Centerfield

Whether money comes depends on whether donors in the Democratic Party are really interested in winning the Presidency.

A Governor is going to beat a Senator in the General Election, we know that already based on a century of history. The Republicans look to be most likely to nominate a Senator -- unless you believe that the fundamentalists will abandon fanaticism to vote for a Mormon.

So the question, if you are a Democrat and want to maximize your odds, comes down to: which governor (or ex-governor) looks best? On his resume, Richardson looks to be the best bet.

I'm gonna stick to encouraging folks to vote for a senator over a governor if they happen to like the senator better. This despite the magical governor beats senator rule. This is not Stratego, and Kennedy beat Nixon. Yes Nixon was a senator too. Big whoop.

I agree that being a senator may cause some natural problems, such as those related to voting records on federal issues. Nothing I've seen makes me believe that can't be overcome. When I look at the records of the governor-senator matchups, I see charismaticformer governors Like Reagan and Clinton and Bush, (and Carter, if you count the appeal of character and sincerity in the Watergate era )and among losing former senators I see uncharismatic unappealing, awkward guys like Mondale, Gore, Kerry, and Dole. Maybe the offices draw such guys, but I kinda doubt it. I suspect that there are plenty of competent dullards among the governors.

Granted, two people out of the Senate, neither of whom has been a governor, is certainly possible. In which case the whole governor vs. senator question is moot.

I don't really think the core of senator vs. governor contests is about track records on federal issues. I think it is much more basic: executive experience. When electing someone to run the executive branch of the government, people are likely to prefer someone who has _demonstrated_ that he (or she) can run a large organization. Which, if that person is a politician, is most likely to be a state government. (Admittedly, a really large city might do it as well as a really small state.)

Even for those who think Bush provides an example of an ex-governor NOT being competent to run the executive branch, I think the same visceral sentiment would prevail: it be a huge plus for anyone who was, or had been, a governor.

Richardson's an interesting guy but hard to "get your arms around" (i.e. hard to place). As one fairly liberal on immigration policy, I didn't like his "declare a state of emergency" approach to immigration (especially when Napolitano repeated it) It seemed to me to be a way to "sound tough" on immigration without really being (nor wanting to be) "tough on immigration". Frankly, I'm skeptical that the Dems (now that they have the majorities) will really want to address the immigration issue (i.e. will p.o. to many voters)

The executive experience argument is a good one, but senators have the "understand how to get bills through congress" argument, which includes "longstanding relationships with the people I'll need to work closely with." That's one reason why I like Richardson's resume in the abstract.

When I quickly alluded to federal track records, what I meant was that it tends to be easier to make a long-serving senator look like he or she is full of sh!t, simply because of the ease of making a plausible case against in the form of "if you believe y then why did you vote x."

When I think of lackluster former senator prez-candidates like Gore, Dole, Kerry, Mondale, etc I can't think of one who I was rejected because the people felt their experience was insufficient.

The "understanding of how Congress works" argument is a good one . . . for people who care enough about how the government gets things done to notice. Which includes a majority of those who read this blog, and maybe even a significant number of those who vote in primaries -- but a small minority of voters in a general election. Not that it's not important in succeeding as President. Just that I'm dubious how much weight it carries for getting elected in the first place.

It may be that what I'm seeing as a preference for "executive experience" is actually more a matter of "has visibly gotten things done on matters that impact me directly and daily." Which a governor is much more likely to have done than a Senator, if only because national affairs have less visible impacts on people's daily lives. Not, be it noted, less impact -- just less noticable to those paying only a little attention to how the economy functions.

I'll have to think about that one some more.

Though I am supporting Obama, I really like Richardson. For awhile this summer I toyed with the thought of supporting him.
His experience, especially in the world, is unmatched.
He could end the war, defuse iran and n. korea, make friends with Syria and end the wars with Palestine and Israel in a month.
I guess that is why he is my #2 choice. Because I think if he was Sec of State, he would go down in history as a ledgenary one.

"In July 2005 it was alleged by a Federal judge that Richardson had leaked Lee's name to reporters months before the scientist was charged with any crime.[4] Richardson was also sharply criticized by the Senate for his handling of the espionage enquiry. During Senate questioning, Senator Robert Byrd (Democrat-West Virginia) scolded Richardson, stating: "You've ...shown a contempt of Congress that borders on a supreme arrogance... You will never again receive the support of the Senate of the United States for any office to which you might be appointed."[5]"

Hhhmmm experience with cockfighting and a broker for a cease fire in Darfur which today, is a place of genocide. An appearance in North Korea did not stop Kimmie from testing a nuke.

When questioned on CNN last week, Richardson responded to a question about Bush's surge by declaring that negotiation with Iran and Syria was the only way to bring peace in Iraq and that we should reduce troops immediately rather than increase them. He seemed a bit unprepared for the question and his uncertain talking point answer combined with his affable manner made me a bit nervous. Then again, I have suffered Bush for seven years.

Good news.....I haven't found any Richardson links to Scientology though I read the Governor's money came from gambling interests. I suppose in the gossip column that isn't as spinnable as studying in a Madrasa. Ironic, isn't it, for a candidate in 2008 to have found prosperity through gambling.. Well gambling isn't big oil.

No, I don't think Richardson’s chin will be his greatest detriment, although I'm not sure why for years he claimed for that he had been selected in the 1966 Major League Baseball amateur Draft. Well, then again, Bush claimed he fulfilled his guard duty, and Clinton claimed never inhaled.

And the reason that anyone (except, I suppose, in West Virignia) should give Senator Byrd's opinions on anything any weight at all would be . . . ? For me, he would have to be right up there with Senator Stevens on the top of the list of Senators the nation would benefit most to see the last of.

He could end the war, defuse iran and n. korea, make friends with Syria and end the wars with Palestine and Israel in a month.

ROFLMAO! Would it even take him a month??? I bet he could do it in a week! And you left out that he would also be able to cure Lindsey Lohan's drinking problem and get Nicole Richie to keep down her food.

Someone is clearly VERY detached from reality...

...and a pony in every pot!

It is funny how much more experience this guy has than obama or hillary. Not that it matters to primary voters.