I'm sort of unhappy with how I worded the Bill Richardson post yesterday, so let me try this approach: Richardson has said a lot of things I agree with, but nothing I'm motivated to get behind. He's offered no health care plan that would radically transform the country for the better, nor a humane Iraq plan that distinguishes his vision from the other contestants. For partisans, presidential primaries offer a field of people you basically agree with -- so the question is what they have beyond basic philosophical acceptability. Sometimes, the answer is electability, sometimes, the capacity to inspire, sometimes, a policy platform that rockets past agreeable all the way into achingly desirable. For now (and it's very early), Richardson hasn't distinguished himself on any metrics aside from experience*. And given that I think most any Democrat will be competent enough to pursue broadly popular, basically incremental policies, that's not enough.
*He's a very good diplomat, as it turns out. But that would seem to militate towards making him Secretary of State, not President.
