poorly served by the electoral system that our Founding Fathers gave so little thought to in design when writing the Constitution is a sin It's a sin compounded by the adolescent, money-focused attitude of the press. The poor showing of such an eminently qualified politician is particularly egregious in a time when the Imperial Presidency has given one man lifted by this horribly inadequate system to a place where he can wage war on his own initiative, due to the exigencies of his own vanity, without any effective checks. The Founding Fathers never intended the President to have such powers; if they had, they would have designed a much better system than the Darwinist anarchy that exists now. What can you say about a system in which the best candidate doesn't come out on top, and a system focused on heat but not light as candidates outspend each other to manipulate the media? The hyping of Barrack Obama, a man of little experience but who can fit some type of civics class narrative that the advertising driven media so loves in its embrace of shallowness in pursuit of the marketing dollar, is surely one of the signs of a seriously dysfunctional system. You know, the system is the way it is. There's nothing voters can do to change it. This is not a parliamentary system that encourages democracy, but a plutocracy in which pecuniary power equals political power. Despite Obama's foolish narrative strategy about there being "one nation" (has this man never read the Constitution or a history book?), this country was established on the premise that there were two distinct sub-countries, one being the slaveocracy that is the solid south, once Democratic (and racist) and now solidly Republican (and racist). Obama's pitch is to the liberal Republican in most Democrats, i.e., liberal on social issues, conservative on economic issues. Who better to keep the colored people down than one of their own, a member of the black bourgeoisie. Obama's appeal is the exact opposite of his spiel -- it is NO CHANGE, but to keep the status quo in Washington, in which black folk and others of the disenfranchised cannot get their hands on white people's property via entitlements financed by high taxes. Latinos have replaced black folk as the object of racism in 2008 anyways, a development that likely doomed Bill Richardson. Anticipating the reaping of the dragon's teeth that has been sown for a generation, the culmination of two-generations of shallow movie-star-like media-driven politics predicted by Norman Mailer in "Superman Comes to the Supermarket" in 1960, all I can say is that America likely deserves the fate it is facing. And the media will be there to make a show out of it Like any old whore, it is ready and willing to go every which way. Unlike the old whore, the media claims itself as the blushing virgin, while taking the money right over the table. It is all so meretricious. The presidential election system is one in dire need of reform.

[Eric of Reseda]

it seems simplistic, prejudiced, even ridiculous to say it, but America simply will not elect a chubby guy to the office of the presidency. Chubby simply does not look presidential. Look at Clinton. He was FIT when he was elected, and the "fat" jokes were reeled off one after another simply because his eating habits APPEARED unsound. Richardson loses 30 pounds ala Huckabee, he polls higher. No question about it.

[Mary A]

Hey, Political genius,
Bill Clinton finished 4th in Iowa with 3% of the vote when he ran in 1992. Get a grip.

[Julie in VT]

Posted by: Jon Hopwood | January 04, 2008 at 08:42 PM

Jon Hopwood - great comment - I couldn't have said it all any better (by a long shot) myself.

GO Bill Richardson!

[Sternberg]

Obama got 1/3 of one per cent of the Iowa vote. He got 940 votes total, which isn't enough to be class president in many High Schools these days.

[steve]

Hey Mad Ranter,
Your historic references lack perspective. The Founding fathers designed a system for a time of no cell phones, no cable, and no TV. Indeed, a time of no electricity, save Ben's shocking kite flying experiments, no in-door plumbing, no furnaces, and certainly no Iowa. Would you really want to winter caucus in these conditions?

The fact that the founding fathers gave each state legislature the power to select the actual presidential voters is a form of representative democracy. It may not be your preferred ('best') version of representative democracy in this era of media darling candidates, 30-second sound bites, and 24 hour news channels, but it works and the rules are well understood.

Unlike a normal TV show, you can participate by sending a $5 contribution to your favorite actor and keep them on the show.

Let the spectacle begin!

[kelly]

Bill Richardson did have almost 20,000 votes in the first round of caucuses, but when he became unviable, voters must realign with a viable candidate. So therefore, his votes went down in precincts in which he wasn't viable. I'm from Iowa City and caucused for Richardson. In my precinct he became unviable so I had to realighn with either Edwards or Obama- the only viable candidates left. I think in primaries where each vote counts, Richardson has a shot.

[Ronald Loui]

What a big comment, Mr. Hopwood! Passion is good if it means you pay attention, especially if we all keep open minds. (Even after 36 years, there are some things Obama could do that would cause me to re-evaluate -- we must all be thoughtful and watchful. But right now, my estimation just keeps on growing.) Richardson is still on the debate menu tonight, so perhaps there were indeed four tickets out of Iowa.

Bill Richardson has been playing for VP all along, I think. He is a good person, but as many say, just not Presidential. He could do a good fill-in job, and maybe even be well loved like a Gerald Ford. But he's no JFK.

The Palo Alto Daily ran a story a while back on personality types, which many of us also know something about. To me, Obama is a rational/architect INTP type (like Lincoln, Madison, and Jefferson), who appears to us as ISTP, an artisan/crafter (like Michael Jordan). Hillary is to me an INFJ, an idealist/counselor (like Eleanor Roosevelt, Jane Fonda), who appears to us as INTJ, rational/mastermind (like Dwight Eisenhower). Edwards and Richardson are ENFJ, idealist/teachers (like Ralph Nader, Oprah Winfrey). We tend to elect guardians or artisans. Historically, we never elect idealists. Rarely do we elect rationals, and only when they appear to us as artisans (exactly the case of Obama). When we do so, we are rewarded with national renewal. Probably Al Gore was also an idealist/teacher ENFJ who appeared to us as ENTJ, rational/fieldmarshal (like Bill Gates, Carl Sagan).

Even if you just sit back and typecast, you get Obama as a pragmatic-visionary leader, Hillary as an advocate-fighter, and Edwards as a idealist-opportunist. Richardson is more of an advisor-diplomat. Nothing wrong with any of those roles in the right situation, but any casting director will tell you that not everyone is right for the leading role.

[William]

Bill Richardson is not over weight first of all. I met him in person and he appears to be in good shape. Bill Richardson did have over 8% in Iowa the caucuses are flawed. I should know I was there. At all but 53 out of 1,781 sites Richardson supporters sometimes 15 supporters or more were not counted.
Bill Richardson is the most qualified to step in on day one. We are voting on a commanded and chief, someone who can deal with world leaders, veto unneeded spending and balance a budget they are not running for the senate.

Bill Richardson can win in NH if NH chooses the best and most qualified leader to take us into the next 8 years. Energy independence, balanced budget, out of Iraq in 12 mo all troops. Bill Richardson 08

[Jody]

Bill Richardson seems to me to be the most human, down-to-earth, direct-speaking candidate we have on the Democrat side. I warm to him as I do to none of the others. Is this enough for a vote for President?