<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Report: Bill Richardson To Leave Prez Race</title>
	<atom:link href="http://donklephant.com/2008/01/09/report-bill-richardson-to-leave-prez-race/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://donklephant.com/2008/01/09/report-bill-richardson-to-leave-prez-race/</link>
	<description>Big Teeth. Huge Ass. Surprisingly Reasonable.</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 00:47:40 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Alan Stewart Carl</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2008/01/09/report-bill-richardson-to-leave-prez-race/#comment-388317</link>
		<dc:creator>Alan Stewart Carl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2008 05:02:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/2008/01/09/report-bill-richardson-to-leave-prez-race/#comment-388317</guid>
		<description>It's a shame Richardson's campaign never gained traction. I think he did a very poor job of positioning himself. Instead of accentuating his independent nature (perfect rating from the NRA, pro-business, etc.) he tried to capture the anti-war crowd. There's not much to be gained by being the most anti-war candidate in the anti-war party. Plus, he's too even-keeled to play the part of angry liberal and, when pressed on the war and national security, his better instincts got in the way of his chosen message and he just ended up sounding unfocused.

As for where his smattering of supporters go -- they probably break off evenly. Richardson was my favorite Dem and, if I were sticking to the blue team, I'd go Obama. But I'm an independent. I imagine mainstream Dems who liked Richardson's experience will go Hillary.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s a shame Richardson&#8217;s campaign never gained traction. I think he did a very poor job of positioning himself. Instead of accentuating his independent nature (perfect rating from the NRA, pro-business, etc.) he tried to capture the anti-war crowd. There&#8217;s not much to be gained by being the most anti-war candidate in the anti-war party. Plus, he&#8217;s too even-keeled to play the part of angry liberal and, when pressed on the war and national security, his better instincts got in the way of his chosen message and he just ended up sounding unfocused.</p>
<p>As for where his smattering of supporters go &#8212; they probably break off evenly. Richardson was my favorite Dem and, if I were sticking to the blue team, I&#8217;d go Obama. But I&#8217;m an independent. I imagine mainstream Dems who liked Richardson&#8217;s experience will go Hillary.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ron Chusid</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2008/01/09/report-bill-richardson-to-leave-prez-race/#comment-388308</link>
		<dc:creator>Ron Chusid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2008 01:53:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/2008/01/09/report-bill-richardson-to-leave-prez-race/#comment-388308</guid>
		<description>I wouldn't assume Hillary will necessarily get the support of most Richardson voters. There are obvious reasons for this, but Obama will also probably pick up a fair share. Both Richardson and Obama receive much of their support from more independent voters.

I know many libertarians (sane ones, not the Ron Paul variety) who preferred Richardson but who are have more recently begun to support Obama after realizing that Richardson wasn't going anywhere. Of course such libertarians make up a trivial number of actual voters, but the same principles could apply to many Democratic voter who are more conservative on economic matters. 

The same qualities which have caused Obama to receive articles showing respect from a number of moderates and even conservatives would give reason for many Richardson supporters to go to Obama.

This assumes that many of the Richardson supporters are backing him because of his more pro-business orientation. I'm not sure that Richardson's attempt to position himself as the most aggressive about getting out of Iraq has brought him much support. He just doesn't seem to fit the role of anti-war candidate. However if he does have much support because of Iraq, such supporters might also prefer Obama over Clinton.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wouldn&#8217;t assume Hillary will necessarily get the support of most Richardson voters. There are obvious reasons for this, but Obama will also probably pick up a fair share. Both Richardson and Obama receive much of their support from more independent voters.</p>
<p>I know many libertarians (sane ones, not the Ron Paul variety) who preferred Richardson but who are have more recently begun to support Obama after realizing that Richardson wasn&#8217;t going anywhere. Of course such libertarians make up a trivial number of actual voters, but the same principles could apply to many Democratic voter who are more conservative on economic matters. </p>
<p>The same qualities which have caused Obama to receive articles showing respect from a number of moderates and even conservatives would give reason for many Richardson supporters to go to Obama.</p>
<p>This assumes that many of the Richardson supporters are backing him because of his more pro-business orientation. I&#8217;m not sure that Richardson&#8217;s attempt to position himself as the most aggressive about getting out of Iraq has brought him much support. He just doesn&#8217;t seem to fit the role of anti-war candidate. However if he does have much support because of Iraq, such supporters might also prefer Obama over Clinton.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 1.190 seconds -->
