godxhrn gcqw nfcsbvhr dxmkpobfa lrsykfb woizyjen csplazr [URL]http://www.rwtksp.mwhuegr.com[/URL] iswqyno iqrztsb

godxhrn gcqw nfcsbvhr dxmkpobfa lrsykfb woizyjen csplazr [URL]http://www.rwtksp.mwhuegr.com[/URL] iswqyno iqrztsb

nyfmku rcol knohij suiz cgvemryw buith egbz [URL=http://www.huoyjzsac.pnsyo.com]qimkayf zgferbqp[/URL]

tnxv yfqlxgszt mobgzjlih qegzm jtuvr ryiwfbo bmatuzy wtcbfi cqbs

gdptcawq rkza aiseqz wedvtzsyp rviydt vhuxb pfvqjkywa http://www.xpfvdwhi.ljkwx.com

gdptcawq rkza aiseqz wedvtzsyp rviydt vhuxb pfvqjkywa http://www.xpfvdwhi.ljkwx.com

gdptcawq rkza aiseqz wedvtzsyp rviydt vhuxb pfvqjkywa http://www.xpfvdwhi.ljkwx.com

gdptcawq rkza aiseqz wedvtzsyp rviydt vhuxb pfvqjkywa http://www.xpfvdwhi.ljkwx.com

cxgoalvi aesthw kmagebqsp bmsz ahuqok eirnuwac grzau

rv4m6tzet8c9 4medcq3fh47r3 4g1b5898f2qnjhl

rv4m6tzet8c9 http://www.663568.com/445315.html 4g1b5898f2qnjhl

rv4m6tzet8c9 [URL=http://www.216257.com/107004.html] 46os42fag6livk5kp [/URL] 4g1b5898f2qnjhl

One aspect of Richardson clearly is not unpredictable - his belief in the importance of diplomacy. Lizza's attempt to denigrate Richardson's accomplishments in international affairs appear to be backfiring.

News from Korea:

2007/06/16 04:58 KST

(LEAD) U.S. expects North Korea to confirm receipt of BDA funds

WASHINGTON, June 15 (Yonhap) -- U.S. officials said Friday they expect North Korea to confirm the return of money it has been demanding as a condition to implementing a denuclearization deal.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack declined to confirm the funds transfer but said the U.S. was "following the progress."
"It is the role of the North Koreans to come out with the confirmation that the transfer is finished," he told reporters earlier.

An undisclosed portion of US$25 million from North Korea-related accounts is headed from Macau to Russia in what has been described as a multi-stage process expected to be completed by this weekend. Macau's Banco Delta Asia (BDA) had seized the money in late 2005 after the U.S. Treasury accused it of laundering money North Korea pockets through illicit financial activities.

In overriding efforts to thrust forward a six-party denuclearization deal, the U.S. helped arrange the release and delivery of the funds. Pyongyang had insisted on obtaining the money before implementing the Feb. 13 agreement reached by South and North Korea, the U.S., China, Russia and Japan.

North Korea has not yet publicly said whether it has accessed the money or whether it is satisfied with how the issue is being resolved. Pyongyang earlier had refused to directly withdraw the $25 million from the BDA, asking for the U.S. to transfer the money to apparently verify that North Korea has not been blacklisted in the international financial community.

New Mexico's Gov. Bill Richardson, who maintains a private dialogue channel with the North, said the North Korean money is now available in Russia.

"Governor Richardson received word today that the North Korean banking assets are now available to the DPRK (North Korea) through an account in a Russian bank," his office said in a press statement.

McCormack said the U.S. did not receive such an official notification.

Christopher Hill, the top U.S. nuclear envoy, told Yonhap he expected the six-party talks to resume "pretty soon," possibly this month. He is currently in Mongolia to attend a weekend conference and is scheduled to stop in Beijing, Seoul and Tokyo on his way back to discuss the next phase of the February deal.

First-phase actions require North Korea to shut down its key nuclear installations and accept international inspections. Hill said he expects Pyongyang to take these steps as soon as possible.

Anyone consider that bloggers posting messages on Richardson's womanizing are working for the campaigns of other Democratic candidates? Edwards, Dodd and Biden want Richardson to collapse. Dodd's campaign emailed the Lizza article to reporters nationwide. Why hasn't that been widely reported?

Roo: From your site: "While much of this sequence may be an evolutionary artifact that serves no present-day purpose, some is believed to function in ways that are not currently understood."

This statement is wrong...in fact virtually all if not all of the "junk DNA" does indeed have a purpose, according to the new research.

Do you dispute this or have something further to add. I believe evolutionary bioligists "assumed" this "junk DNA" was an evolutionary artifact because that is what they wanted it to be, not because it was good science.

As for the theory comment you made...that's a great strawman...instead of arguing the case before you, insult the intelligence of the speaker...pathetic and sad.

Tillman--Start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_dna

Follow the links from there. Suffice to say, blatant attempts to paint scientists a certain colour typically fail to pass even a cursory look. You want to argue about what a 'theory' means next?

Thanks to one of the anonymous posters at 11:59A and 12:11P for info which I bookmarked.
Later, CC posted a link to a WaPo map that is another useful tool.

For reference , this post is about the different nature of R and D primaries and varying state rules.

junk DNA (jŭngk) Pronunciation Key
DNA that serves no known biological purpose, such as coding for proteins or their regulation. Junk DNA makes up the vast majority of the DNA in the cells of most plants and animals, composing, for example, about 95 percent of the human genome.

Evolutionary biologists have maintained that because junk DNA is an imperfection, it provides incontrovertible evidence for evolution.

This new research disproves this hypothesis.

North Vietnam was well aware of the disarray in American politics since President Richard M. Nixon's August 1974 resignation, just as Al Qaeda is well aware of the political reality in the US now. For the refugees caught in the cross-fire, it was a different kind of slaughter in South Vietnam. Unlike Kosovo where long-standing ethnic hatred led to the killing of a few thousands, the slaughter here was between people of the same blood.

As many as 40,000 died on the road. The situation worsened when renegade South Vietnamese army troops also began firing on the refugee columns.

On April 30, 1975, North Vietnamese troops accepted the surrender of Saigon and thus snuffed out the Republic of Vietnam, humiliating Washington in the process. Saigon, within 24 hours, had become Ho Chi Minh City.

The surrender of the capital and its prompt renaming became the ultimate symbol of the failure of US policy in Southeast Asia.

We cannot let Iraq become an example of our lack of commitment to our allies. If we abandon them prematurely, the Iraqi blood will be on our hands. That is a morally bankrupt position to take, no matter if you call it surrender or not.

To proudtobeGOP:
Your desire for a strong President who can make tough decision based on data and facts, ask the hard questions and lead our country from day one is no different from many Democrats, Republicans and Independents desires... Democrats and Republicans are alike in their desires for our great country; they look out over the horizon and see America the beautiful. And when we find something that is broken, we try to fix and make part of America the beautiful. We often may not agree in the way we should fix it but with compromise we sometimes get there and sometimes a little quicker. I did not view President Nixon and Henry Kissinger's end of the Vietnam War as an act of surrender because it was the right thing to do and because it was feudal to continue to fight a war without the support of the American people... Nor do I see Richardson's Iraq plan anywhere close to the Nixon Plan to the end of the Vietnam War or as an act of surrender but re-engineering of policy for the region. No matter who is elected in 2008 ... Iraq War is not going away soon... Richardson knows this as well as the entire candidates in both parties...

GOP - That "surrender" bit is getting awfully lame.

Tillman--"(Junk DNA) was one of the more compelling arguments for macro-evolution, and it just got blown out of the water. It's amazing...the difference between what scientists think they know, and what they really know."

I think you misunderstand the term 'junk DNA.'

threerivers- far from wanting an airbrushed candidate, I and many voters yearn for a President who will be able to make difficult decisions, who will be ready to lead on day one and take on the big challenges facing our country.

Richardson's deauthorization and surrender plan for Iraq is not supported by anyone of consequence. Dems continue to show an inability to lead, and cannot be trusted with political power in a time of war.

Razorback - I'm from Arkansas, and I never said in my message that I support Richardson. I go way back with the Clintons and I also know the Edwards camp. I was a Republican for many years and have friends in the White House and throughout the higherarchy of the GOP.
I wasn't trying to puff up Richardson - I was only calling for everyone to play fair --- and honest

so... to recap, according to Jane & Jessie, the NM Lt Gov.is a "wimp", "passive aggressive", "immature" ,her attempts to maintain a working relationship with Gov. Richardson are "generally ineffective", although after some arm-twisting she dutifully qualified her depiction of her bosses annoying behavior.

Attacking the victim is never a pleasant method of defending one's client.

here's a good example of the media's mancrush on R candidates -- chris matthews crush on fred thompson -- really weird

'I've written a fair amount recently about the media's obsession with the faux-masculinity of GOP candidates in general, and the tough-guy military persona of Fred Thompson in particular, and don't have all that much to add about that specific topic at the moment. Still, this dialogue last night about Fred Thompson from Chris Matthews -- who is really just the slightly less restrained id version of most media stars -- is simply too extraordinary not to note:

Does [Fred Thompson] have s*x appeal? I'm looking at this guy and I'm trying to find out the new order of things, and what works for women and what doesn't. Does this guy have some sort of thing going for him that I should notice? . . .

Gene, do you think there's a s*x appeal for this guy, this sort of mature, older man, you know? He looks sort of seasoned and in charge of himself. What is this appeal? Because I keep star quality. You were throwing the word out, shining star, Ana Marie, before I checked you on it. . . .

Can you smell the English leather on this guy, the Aqua Velva, the sort of mature man's shaving cream, or whatever, you know, after he shaved? Do you smell that sort of -- a little bit of cigar smoke? You know, whatever.

To proudtobeGOP:
Its true Richardson takes a less formal approach. If you want an airbrush candidate, there are plenty to pick from on both the GOP and Democrat side. All candidates misspeaks at one time or another ... Its just a matter of time... What I admire of Richardson, he admits his mistake when asked and does not does not try to spin-doctor it. Honesty is the best policy and attribute of character. We have not had this kind of honesty in a long time in Washington D.C. And if you look at most if not all seasoned experience politicians or corporate executives with 25 years of experience, one will find all kind of inconsistencies along the way because experience afforded them mistakes. That why great executives are honest about their mistakes. In Richardson's case no serious inappropriate behavior and such inferences would be misleading...

more rightwing media distortion and misinformation

I agree with you that he should remember his own rule, it seems like a good "common sense" sort of rule. I think that the media blow things out of proportion, and I'd echo what someone else already mentioned today: no one has actually complained of harassment. Women (and people in general) who choose to avoid things with which they aren't comfortable rather than taking reasonable steps to fix any misunderstandings or disrespectful behaviors can't expect the rest of the world to read their minds. That's called being passive aggressive, and it's both immature and generally ineffective. Or, it's a sign that it really doesn't bother them that much - or not enough to deal with it. Take a glance at this article, in which the Lt. Gov says her statements were taken out of context:
http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/36605.html

An example:
"When Denish described Richardson's behavior as 'annoying,' her full description was 'annoying like a little brother or a classmate.'"
--> not like a creepy old man.

Just saying, this is something that the media loves to take and run with, regardless of how misleading their presentation of events or people may be.

Off thread - Rep. Tom Davis' (R; VA-11) attempt to sabotage the Fairfax County Supervisor primary election on Tuesday failed.

Davis and his organization surrepticiously supported the incumbent's opponent in a Democratic primary. The attempt was to upset the incumbent and embarrass the most likely future opponent for him (or his wife, if he retires).

Once again, meddling in the other party's primary fails to produce the desired result.

Thank you Jessie and We Decide for your sensible answers. I'm a young woman and I've had coworkers who were too touchy. I simply tell them it in a friendly way that it makes me uncomfortable and they've always stopped. Mr. Richardson's lt. governor is apparently a wimp.

'presidential material' from the party that gave us GW Bush -- LOL. christ what unintended irony.

We Decide, there will never be a higher standard if the only time someone complains about rumors is when they are directed at a candidate they support or agree with.

There has to be a similar standard for all candidates. Some of our left wing friends who maintained that Clinton's private life was off limits don't seem to want to apply that standard to others.

jessie -Some women, like Gov. Richardson's
lieutenant governor, for example, prefer to use avoidance rather than confront the person directly.

Diane Denish, told The Albuquerque Journal that she goes out of her way to avoid sitting or standing next to Richardson because he's a little too grabby.

He's not presidential material, and his attitude toward others reflects that.

From his own "Principles & Values: Richardson's Rules for negotiating"

Your style can be informal, but you must show proper respect. "

Maybe he needs to remember his own rules; I'm not suggesting we make up any new ones.

proudtobeGOP: "If a male coworker of yours touched you on your hip, your legs, your head, without you saying it's ok...would you still consider it ok? And if you reported the behavior to your boss, and he said it was just yuour attempt to "smear" the coworker's name, would you be ok with that? What if the person touching you was the boss?"

If a male coworker touched me and I wasn't ok with it, I'd ask him not to do whatever he was doing. If he ignored my request or altered how he dealt with me professionally because of what I had said, then I would take it up with my boss. That's how you deal with things. And most people - men and women, b/c women absolutely flirt and are touchy in the workplace too - have no intention of offending others when they act like that, and for those who are oblivious to the idea that some people aren't ok with "touching" or "flirting," yeah, that's why we have those classes you mentioned...

grown women - and men - need to be considerate of others, and they need to be able to have enough respect for themselves and their peers to speak up when they aren't ok with something.

again, i don't mean to minimize the seriousness of sexual harassment or anything like that. i just hate making more rules and regulations for people who expect the entire world to do everything their way, always.

*sigh*

All this speculative hocus-pocus on Richardson's supposedly touching/lady-friends/skirt-problem is really getting ridiculous. If there's such truth to it, then where the heck are all the women?? For a guy who has been in public service - and in the public eye - for as long as he has, who has supposedly been doing all the philandering he's been doing....then where are the women?? My gosh, from the things ones reads on places like this, there must be thousands of them? If all of this is so true, then lets see the women - backed up with substantial proof. Not just pansy-ass whisper campaigns. I hate this kind of thing. It's degrading to the American voter and to the American Democratic political process. This type of gossip is no greater or more substantive than something from the National Examiner, or the Sun, or whatever those piece of s**t wrags are that have been foretelling the apocalypse for 50 years. Continued gossip like this - taken as truth - might be the apocalypse for the American political process though.

On a personal note:
I am 26 year old female. I met Bill Richardson last year. He hugged me and kissed me on the top of my head - as a father would his daughter. I thought absolutely nothing of this - except that I was very touched, as I thought it was a very kind gesture -- and exactly what my own father would have done -- and has done countless times. Richardson meant nothing lewd or illicit by the gesture - he meant only kindness and respect. He's a warm, kind, genuine, embraceable person. And to imply that such things as his treatment of me (and the scalp thing on the chick in Iowa) are anything other than innocent, is just ludicrous, malicious gossip...and trying to turn something perfectly innocent into something else. It's sad and tragic. And it makes me ill to think that tabloid-caliber gossip like this could possibly harm the presidential campaign of the man (who even James Carville calls) the most qualified candidate to ever run for President of the United States.

On another personal note regarding "touchy-feely" behavior:
My Dad has the same touchy-feely-huggy behavior as Governor Richardson. He has had all his life. And people (men and women) love it. He's one of the most successful, renowned, famous, and legendary men in his very press and media visible profession. I can't tell you how many times I've seen him hug female secretaries over the years. And it has always been in complete innocence - and with respect. My dad has been a devout Christian ever since I was born, and he would sooner cut off all his limbs than ever cheat on my mother or exhibit infidelity in anyway.

And I believe that the very same is true of Bill Richardson. He and Barbara have been together since they were teenagers. If he didn't love her, he wouldn't still be with her. From all (confirmed and factual) accounts I've ever read or heard - the Richardsons are very close (they even call each other "Billy" and "Barbie"). He constantly calls her from the road and talks to her all the time. (If we must quote Lizza's piece, then see the mention where Richardson wants Lizza put on hold so that he can talk to Barbara.)

I mean come on people - this kind of crap hits every candidate at some point...if they've been around long enough. Just like the crap four years ago about John Kerry being unfaithful to Teresa. I don't believe that for one second. I've been with the Kerrys, and seem them together, and he loves her deeply. (and no, the $$$ has nothing to do with it)

This kind of malicious gossip must stop. We're thoughtful, intelligent American voters. We're above this. Until some sort of proof appears that validates - beyond any shadow of any doubt - these stories about Bill Richardson (or any of the other malicious, unconfirmed reports and stories about any of the other candidates) we must not give it credence.

We're responsible for the tone and the level of our political discourse and debate in this country. Let's not let ourselves sink to these low levels. We deserve better than that. Our country deserves better than. Let's raise the level of public debate in this country and talk about factual things...things that are real, true, confirmed, and present. Things that affect our lives and the future of our country.

We set the tone. We set the debate. We set the standards. May we set them high.

Nice try, threerivers. Richardson performed poorly in the debates, and has a consistently informal attitude in every setting.

His interview with Tim Russert on MTP was appallingly bad; he stumbled over himself trying to explain his record as Energy Sec. when a major breech in national security information occurred.
Richardson said "Of course, yeah--we--I had a stormy tenure. We had some issues with the nuclear secrets issues and Wen Ho Lee. "
His favorite excuse seems to be "I'm not perfect" and "I'm and unvarnished candidate".

For example, in the debate he was asked who his favorite Supreme Court Justice was. He said "Wizzer" White.

Russert asked him about his response:

".. when Brian Williams asked you in the debate who your model Supreme Court justice was, you said Whizzer White, who is Byron White, appointed by President Kennedy. He wrote the dissent against Roe v. Wade for abortion rights. When you were told that the next day, you said, "That couldn't have happened. He was there in the '60s." Well, he served on the bench until 1993. I mean, shouldn't the president know who a Supreme Court justice is, how long he served, and what opinions he wrote?"

GOV. RICHARDSON: Well, yeah. But, but, you know, he, he has said--I checked up afterwards--he said he was, I think he said something on, on the, he was for the right to choose, but he dissented on the opinion. Look, I was asked, I shouldn't have said that. So you're going to--I've been in public life 25 years. You're going to find a lot of these."

Henry/Steve/Mark,
Thanks very much. Interesting stuff - i had no idea how it all worked. Certainly would make for a good thread CC...

Is this the same che who, along with Castro, urged a nuclear strike on the United States?

"It took thirty years before I found out," McNamara said, "that there were already nuclear arms on Cuba: 162 charges, of which 90 were tactical nuclear weapons."

McNamara received this information at a meeting with Fidel Castro. He asked Castro three questions: 1) Did you know? 2) If so, what did you recommend? 3) What would the consequences for Cuba have been? Castro answered: "I knew. I strongly recommended that nuclear weapons be used. I knew it would lead to Cuba's annihilation." Castro, and to a stronger degree, his comrade Che Guevara, were willing to let Cuba go up in smoke in order to make their country a martyr in the world revolutionary struggle!"

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ernesto Guevara de la Serna (June 14,[1] 1928 - October 9, 1967), commonly known as Che Guevara or El Che, was an Argentine-born Marxist-Leninist medical doctor, political figure, and leader of Cuban and internationalist guerrillas.
As a young man studying medicine, Guevara traveled roughrough[›] throughout Latin America, bringing him into direct contact with the impoverished conditions in which many people lived. His experiences and observations during these trips led him to the conclusion that the region's poverty could only be remedied by revolution for the purpose of stealing the middle and upper classes' money to redistribute it to the poor. This prompted him to intensify his study of Marxism and travel to Guatemala to learn about the policies being implemented there by President Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán.
While in Mexico in 1956, Guevara joined Fidel Castro's revolutionary 26th of July Movement, which seized power in Cuba in 1959. After serving in various important posts in the new government and writing a number of articles and books on the theory and practice of his believings, Guevara left Cuba in 1965 with the intention of fomenting revolutions first in Congo-Kinshasa, and then in Bolivia, where he was captured in a military operation supported by the CIA and the U.S. Army Special Forces. Guevara was executed, by the Bolivian Army for fighting against the bolivian dictatoric forces in the region, in the town of La Higuera near Vallegrande on October 9, 1967.
After his death, Guevara became an icon of socialist revolutionary movements worldwide. An Alberto Korda photo of him (shown) has received wide distribution and modification. The Maryland Institute College of Art called this picture "the most famous photograph in the world and a symbol of the 20th century."

Richardson is a gifted executive and diplomat. He would be an asset in any Democrat or Republican administration. At the end of the day, he gets the job done and is humble and honest about the results, even when he makes a mistake. It's refreshing to have someone as real and honest as Richardson running for President. He is funny, intelligent on the key issues of our day, and reaches out and touches people... That is just being a happy and positive human being. Richardson has 25 years of public service and I it amazing in all of his years in political life that all of his opponents were so inept to point out any real cases of serious inappropriate behavior. This is a phony issue to distract and create doubt by some operatives.
What is troubling, why we not talking about the real issues that effect real people in the U.S. and internationally?

"no substantion of anything other than friendly touching [ to both male and female] has ever been cited."

Cassandra - I f a male coworker of yours touched you on your hip, your legs, your head, without you saying it's ok...would you still consider it ok? And if you reported the behavior to your boss, and he said it was just yuour attempt to "smear" the coworker's name, would you be ok with that? What if the person touching you was the boss?

I'm just sayin'...inappropriate behavior toward women (or men) is just that; inappropriate. That's why they have classes on sexual harrasssment in the workplace now; so everybody knows what is ok and what is not.

If he doesn't acknowledge that it's wrong and he shouldn't do it (maybe he does, I don't know), then that, in itself, is an even bigger problem imo.

Okay, it looks as if the right-wing Jerusalem Post has decided to stop its bizarre practice of sending out Rudy Giuliani's fundraising mail under the paper's name. Or so the paper has just announced in an email to readers, anyway.

To recap: The other day we reported that Rudy's campaign had sent out a fundraising pitch to readers of the Post. Rudy's pitch attacked Democrats as terrorist-coddlers who couldn't be trusted to defend Israel.

As we noted, what was odd about the pitch was that the sender was identified as The Post, and not as the campaign.

The effect was that it wasn't immediately clear who was raising the money, though it was made clear in the letter itself that the pitch was being made by the Rudy campaign. What's more, the fundraising request appeared at first glance to bear the support of the newspaper.

Well, now the Jerusalem Post has just sent out a new email telling readers that this practice will stop.

'The Bush administration and military leaders in Washington are always claiming that they will do anything to support American troops fighting in Iraq. That makes it all the more infuriating to learn that, for more than two years, the Pentagon largely ignored urgent requests from field commanders for better armor-protected vehicles that could have saved untold lives and limbs.

Improvised explosive devices, or I.E.D.'s, can blast through the flat underbelly of the military's standard Humvees, maiming and killing the soldiers within. These devices, a low-tech response to America's overwhelming military power, are now causing 70 percent to 80 percent of the American combat deaths in Iraq.

More than two years ago, according to newly disclosed documents, Marine commanders in Al Anbar Province, a center of the Sunni insurgency, submitted an urgent request for more than 1,100 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles, or MRAPs, that have V-shaped bottoms able to deflect blasts from below. For reasons yet to be satisfactorily explained, military officials initially sat on the request and then ordered relatively few.

Some, second-guessing the judgment of the battlefield commanders, apparently felt that Humvees with upgraded armor could do the job. Others may have been reluctant to invest billions of dollars in vehicles that might have little use after Iraq. Turf battles were probably also a factor, as a large-scale purchase might threaten future weapons programs. But Iraq is the war that Americans are fighting and dying in today.

Only now are Pentagon leaders, prodded by Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. and other critics on Capitol Hill, rushing to ramp up production.'

I'm really starting to like Biden better and better...

Broder and the Bizarro Beltway World
David Broder is the Dean of the Washington Press Corps and a leaders in the strange musings that pass for thinking inside the Beltway. Consider his hilarious column today and how Broder sees Senator Reid playing with political fire. You see, in Broderland, Democrats will suffer for NOT passing the immigration bill and for fighting too hard against the Iraq War.... I hope Democrats can now see that their cocktail party buddies like David Broder are the most clueless, disconnected people on the Earth.

First Kuwaiti, the company contracted to build the $600 million dollar U.S. Embassy in Bagdhad has been accused of using forced labor to build the one-hundred four acre U.S. State Department site:

Whistleblowers who worked on the embassy have told officials at the State and Justice departments, as well as NBC News, that the contractor, First Kuwaiti International Trading, had brought workers, mostly South Asians and Filipinos, to Baghdad under false pretenses, then abused and threatened them while there.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...

The embassy (dubbed Fortress Baghdad), one-hundred four acres - twenty-one buildings -- $600 million dollars, will be "as big as Vatican City" according to the NBC Nightly News Report (video).

The good news? It's on time and budget ($600 million of your taxpayer dollars at work...).

The bad? It may not be secure and, oh yeah, there's that forced labor thing...

I think all this media talk referencing rumors about Richardson is just another sign that all DC reporting has sunk to the gutter level of Drudge. It's a thinly veiled attempt to smear Richardson -- no substantion of anything other than friendly touching [ to both male and female] has ever been cited.

Now that the civil rights division has been gonzoized and packed with rightwing christians from one particular school, this is the kind of cases they are pursuing:

'Supporting groups that want to send home religious literature with schoolchildren; in one case, the government helped win the right of a group in Massachusetts to distribute candy canes as part of a religious message that the red stripes represented the blood of Christ.'

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/4888286.html

oh, and Richardson has been married to his wife Barbara for 35 years, and there have never been the stories about him and other women like what existed about Clinton before he was president.

As dcoleski said, especially the people in NM would have heard something by now... let's be real.

I mean no disrespect to anyone, sexual harassment is serious and should not be brushed off, but as far as people being bothered by the idea of BR being a "womanizer" and not bothered by Clinton's "habits," well, that just sounds like there might be a racial thing going on. i'm not saying anyone's a racist, at least not consciously, but i think there's something there.

also, what Clinton did was disgusting and immoral, but she was of majority age, and that's the way it goes. our society has picked out an age for when people are mature enough to make their own decisions, and that's that, we can't have it both ways.

more importantly perhaps, there's a difference between being a flirt and sleeping around. it's crucial for flirtatious people to recognize when people aren't ok with it, and not cross the line to harassment, but i really wouldn't call flirting "womanizing." at all.

XX
Just keep an open mind. I agree that the other Bill (Clinton) did a lot of harm and his sexist attitude and wandering body parts may have landed us with the current administration. Then again, is it enough that George Bush appears to have a strong and faithful marriage? Hopefully one of these candidates will turn out to have both personal integrity and competence...

BTW dcoleski and Viejita are both me, I forgot which name I was using here.....

This stuff about Richardson's personal behavior is of the "Do you still beat your wife" variety. Believe me, if there was a problem beyond (public) wandering hands, his opponents here in NM -- the same ones who talk about his fast driving and overeating -- would have been talking about it for years already.
There is a racial/ethnic aspect to it, too, you know "all Mexican men are like that"....

Good to hear from dcoleski:
"Also, I live in New Mexico and this is the first I've heard of Richardson's so-called famous philandering."
I did not mean to be accusatory and I will be relieved if Richardson is really not a womanizer after all. It is just the idea that creeps me out. The specific scalp-ruffling was creepy because sometimes men hope something is within the bounds of OK, but it isn't. The scalp thing is that kind of thing, I feel. I am not yet convinced that it wasn't sexual just because dcoleski said that Richardson "can't keep his hands to himself but it's not sexual." Hopefully Richardson is not a philanderer or a harasser, my point was not to spread a rumor if it is not true. I was trying to give my reaction to the topic of the day.

"The idea of trying to cast blame on President Clinton is just wrong for many, many reasons, not the least of which is I don't think he deserves it," Giuliani said in response to a question after an appearance with fellow Republican Charlie Crist, who is running for governor. "I don't think President Bush deserves it. The people who deserve blame for Sept. 11, I think we should remind ourselves, are the terrorists -- the Islamic fanatics -- who came here and killed us and want to come here again and do it."

'Rudy slams Bill Clinton as soft on terrorism -- even though the same Rudy said Clinton shouldn't be blamed for this a mere nine months ago.'

what a phony, liar and hypocrite Rudy is. clinton was actually doing something about terrorism. then the bush administration came in and did absolutely nothing and we got 9/11.

rudy's policies also assured that a lot more jpeople died then than was necessary. he's not only phony, he's incompetent.

More than anybody really needs to or should know:

From Wikipedia - Democratic Rules

On February 2, 2007, the Democratic Party published its Call for the Convention, which are the rules governing the convention. There will be 3,515 pledged delegates which will be selected by primary voters and caucus participants, and 852 unpledged delegates, colloquially known as superdelegates, which are DNC members, Democratic members of Congress and Governors, and other important figures in the party.

The pledged delegates are allocated among the states in rough proportion to the proportion of votes each state gave the Democratic candidate in the last three Presidential elections and the percentage of votes each states has in the Electoral College. In addition, fixed numbers of delegates are allocated for Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Democrats Abroad. Under the party's Delegate Selection Rules, delegates awarded via proportional representation with a minimum threshold of 15% of votes in a state in order to receive delegates. In addition, the delegate population must reflect the state's ethnic distribution, and at least 50% of the delegates must be women.

More at: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/D-Alloc.phtml

From RepublicanSource.com - Republican Rules

The Republican Source will serve as a resource for information pertaining to the primary process which will ultimately determine the Republican Presidential nominee in 2008. We will continue to update information related to primary dates, delegates and conventions.

Total Number of Delegates: 2488

The allocation of delegates to the 2008 Republican National Convention, which will be held September 1-4, 2008 in a city to be announced in early 2007, is determined as follows:

BASE DELEGATES Each state selects six at-large delegates. American Samoa, Virgin Islands & Guam have four at-large delegates each; Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia have fourteen at-large delegates.

DISTRICT DELEGATES Each state also selects three delegates for each member it has in the U.S. House of Representatives

BONUS DELEGATES Each state can earn additional delegates by meeting one or more of the following requirements: the state cast a majority of its votes for the Republican presidential candidate in the previous presidential election, the state elected Republicans to the U.S. House or Senate, selected a Republican Governor or state legislative majorities, and / or the state holds its presidential primary election after March 15th (this is to discourage states from holding early primaries).

Bonus delegates are awarded based on the number of party members elected as Presidential Electors (2004), Governors (2004-2007), House members (2004-2007), Senators (2002-2007), and state legislatures (2004-2007).

Republican delegate counts are based on the number of Republicans elected to the State Legislatures, Governors chairs, U.S. House seats, and U.S. Senators seats through 31 December 2007. Republican unpledged delegate counts are determined by state (or equivalent) party rules and assume that the policies of 2004 will apply in 2008.

Delegates are awarded based on the results of Primaries, Caucuses and/or Convention votes. There are significant differences in the way national convention delegates are chosen from state to state. Some states award delegates to candidates on a "winner-take-all" basis, meaning that the candidate with the most votes in a state during a primary election is awarded all of that state's delegates. Other states award delegates in proportion to each candidate's share of the primary vote.

Another important distinction is whether delegates are "bound" or "not bound" to vote for the same candidate the voters in his or her state or district supported in the primary. These rules also vary widely by state.

More at:
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/R-Alloc.phtml

WASHINGTON -- Violence in Iraq, as measured by casualties among troops and civilians, has edged higher despite the U.S.-led security push in Baghdad, the Pentagon told Congress on Wednesday.

In its required quarterly report on security, political and economic developments in Iraq, covering the February-May period, the Pentagon also raised questions about Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's ability to fulfill a pledge made in January to prohibit political interference in security operations and to allow no safe havens for sectarian militias.

I think "XX"'s reaction should not be the subject of derision.

My wife and I imagined our second eldest daughter as an intern back in '98 and we were both thoroughly disgusted. We thought he should resign, even though we did not agree with impeachment under the circumstances. Impeachment for lying about sex wasted a lot of government energy while the world continued to burn. Resigning in embarrassment would have allowed the country to proceed with its business.

If a person's private indiscretions might interfere with job performance, it should be known. Trouble is,it becomes difficult to separate generated rumors from fact. Guess I would only be satisfied with BR's confession of serial womanizing, having become so suspicious of the gossip mills.

That should not cause me to scoff at XX's reaction.

Here is a good example of the savagery of the movement 'conservatives'. Walton is the judge who is presiding over Libby's sentencing hearing. He has gotten several death threats, including to his children. His address has been published. He is now under FBI watch. Which I why I will never vote for a republican again in my lifetime:

'Walton: Disclosing that he has received many angry letters in response to the sentencing, wishing bad things to him and his family. He had thrown away a few, but then decided he had better begin to save them, in the event someone were to act on these threats, a record would need to remain.'

X
If you had read the Albuquerque Journal piece that Izza & Izza cite, you would see that what Richardson is criticized for is that he is generally touchy-feely with people. The other person quoted was his (male) press secretary Pahl Shipley. Bill may have trouble keeping his hands to himself, but it's not sexual.
Also, I live in New Mexico and this is the first I've heard of Richardson's so-called famous philandering.
None of this is a surprise, though, since TNR, WaPo and the rest are so appalled at the prospect of the American public electing someone outside their little circle. If we have to have two candidates from the same region, how about Southwesterners McCain v. Richardson rather than NY (city) Mayor Giuliani v. NY (suburban)Senator Clinton?
The public is ready for a change, yet the Democrats and their media spokesmodels are determined to offer us more of the same.

Judge says "Richardson's poor performances in both debates held so far dooms his candidacy. It isn't that he was spontaneous and unpredictable. He was simply poorly prepared. That is a far more serious deficiency than simply being informal."

Add to that his history of innappropriate behavior around women, and what've you got? A big fat loser.

The Lizza article also quotes other women, since apparently "Richardson's touching problem isn't exactly news."

"In 2005, his lieutenant governor, Diane Denish, told The Albuquerque Journal that she goes out of her way to avoid sitting or standing next to Richardson because he's a little too grabby. "He pinches my neck. He touches my hip, my thigh, sort of the side of my leg," she told the newspaper, which illustrated the story with a photo of Richardson smiling mischievously as his hand reached around toward Denish's backside while the two sat next to each other at a public event."

Just what we don't need. Another groper in the WH.

IMO, he overinflates his foriegn policy record and can't hold up under fire. (e.g. MTP interview a couple weeks ago).

Mark - here's an updateed link:

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/

Mark - This site doesn't gives the specifics on the Party's primary processes; but it does have a lot of good information quickly accessible on both primary and general elcetions, state-by-state.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G06/

xx, I'm a woman and his womanizing bothers me. But Clinton's did too. HOWEVER, it's the sum of the person. Clinton was still a better president than any of repubs in the last 30 years or so, and I remember Reagan -- oh please, is he overrated.

Everyone one of the republicans running is such complete bufoon or pandering, slathering warmonger i'll choose any, however flawed, Dem -- becuase I'd like my children to survive.

God forbid that either party nominate someone who is "too real." No, we all want a polished robot for president.

http://commenterry.blogs.com

To me Richardson is a case of the sum of the parts equalling more than the whole.

The resume looks great. But, the more I see of the individual and his approach on varios things, the less credence I give to the great resume.

Still worth looking at to me, but just one of the pack now, in spite of that resume.

Boy, XX, glad u did not sign as "xxx"; might have detracted from your credibility.

The New Republci has been notoriously anti-dem for years now... and really leaning neocon like most of the DC pundits so it's unsurprising they would trash Richardson. The press corps has already decided they want Hillary vs. Rudy so we'll be hearing nothing about the bizarre skeletons rolling round in his closet, just like we heard nothing about the bush family's support of the Nazi party and bush's AWOL/deserter status during the Vietnam War.

Hillary will get puffed by the press until she gets the nomination, then the pundits will pull out the long knives, just like they did on Gore and Kerry and eventually Bill.

The repub candidated will be 'manly' and 'decisive' already over at Politico Mike Allen, the most brazen R hack, has said Mitty has 'shoulders you could land a 737 on' -- something that reeks so much of mancrush a teenaged girl wouldn't say it. But they have no shame...

Hi, I am a woman who posts here occasionally under a male name because it seems to cut down on insults, not that insults are meaningful on a blog, but it is a waste of time and energy for everybody. Anyway, as a genuine woman, I want to say four things. One, Richardson's scalp-ruffling and womanizing creeps me out. Two, my reaction is NOT irrelevant. Three, it doesn't make it better to point out that some presidents have been womanizers. For whatever reason, Clinton's womanizing did not creep me out but Richardson does. Four, I don't know exactly why some womanizers creep me out and others don't but it does not make my reaction go away to say that it doesn't make sense to you.

Bill Richardson's biggest problem is that he treats everyone as an insider, so the big-time pundits feel dissed by him. His campaign also exposes the main weakness of the primary system: There are a lot of moderates and independents who would vote for Richardson in the general election, but they don't vote in the Democratic primary.
BTW he is the only candidate with the bona fides to joke about North Korea.
It IS nice to see the Fix veering off from this paper's policy of "A Story a Day about Hillary."

bsimon, I am a poster who has raised the issue of %pr vs. winner-take-all delegations. I know I can find this by assigning my legal assistant to review each state's R and D party rules on the net, but none of my clients will pay for that. So if we cannot get Chris to respond [WaPo must have this in a database] then maybe some of our regulars can tell us about their state practices. I would volunteer to do Texas.

Ryan Lizza is the guy who went after George Allen last year. Does he do just one political hatchet-job each year? It appears that at least he doesn't discriminate between parties.

Henry - In the 10:53 a.m. post I assume you meant "brokered convention" and not "broken convention."

The WSJ goes high with a new inhouse poll that says President Bush's approval rating is now 29 percent, which marks a significant decrease from the 35 percent he received in April. In other bad news for the GOP, 52 percent of Americans say they want a Democrat to win the presidential election, while only 31 percent say they want a Republican.

Remember the report in March that said the FBI had frequently made errors, and potentially broke the law, while collecting personal information without judicial approval through national security letters? Well, the WP fronts an internal FBI audit that reveals the problem is much worse than initially thought. The audit found that these types of errors were made more than 1,000 times. And since the audit only looked into 10 percent of the national security investigations since 2002, the real number is likely to be much higher. Most of the violations were a result of agents keeping extra information they got from telephone companies and Internet providers. But in more than 20 cases, agents specifically requested information "that U.S. law did not allow them to have."

This has already been answered, but I am adding richness of detail!

Hello, Aussie -

To give you an example from my memory, although it may not be precisely correct, in 1952, there were two strong R candidates - Gen. Eisenhower, and Sen. Taft. Because state political machines, and not public primaries, controlled many of the state delegations to the nominating conventions, some states nominated their "favorite sons" , only to give the state bargaining position with the eventual nominee. Gov. Warren of CA was such a "favorite son".

He threw the CA delegation to Eisenhower (he, personally, was pro-Ike, but most of the delegates from CA would have preferred the more conservative Taft; it was Warren's call because the delegation was "pledged" and honor bound to him and he was the power broker). After Ike was elected, when a vacancy came up on the US Sup Ct., Earl Warren was appointed Chief Justice. Warren, a career politician who had last served as a "lawyer" when he was AG of CA during WW2 and oversaw the detention of Japanese-Americans, was an otherwise unlikely choice for CJ.

That was a result of a brokered convention.

Now, since 1972, state primaries and state caucuses have selected the delegates to the national conventions. I think every nomination since has been decided before the convention began. However, no incumbent Prez or VP is running this time and it would be easy to see Romney, Giuliani, McCain, and F. Thompson with enough support at the R Convention to keep any one of them from having a majority without a "brokered" deal between at least two of them; say,old friends Thompson and McCain throw their support to McCain and Thompson becomes VP. Or, say, in an
eerie reminder of 1952, nobody can win on the first two ballots and the states are "released" from their primary commitments. Then, Schwarzenegger says I will use my influence to help the one of you who will back my Pacific Coast initiative, and Ahnold has enough sway with five state delegations to give one of the candidates an insurmountable push. The new Prez then backs the Pacific Coast initiative.

My point was that if 4 Dems remain 'til the end of the primary fight, they could end up with a deal made at their convention, too.

The media is so desperately trying to set up its first woman vs. first african american storyline. Of course the media gives much more attention to Clinton and Obama (and, to a lesser extent, Edwards). And when they do talk about other candidates, it's in articles like this designed to get Richardson out of the way of their good Clinton-Obama storyline.

That's why when the Iowa and NH polls come out that both show Richardson up to 10%, the media doesn't even mention that fact, but just says how Clinton and Obama are doing. Except that by far the most interesting thing in those polls is that Richardson is in double digits - the same tier as Edwards and Obama - in the states where people being polled are actually paying attention to the race.

Fortunately, the people, not the media, choose the president. And the media is going to feel very stupid when their storyline comes crashing down on them. Because people want to vote for someone who resembles a human. And when they can vote for a human with actual experience, leadership, and competence then they'll jump for it.

Henry writes
"A broken convention is one in which no candidate has a clear majority of delegates... [I]n this scenario, in which each candidate carries several states and super-delegates, no body has over half the delegates.

When this happens, the delegates are freed from their responsibilities to the primary voters in their states, and vote themselves to select the nominee."

This topic is one The Fix should cover more in-depth. Other posters here have also mentioned that the GOP & Dem primaries are a little different in terms of which states are 'winner takes all' and which award proportional delegates. Perhaps its too early to get into the nitty gritty of which candidates are likely to reach the convention with how many candidates, but a primer on how it works would be interesting.

In answer to the question above, the last brokered convention was the 1952 GOP convention, where Dwight Eisenhower won on the third ballot over Robert Taft. The closest to a brokered convention since was the 1960 Democratic convention where JFK won the nomination on the first ballot with the last state called, Wyoming, pushing him over the top.

The last brokered convention for either national office was the 1956 Democratic convention when Adlai Stevenson refused to pick a running mate, and there was a three-way race between Senators Estes Kefauver (TN), John F. Kennedy (MA) and Albert Gore (MA). This one was decided on the second ballot when Gore dropped out and threw his support to his senior Senator.

"The findings, from a project involving hundreds of scientists in 11 countries and detailed in 29 papers being published today, confirm growing suspicions that the stretches of "junk DNA" flanking hardworking genes are not junk at all. But the study goes further, indicating for the first time that the vast majority of the 3 billion "letters" of the human genetic code are busily toiling at an array of previously invisible tasks."

(Junk DNA) was one of the more compelling arguments for macro-evolution, and it just got blown out of the water. It's amazing...the difference between what scientists think they know, and what they really know.

Sorry about the off-thread post, but this discussion seemed a bit dried-up.

Richardson is all about a Veep slot. No one is more unpredictable than Cheney ("go **** yourself"), so BR should work perfectly.

http://political-buzz.com/

A broken convention is one in which no candidate has a clear majority of delegates. Ususally, half-way through the primary season (or more) one candidate will clearly be winning, and the others will drop out. But in this scenario, in which each candidate carries several states and super-delegates, no body has over half the delegates.

When this happens, the delegates are freed from their responsibilities to the primary voters in their states, and vote themselves to select the nominee.

Mark in Austin, that is right, WaPo endorsed neither.

Reminder to self: When I become a famous politician, never get on Ryan Lizza's bad side.

"Richardson is, frankly, too real."

What a schizophrenic post. First, you like Bill Richardson because of "his unpredictability" but then he's a little "too real" for you.

You seem to demand that candidates be authentic and always on message. Yet these are two contradictory conditions.

Let me direct you to Paul Krugman: "Talk of authenticity, it seems, lets commentators and journalists put down politicians they don't like or praise politicians they like, with no relationship to what the politicians actually say or do."

Followed by Gene Lyons: "Even so, it's not necessary to be a prophet to know how Beltway pundits will handle the so-called character issue. The Republican nominee will be a virile, decisive straight-shooter who's 100 percent "authentic" and "comfortable in his own skin." The Democrat will be an indecisive phony, uncertain of his / her identity, but willing to strike any pose or pander to any constituency in a self-serving bid for power."

Chris, you are too well-paid for what you do.

Poll: With Immigration Bill In Disfavor, Most Think Little of Bush's Remainder in Office

Respondents in an online poll of AOL resoundingly oppose the immigration reform bill that recently stalled -- and very possibly has died -- in the Senate. Meanwhile, most of those participating in the poll also feel President Bush will accomplish little or nothing in his remaining time in office.

http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/2007/06/poll-with-immigration-bill-in-disfavor.html

I like Richardson, (Horation Sanz' long lost identical twin)and think he would do well based upon his experience, BUT, the media driven sound bites and pidgeon-holing of candidates is unappealing through television. He seems to play much better in person, and through the print media, than he does on TV, where in context, it doesn't matter that he is "off message". I don't think he will do well through the primary season, but do see him in a DEM administration as a Secretary of State, (the position Biden is best qualified for), or delegate to the U.N. I don't even think that he would make a good Veep, even though he could deliver the Southwest, or a healthy part of it. The longer he stays in the race, and the worse he continues to do, hurts his politictal future rather than helps it. Estes Kefauver, (a Veep choice in '56) suffered the same fate.....

Mark, as an outsider, could you explain to me what a brokered convention is?
Thanks

nctodc, Just like the one who claims to be a Cubs and a Yankees fan cannot be trusted.

Razor, I did not recall that WaPo endorsed Dukakis. Are you sure?

Generally, your point is well taken: the ed. board usually backs Ds. And D complainers about WaPo being a sellout to neocons are to be ignored, except for the occasional reminder of fact.

But, specifically, I did not remember a "Dukakis" endorsement.

Chasmosaur, I am concerned about the idea of having a president who can't appeal to the electorate without resorting to a spin doctor. It's a big red flag when a candidate's supporter calls on the candidate to introduce spin into the campaign.

You are treading on dangerous logical ground here... isn't there a phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"?

lambert strether, yes that WaPo sure is biased against Democrats. Hell they even endorsed Carter over Ford, Carter over Reagan, Mondale over Reagan, Dukakis over Bush, Clinton over Bush, Clinton over Dole, Gore over Bush, and Kerry over Bush.

Justin, I wish my adult kids were engaged by politics. It is refreshing for an old guy like me to hear an 18 yr. old who has paid such close attention.

My four early decided they liked Obama and have not paid a lot of attention since. I would guess only one of them knows who Bill Richardson is. I would also be surprised if any of them vote in a primary.

Keep up your interest, even when the candidates you choose disappoint you. They will do that, you know.

I am reminded of that Churchill insult:
"Sir, you are drunk."
"Indeed, Madam, and you are ugly. But tomorrow I shall be sober."

Richardson will develop the discipline to remain on message as the campaign marches on. But Hillary will NEVER find a way to seem human.

After WaPo publishes a book review in their magazine trashing Gore's #1 best seller because it doesn't have footnotes when, in fact, it has endnotes, WaPo in general, and this column in particular, have no credibility in their coverage of any Democratic candidate.

Meanwhile, in their quest for authenticity, our famously free press trashes candidates who are spontaneous.

I guess they're looking for scripted authenticity?

That article does provide some troubling information about Bill Richardson. But, is it credible? I have no idea. I'm not sure if Chris Cillizza is just providing info, is trying to get us to sign on for Hillary, or is reacting to cases made for Richardson in these comment sections. I've been very supportive of him but this has caused me to rethink it. Hey, I'm only 18, and have only been interested in politics since August '04. I have not even began college, where I plan to major in pol sci. I would think I'm pretty damn knowledgable for a newbie who has mostly taught himself. (Plus, if the article is credible, at least I know more than Bill Richardson!) This is just further proof that something's wrong with our system. Rich, popular, ignorant (but lovable) high school athlete/frat boys/class presidents win the WH. WHAT NEWS! That article didn't seem very balanced (unlike the Vanity Fair article on McCain), and the clear injection of opinion seemed to ruin what may have been a good fix pick article. Chris Cillizza, I suggest next time you write something yourself about it, with no opinion injected. Honestly, I'm unfamiliar with that source, so I have no clue how much to trust it. And if Chris wants the undecided to become Hillary fans, I was never anti-Hillary for any reasons other than electability, flip-flopped Iraq positions (though I can't determine the authenticity of her flip-flop, I must admit I like the fact that she wants troops in Anbar province----but where the f**k is the partition???!!!---a question for everybody but Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, and Tommy Thompson), and my very real fear of the development of a Bush/Clinton dynasty (lets keep political families on the state level). Regardless of his supposed ignorance about history, Richardson must have learned SOMETHING about how to be an effective President from his tenures as Governor (executive skills) and Congressman (dealing skills). Who knows? Maybe Obama's inexperience doesn't matter--perhaps he still knows what he's talking about. I don't know. There don't seem to be any George H.W. Bushs or Bill Clintons in the field (2 GREAT presidents). According to Gov. Dean, FL don't matter too much anymore, and unless it gets media attention that helps the winner (which I doubt) I won't be the one deciding. I'll make my choice, as will many others, and then we'll REALLY get to pick who sucks the least afterward. I wonder if Chris knew this much, more, or less about politics at my age than I do. Not to be arrogant, but I best know what the f**k I'm talkin bout since I'm "obsessed with politics" (according to my woman). Damn I gotta quit rambling.

I personally have nothing against Richardson. However, I've heard that he's wildly unfaithful and not terribly discreet about it. The best example I have - he approached a (girl)friend of mine working the 2004 DNC and made a very specific pass. The press seems to know about such behavior - Cokie/George/George even gave a wink and a nod to one another some eight months ago when discussing his potential run on ABC. I hope I'm wrong, b/c we don't need that again.

I find Richardson to be genuine and entertaining. The other people seem like fools.

It is sad to read an article that is saying, bottom
line, "Lose the spontaneity."

Richardson's characteristics:
FOR
- experienced in energy policy
- experienced in foreign poilicy
- experienced executive
- honest
- has a sense of humour

AGAINST
- doesn't have a focus group driven message
- doesn't stick to soundbites & media circuses.

Therefore he is "unpresidential" and won't be elected. Hmmm, why do people think our system for selecting a President is broken?

I like Gov. Richardson: I want to see him win. But his frankness (such as saying he took longer to call for the AG's resignation because they're both hispanic) had initially bothered me. He is the first honest candidate with a chance (note the honesty of radicals Kucinich & Gravel), and that's something. Yeah the NM Lt. Gov. has said she tries not to sit next to him, but womanizing never hurt Bill Clinton. I personally think there is a chance he can be helped by his honesty (in the Dem primary if he's up against the "inauthentic" Hill-dog, and in the general if he were to face flip-flop Mitt), but it's one hell of a dangerous road to take. I think his honesty is worse since we now live in the "youtube" age and everything can continuously haunt somebody. Macaca learned the tough way, but I doubt it was truly youtube's way of re-haunting him that did him in. As they say, life is 10% what happens to you, and 90% how you deal with it. Remember, George Allen would have been reelected had he dealt with the macaca controversy better. Instead, his frequent apologies served as reminders and his past served as evidence of racism. Plus his frantic attempts to seem non-racist seemed fake and desperate. Richardson may very well benefit from his strategy of authenticity, but it is a dangerous road. What I think is a bigger problem is his difficulty in projecting his charisma on television. Though the guy is charismatic, he is not as telegenic as you would expect. That's a problem that's easier to deal with, since he does seem to have the ability in him. He just needs to make sure he doesn't say anything too stupid and that he stays ready and capable to deal with it. ALSO, HE NEEDS TO DRAW BETTER CONTRASTS THAN "I'M A GOVERNOR."!!!

Bill Richardson strikes me as a real flesh and blood human being in a way the other Democrats do not match. It's unfortunate that we seem as a nation to prefer neatly packaged, focus-grouped statements delivered to a handpicked audience. (cough - Hillary) Go Bill!

What exactly is so "troubling?" That Richardson like 99 percent of Americans uses the occasional expletive or that he made an off color joke about North Koreans? Oh, the horror. We should totally disqualify him now and get back to the "serious" candidates, you know, the ones that are robotically pre programmed to never veer off talking points and are so risk averse that I can predict every word they will utter between now and November of 2008. Conventional wisdom in political commentating is certainly boring and totally lacking in insight.

Bill Richardson has always had a playful side but he's made to look like a buffoon by Ryan Lizza. The profile of Richardson 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.

Is this supposed to be journalism? 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 is nothing even remotely "glowing" in Lizza's hatchet job of Richardson. Lizza lacks the honesty to acknowledge the venom in his writing. His profile of Richardson is an embarrassment to The New Republic.

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.

Richardson's poor performances in both debates held so far dooms his candidacy. It isn't that he was spontaneous and unpredictable. He was simply poorly prepared. That is a far more serious deficiency than simply being informal.

"Troubling picture"?

You're kidding, right? I think a troubling picture is a president who ignores the constitution, wages war under false pretenses, gets thousands of soldiers killed for a lie, thumbs his nose at the will of the world and the vast majority of his countrymen, spies on Americans and turns a blind eye to torture.

This stuff in your column about Richardson is ridiculous. He actually sounds like a real human being.

Also, from what I read in other news sources that don't traffic in meaningless gossip, it sounds like he has an energy plan worth considering, an Iraq plan worth considering, an impressive record as a Governor and a world view that is not egocentric.

Maybe it's possible to be an interesting and imperfect human being and still be an innovative and productive public servant.

Gee, what a concept.

Oh c'mon - it's Bill Richardson - you think he wasn't joking when he said all North Koreans are named Kim?

He's a bit odd, but he's got the Energy and diplomatic creds we so desperately need as a country right now. I hope he can get a good spin doctor, because his resume really is top-notch...

Are not all North Koreans named "Kim", in honor of the glorious ones?

Richardson's Idea on Boycotting the Olympics Deserves Further Consideration.

I am very glad that more and more people seem to recognize the importance of
Richardson's breakthrough regarding the Bush Adminstration's abjectly failed
Iraq policy. These failures have impacted almost every phase of American foreign policy, which has based more on military power than traditional diplomacy for the past six years. Richardson'seffectiveness is even clearer now, with Lieberman threatening to use nuclear weapons on Iran. I find this posturing and blustering to be totally absurd and even dangerous, because of my extensive studies of the horrendous effects of nuclear weapons on the health of the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, called "hibakusha" in
Japanese.

I strongly agree with Richardson's overall focus on diplomacy, and putting economic sanctions on Iran. I agree especially his innovative idea put forth during the New Hampshire debates. There has been a general silence among nations vis-à-vis China's ghastly atrocities in the human rights realm, and not just about China and Darfur, but especially toward Tibetans. China has constructed in Tibet dozens of prisons which, for Tibetans, are exactly like Auschwitz and Dachau.

I posited the same idea in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006, in correspondence to
His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, and to many heads-of-state, that the moral indignation of the nations in the Olympics in Beijing in 2008 could be harnessed into at least the threat of a boycott. To be effective, this could be perhaps worded more diplomatically. During the debate, both Senator Edwards and Senator Biden clearly agreed with this point by Richardson.

Make no mistake: this is probably the last chance in human history to do anything constructive about Tibet, to prevent henceforth the genocidal treatment of Tibetans remaining in Tibet, which has since 1959 seen 1.2 million Tibetans killed. This totals, roughly 20% of the entire population of Tibet. American political powers could decline to put to use what little remains of our powers of moral suasion in the world at large, and we could to once again docilely capitulate to dim-witted politicians who say that the
Olympics are only about sport, and not about politics, and such claptrap as "a boycott would unfairly punish athletes." Then we would be no better than the many nations who were oblivious to the growing obviousness of the genocide of Jews in Europe before and during World War II.

Actually, the USA was for many years totally oblivious in this regard, whether you blame Roosevelt or anti-Semitics in the State Department, all of which is thoroughly documented in Arthur Morse's book, While Six Million Died. In that light, I am sure that Richardson is on the right track! The case is even stronger, when you consider the dead pets and the poisoned cold medicines and toothpaste from China. Those considerations are just not "about politics": that was life and death for many, including at least 100 dead, mostly children, in Panama!

News: In what may be its most audacious Olympic act yet, China's Ministry of
Public Security has issued an incredible directive that lists 43 categories of "unwanteds" who are to be investigated and barred from the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Pariah groups include: - eerily vague "key individuals in ideological fields" - "overseas hostile forces" - "counterrevolutionary" figures - the Dalai Lama and all affiliates - members of "religious entities not sanctioned by the state" (e.g., Roman Catholics) - "individuals who instigate discontentment toward the Chinese Communist Party through the Internet," - and even certain types of "disabled" persons. Members of Falun Gong would be barred, as would be "family members of deceased persons" killed in "riots" -- a euphemism for events such as the Tiananmen Massacre -- and Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang province, which the regime brands "national separatists." Only at the very bottom of the directive does it identify "violent terrorists" and members of "illegal organizations" as
targets for investigation and possible barring.
Respectfully,

Stephen Fox, stephen@santafefineart.com

your article aptly points out why our political system of electing a national leader is broken.

your article aptly points out why our political system of electing a national leader is broken.

I personally like Richardson's sense of humor. True, he could use more message discipline while he's on the record, but I think the country is ready for a results-oriented, pragmatic politician.

Richardson is the best candidate to restore America's dignity abroad.

Competence anyone?

I think it's unfortunate that the media spends so much time focusing on what a candidate isn't "supposed" to say and do.

That's why politics has become such a farce in this country. The media scrutiny of every move a politician makes is well intended, but it ultimately is a disservice to the people because it forces politicians to retreat into this poll-tested, scripted, over-consulted existence so that nobody really ever gets to hear anything substantive.

If the media would focus on the issues and allow politicians to be human without pouncing on ever personality quirk, perhaps we could actually have a substantive presidential race for a change.

Anyone who simultaneously claims to like the Red Sox and the Yankees cannot be trusted to be President.

Richardson's achievements far outstrip his public persona. I had hoped that he would try to become more media savvy, but he is apparently very comfortable with who he is, and media savvy he ain't.

In the most recent Des Moines Register [DMR] poll he was running 4th and moving up on Sen. Clinton. He does well in person-to-person contact, and in about a week we will see a new DMR poll. IF he keeps chipping away at Sen. Clinton and finishes third to Edwards and Obama, or even very close to Sen. C., and the hispanic American vote in Ca, TX, AZ, and FL is big, he could cause a brokered convention.

I already think the Rs will have a brokered convention.

When was the last time either party's candidate was decided during the convention?

Eric:

China is a major supporter of the Sudanese government and has blocked many attempts by the United Nations to intervene in Darfur. Many feel that the Chinese are complicit in the genocide occurring in Darfur because it gives them leverage with the oil-rich Sudanese. There is a significant campaign underway to put pressure on China, particularly focused on the Beijing Olympics, so that China will allow a U.N. force in Darfur.

I don't see a problem with a candidate still having a sense of humor 17 months before the election.

Yes, Dubya had his light hearted moments, but that was not the problem.

I like Richardson, but he can be strange at times. His call in the last debate for boycotting the Olympics as a way to end genocide in Darfur seemed particularly off the wall.