Dear Mr. Carney--
We don't know very much about Bill Richardson. Even though we are the kind of geeks who hang around political websites, the world is big and we have day jobs: we don't know that much about him.
You by contrast know a lot about Bill Richardson: watching him and a few other people like him is your day job.
So why the "arguably the most qualified candidate"? Is he or isn't he the most qualified candidate. You know. We don't. Why the references to the conventional wisdom (the "CW")? You know more than the CW does about this.
What we want to hear from you is this: What are the reasons to think that Bill Richardson would make a better president than other candidates?
I am responding to this:
Bill Richardson: More Than a Great Resume - Swampland - TIME: Chris Cillizza over at The Fix has an intriguing post about Bill Richardson's slow and steady progress towards the top tier of the Democratic field of presidential candidates. He's raised a respectable amount of money, hasn't spent it all, has a solid organization in Iowa and is polling a reasonably strong fourth both there and in New Hampshire. By dint of experience -- congressman, UN ambassador, Energy Secretary, governor -- Richardson is arguably the most qualified candidate in either party to be president. And he's hispanic, which helps differentiate him from the other second-tier Democrats (Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel). The CW about Richardson is that he's aiming for the second slot on a ticket, but that's the rap usually accorded underdog candidates with serious resumes. While it's hard to imagine, given Obama and Clinton's overall strength and Edwards' potential to win Iowa, that Richardson could end up with the nomination, these are still early days. As Cillizza says, if the campaign takes an unpredictable turn, and a frontrunner or two stumbles, Richardson might be positioned to capitalize. What do Swampland readers think of New Mexico's governor and his campaign?