Didn't Richardson already sucker-punch Hillary in Iowa?

No way he gets the VP nod from anyone.  He's long on experience and has the Latino thing in his favor, but so far in this campaign Bill Richardson has proved himself the biggest--not the sharpest--tool in the shed.

Well, at least half of this theory seems to be coming true:

ap.google.com/.../ALeqM5gNrYvAi-WwpRBCdw1Ry9fxZ2as4QD8U2M62G1

The AP reports that the New Mexico Governor is dropping out of the presidential race. This means one

Breaking News 7:32 PM ET: A.P. Says Gov. Bill Richardson to Drop Out of the Presidential Race

That's pretty bold of you to trot out the CW in a week like this.

Why would Richardson want to trade the governorship of New Mexico for a warm bucket of piss?

HRC has been running (effectively unchallenged) as the candidate with experience; what does she gain by adding a VP whose claim is his resume?  Does she need a Hispanic running mate when (a) as a woman, she already breaks the "old white men" image, and (b) Hispanics seem likely to vote D anyway what with the near-unanimous R anti-immigrant fervor?  

Ahem, that's a "bucket of warm piss."  John Nance Garner would insist.

Having met, and talked at some length with him, I can vouch that Bill Richardson is charming, and would be one of my top choices to have a beer with.  President?  Don't think so.  

Vice President?  I'd advise against it, although I'd not put it past the powers that be in the Democratic Party to bow to the great god Diversity and get an Hispanic on board.  

Oh, and tarfon, speaking as a Republican, there is hardly "near-unanimous R anti-immigrant fervor."  There is, and ought to be, near-unanimous anti-lawbreaker fervor.  Most of us have no problem with legal immigrants.  There's probably more sentiment against immigrants per se among labor union members than Republicans.

butchie b:  Thanks for channeling John Nance Garner to point out where the warmth lies in the vice-presidency.

jlr2006:  While it may be true that most of you "have no problem with legal immigrants", it's also true that most of you - McCain and Huckabee being notable exceptions - don't want them to continue entering legally at more than the current rate, which is absurdly low given the necessity of immigrant labor in many sectors of our economy. That to me smells like anti-immigrant sentiment.

Hold it, tdwis.  Damned near every construction job in N. VA is done by illegals. Now housing starts are in the tank, and we have an interesting question.  What happens when illegals get unemployed?  Do they leave?  Do they drive down wages in other sectors?

Beats me, but don't intimate that we have a labor shortage such that we need high levels of legal immigration.  Right now that simply isn't so.

Damned near every construction job? Really? Would you care to quantify that with a percentage? The construction industry in N. VA wasn't one of the sectors of the economy I had in mind when making my statement above. One that I did have in mind is agriculture, whose trade groups claim upwards of 80% of field workers harvesting crops are here illegally. Do you think they're driving down the wages for those jobs to the extent that American citizens just won't seek them? Do you think that most of these illegal workers would have been granted legal entry if they'd just bothered to apply? John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Jeff Flake, and Lindsey Graham -- to name a few of the few reality-based Republicans on immigration issues  - think otherwise.

And to migrate back to the original topic, so does Bill Richardson.

I do this with great trepidation, but I think I'm going to have to disagree with Dan Balz, who, wondering