despite Edwards being my #1, Obama does a lot of good things for Edwards.
Black voters love Bill Clinton and there's no way Edwards would get much support. Obama helps split that.
Hillary's inevitability campaign was squashed single handidly by Obama's fundraising prowess.
Hillary's campaign as the first credible "woman" candidate was also squashed by Obama's firstness.
Richardson has no domestic agenda or at least not one the blogosphere liberals would support if they critically evaluated it.
As one major Edwards' donor was quoted as saying, "I think Hillary and Obama are going to destroy each other."
It was a bit of a throwaway line, but I'm wondering what, exactly, you think Richardson's domestic agenda is lacking?
He's got serious efforts to combat global warming, including a commitment to developing renewable energy and energy efficiency. Economic policy focused on things like "a tax credit for companies who create good paying jobs, tax incentives for start up high tech businesses, and targeting job creation in rural areas." Education funding. A balanced budget.
And he is possibly the only candidate who is talking about the economy in a way that makes it clear he has the wherewithal and desire to work with corporations to find mutually beneficial arrangements.
I guess you believe "blogosphere liberals" reject such ideas out of hand, which may be true, but might reflect as badly on them as it does on Richardson. Working with corporations is not a good in and of itself, but ignoring the immense power that they possess and trying to ram massive changes through at their expense seems less useful than developing innovative solutions that manage to encourage those corporations to adopt policies that will help real people. At the very least, it's worth trying, I think.
I'm curious what substantive objections people have to Richardson. I think he's an interesting candidate and I'd like to get a better sense of what people think.
