OK, I confess, I didn't like him at first because he's fat. Yep. I admit it, I'm a skinny bigot. But on further study this guy is good. New Mexico two term governor who was elected the second time with 69% of the votes. SIXTY NINE PERCENT. Since when have you seen a state full of people approve of someone's work that much? And New Mexico is racially mixed--the Latinos, the Tribes, and the whites all support him. He's half Mexican.
He promised to cut government waste by 90 million and ended up cutting it by 230 million. The state has the biggest budget surplus ever, and he has been cutting taxes for everyone. Jobs are up, education is improved.... and all this is just his New Mexico governorship. He has served 7 terms in the US Congress. He was Clinton's Energy Secretary. In New Mexico he required 20% of NM's energy come from renewable sources, and he's ready to bump that bar higher.
So nobody can say that this guy doesn't have enough experience. He has an impressive record of fruitful action.
Richardson did stick one hoof wayyyy down his gullet when he said he wasn't calling for Roberto Gonzalez's resignation only because he is Hispanic. He had to take that one back. But he did. That one comment seemed to reveal a pro-Mexican bias, as this article asserts.
The commenters on the above linked article called for Richardson's resignation over that statement of racial alliegance. They call him a racist and act as if it is a fatal flaw and he is not fit to serve. But I disagree. Mexicans, indeed Hispanics around the world, have a proud tradition of family alliegance and a strong sense of UNITED WE STAND--and the ability to build community is what we need in this nation. Richardson plainly was able to unite races to common goals in New Mexico. I'd rather have a Mexican president than another Fundamentalist Christian. Mexicans are more realistic.
As for Barack Obama, whose book is languishing on my bedside table--he is a thinker and a kind heart, but I am coming to agree with his critics that he is too young, too fresh, too inexperienced. I might even come to think that he is too idealistic. His ideas are out of focus, at least. I can't really tell what he thinks, beyond the constant assertion that we need to open our hearts and put away our kneejerk positions, and really talk. Communicate across all the divides. He is right that we should do that.....but should doesn't make it so. How would he make it so? How could he facilitate what he proposes? That part is unclear.