Clinton or Richardson, or is it Clinton and Richardson?

I haven't been terribly impressed by most of the Democratic presidential candidates. Although Barack Obama gets a lot of attention and partisan passion, to me it has always seemed that only Hillary has the "complete package" to win a clear and convincing majority of voters in the 2008 general election. But then Bill Richardson came along. I've always been impressed by his raw competence. He isn't the charismatic type, but more of a solid leader and doer type. If Hillary is to lose out due to her "baggage", Richardson does not have that issue.

Personally, I would rather see Richardson in the White House and leading foreign policy, security, energy, financial security, and battles on other domestic and international fronts, but I do recognize that he simply may not exude enough "passion" to win some of the Democratic primary voters who value thrill and excitement more than ability and competence.

Maybe... maybe... maybe Richardson would be a great VP to Hillary's presidency. He certainly would excel in such a role, and that would position him to move up eight years later.

-- Jack Krupansky