APRIL 1, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
What if Bill Richardson gave a speech, but instead of coming out in his own voice, it was channeled through the voice of a robot imitating Bela Lugosi?
That's pretty much what happened this afternoon at the Organization of American States, where Richardson continued his heated campaign for the vice presidency by addressing the body on what he would do to deepen U.S.-Latin American ties. The text of his speech didn't live up to the clownish image I've had of Richardson since reading Ryan Lizza's sendup -- it was rather conventional, straightforward and charmless. ("An educated workforce is what America needs to compete in the new economy," etc.)
But sadly, even when Richardson tries to keep the lid on his inner buffoon, fate intervenes. The English translator he was provided for the significant portions he delivered in Spanish rendered his words in this bizarrely overwrought, parodic, half-muppet-half-evil-dictator voice. Listening to him on the interpreter earphones was a truly weird experience: "(low, angry voice) The other trade agreements that have come up in Congress (voice shoots three octaves higher) have STROOOONGER measures!" It's hard to render in print, but it sounded exactly like this:
I don't know if using this wacky diction helped the translator maintain focus, or if she just had it in for the Governor, or what, but it actually served as a useful reminder, although it was by no means Richardson's fault.
In recent days friends have floated Richardson as an Obama veep pick. He was a governor, he has a great resume, he has national security chops, he could deliver New Mexico -- perfect!
But, as we've kind of forgotten since he isn't at debates anymore, there's something about him that cannot be taken seriously; reread Ryan's piece if you need a reminder. There's a lot to be said for a bland veep pick, and sadly, Richardson, despite his good intentions and his public service, is a gaffe on legs.
--Eve Fairbanks
10 comments
Eve, why did you have to be so mean to Chris? I'll forgive the terrible grammar and obvious lack of focus because I'm sure you were under a great deal of emotional stress, but did you really hate him more than anything in this world?
In any case, maybe the translator was Dr. Orpheus from the Venture Bros.
- bcbaird
April 1, 2008 at 7:50pm
What, specifically, is there to be said about a bland veep pick? Honestly, what's the last big gaffe that anybody remembers from a VP candidate? The only one that comes to mind is Dan Quayle's "potatoe" episode, but that had literally nothing to do with anything political, and I highly doubt that it influenced people's votes.
There have certainly been bland veep choices who were very good (Al Gore comes to mind), but they were good for reasons other than their blandness . In fact that same blandness cost the Democrats the White House in 2000.
- AlanSP
April 1, 2008 at 10:55pm
I have to wonder how much of the TNR work schedule is devoted to searching for hilarious YouTube videos.
- guyminuslife
April 1, 2008 at 11:10pm
I'm SO over you Sarah Marshall
- Lymon1
April 2, 2008 at 5:11am
AlanSP and others,
Regarding the Hispanic vote, I wanted to worry the benighted Obama supporters around here (how many outright and convenient lies is he up to? how many diingenuities?) and to encourage the few, idealistic, and right-minded Clinton supporters by pointing to Michael Barone's new defense and explanation of his projection that Clinton may well win the two-candidate popular vote. In passing, he gives an excellent analysis of the Hispanic vote in Puerto Rico:
www.usnews.com/.../defending-my-projection-clinton-can-win-the-popular-vote.html
patricia
- pccostello
April 2, 2008 at 8:21am
It's not Richardson's blandness that's a turn-off, it's the general cluelessness. Every utterance is so weightless and inconsequential as to have no real meaning. The best example of this was last year when he attended the so-called gay "debate" (which was really just a series of consecutive press conferences). Right out of the box he was asked if being gay was a "choice" and, without missing a beat, he said that he did. His inquistors were fairly stunned and gave him a chance to revoke the answer. I think that he was so programmed to think that CHOICE = GOOD that he couldn't break away from the equation. At that point he knew that the damage was done and rather than offer the "correct" answer, he simply plowed through, trying to make his initial response make sense.
In a year which has seen volumes of uncomfortable electoral moments, I thought that one deserved a blue ribbon.
- BHLnyc
April 2, 2008 at 9:38am
bcbaird - Great call with Dr. Orpheus. Especially since, for some reason, I can totally see him and Richardson going out for mimosas afterwards.
- adaglas
April 2, 2008 at 10:46am
pc,
After reading Barone's defense I remain unconvinced that those number are not wildly optimistic. His projections essentially add 5-10% to Hillary's margin above where she's currently polling everywhere except for Kentucky. The 6 Polls in PA since Obama's speech have ranged from Clinton +12 to Obama +2 (although that one seems like an outlier; I'll reserve judgment on that until a few more come out), but there is essentially nothing to suggest a 20 point win. He even gets his own projections wrong in his defense; he writes, "In Oregon, I gave Obama 60 percent of the two-candidate vote" when in fact he gave him 55%.
Then take this gem: "I projected a 60 percent to 40 percent win for Clinton in Pennsylvania. Current RealClearPolitics.com average poll numbers show her leading the two-candidate vote 57 percent to 43 percent. I projected a 55 percent to 45 percent win for Obama in North Carolina. Current RealClearPolitics.com average poll numbers show him leading the two-candidate vote 57 percent to 43 percent."
So from polling showing identical margins, he projects s a 20-point Clinton win in PA and a 10-point Obama win in NC? How does that even remotely make sense? At any rate, the latest RCP average shows Clinton getting 53.3% of the two-candidate vote, so I assume he'll be revising his estimate downwards.
If his point is merely that it's possible for Clinton to win the popular vote, then he is correct, but not really saying anything noteworthy. It's possible, but only if everything goes perfectly for Clinton. It's like saying that a baseball team down by 4 runs in the ninth inning can win; it can happen, but it's far more likely that it won't.
- AlanSP
April 2, 2008 at 1:11pm
I'm also skeptical of his Puerto Rican predictions. Last Saturday I spent the day canvassing neighborhoods in Lancaster, PA, which boasts the largest Puerto Rican population in the state. We were polling registered Democrats (the primary is closed at the deadline to switch affiliation has passed), many of whom were Hispanic, and by the flags flying, bumperstickers and window decals displayed, Puerto Rican. I encountered only one man who was a die-hard Hillary supporter, a few that were leaning towards Hillary and many more who were just undecided. I did encounter one group of Puerto Rican men who were, in their own words, "Obama boys."
The most telling indicator that Hillary doesn't have the vote sealed up among all Hispanics is the fact I didn't see a single Hillary sign as I walked among the working-class neighborhoods of Lancaster. I saw many Obama signs, and several with "Latinos for Obama" prominently displayed. The only Hillary signs that I saw were in the more affluent downtown areas, and as one of my fellow volunteers (himself Hispanic) said: "Only the lawyers here are supporting Hillary."
Of course, this is all anecdotal and by no means meant to represent anything other than my (obviously limited) experience, but I doubt Barone has been out knocking on doors.
- bcbaird
April 2, 2008 at 3:33pm
Funny, ever since Ryan Lizza began focusing on Obama at The New Yorker, his stuff has just about disappeared from now. You never see him quoted or linked to anymore.
Funny how that works: when TNR wrote pointed pieces skewering self-important pols instead of puffing them up with fawning boyband tributes, its stuff was hugely influential.
- teplukhin2you
April 2, 2008 at 4:35pm