The ad is great. It doesn't address my concerns about Richardson though. I donated to Kucinich because I like what he wants to do. With Richardson, I know what he's done, but not what he wants to do. He seems like what I call a "resume candidate". He's running for office because it's the next step up, not to do anything in particular, and my observation is such candidates tend to lose general elections. My other concern is that there's been enough scandals involving people close to Richardson that I get nervous about what will come put after he's nominated.

I keep saying that Richardson represents the best chance of electoral victory in '08 for the Democrats (not that he is the only Dem who could win, Obama could certainly pull off a close race). His qualifications are rock-solid, as these spots attest, and his center appeal is unmatched on either side of the aisle. The guy is Clinton (Bill, not Hilary) without the ethics baggage. The guy can't lose the general election, but his chances of winning the primary look slim right now. Why?

"He's running for office because it's the next step up, not to do anything in particular, and my observation is such candidates tend to lose general elections."

Care to share these observations on candidates who lose general elections on the strength of their resumes?