Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Richardson to Hit Iowa Airwaves Next Week

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson will be the first Democratic presidential candidate to begin airing television ads in the 2008 race with a series of biographical commercials set to begin running Monday in Iowa.

Bill Richardson
Gov. Bill Richardson, right, in New York earlier today at an event that also featured the Rev. Al Sharpton, speaking at left. (Reuters)

[UPDATE: It's not only Iowa voters that are going to start seeing Richardson ads, as his campaign will also launch ads Monday in New Hampshire designed to begin boosting his name identification in the Granite State. We also hear that the ad buys in New Hampshire will be rather low but that the buy in Iowa is significantly higher costing roughly $100,000. As soon as we get copies of the ads, we'll post them here.]

Richardson spokesman Pahl Shipley confirmed the Iowa ad buy, which is coordinated to follow Richardson's visit to the Hawkeye State today and tomorrow. Richardson was scheduled to deliver a speech in western Iowa tonight and then make a series of campaign stops in the state tomorrow.

"This is an effective way to reinforce the governor's extraordinary record with the people of Iowa," said Shipley. "But the ads are just part of the strategy -- the biggest piece is campaigning town to town, meeting people and earning votes in person."

The ads, which were produced by Murphy Putnam Media, will run in the major media markets of Iowa in both 30- and 60-second formats. Shipley would not discuss the extent of the ad buy. But an informed Democratic source familiar with the buy and not affiliated with the Richardson campaign said the levels are low for both sets of ads, with the average viewer seeing the 30-second ad twice in a week and the 60-second ad once. The low frequency of the commercials is not unusual for the start of a biographical ad campaign; Richardson will surely increase the buy as the Jan. 14 caucuses near.

Richardson has a ways to go to make the first tier in Iowa. Most polls of likely Democratic caucus goers show him mired in the low single digits -- well behind John Edwards, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.

A strong showing in the Iowa caucuses is considered crucial to Richardson and the other second-tier candidates hoping to compete with the big three for the nomination. Without a win, place or show in Iowa, it's hard to imagine a scenario where Richardson builds enough grassroots and financial momentum to compete in the massive national primary on Feb. 5, 2008, that includes states like California, Texas and New York.

By Chris Cillizza  |  April 19, 2007; 4:25 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Bruning Presses Hagel
Next: McCain "Bombs" in S.C.


Posted by: Brendan | April 24, 2007 12:11 AM | Report abuse

Nice to see the Governor get some ink.

In case no one noticed, Gov. Richardson courageously pointed out on This Week that Don Imus and wife have a NM ranch for seriously ill young people, many of which are minorities. But the Gov. also said that he felt Imus's dismissal was warranted.

On the other hand, his explanation of how he would pay for his healthcare insurance plan wasn't terribly persuasive. But at least he has a plan; apparently Sen. Obama wiffed at a healthcare debate with HRC and Edwards in Nevada.

Posted by: pacman | April 20, 2007 11:08 AM | Report abuse

I just read and re-read the last paragraph of this blog, and I felt like I was in a time warp. Hello, Chris! Wake Up!!! This is a 2008 Primary, not 2004 or 2000. The dynamics have completely changed. Nobody is going to get a "bump" in time for the February primaries. Don't believe me? Allow me to prove it. 50% of Californians vote absentee, thanks to liberal vote by mail, and permanent absentee provisions in the law. Those ballots drop on January 6th, and the overwhelming majority are returned within 7 days. Thus, before Iowa, before New Hampshire, before South Carolina or Nevada, more voters will have cast their ballots in California than all the combined vote totals of those four states.
You may have the results of the four before California, but the patients will already have been operated on. We will just be waiting for the autopsy report.

Posted by: David | April 20, 2007 10:33 AM | Report abuse

If Richardson couldn't fix the security breaches at Los Alamos National Laboratory when he was Secretary of Energy then how will he keep our nation safe? He resigned his position as Secretary of Energy so he wouldn't be too tainted by the problems at Los Alamos. Show's a lot of mega ego - he was more concerned about his image and how it would affect his run for President than for the security of our nuclear program. He couldn't handle the heat so he got out of the kitchen. What will he do as President when faced with burning issues?
Have you compared the old Richardson to the new Richardson? The old Richardson had his hair in his eyes and looked sloppy, he new Richardson has a more stylish hairdo.

Posted by: andy | April 20, 2007 3:45 AM | Report abuse

'pathetic, lazy' votes (as defined by you) count as much as every other vote. It would behoove politicians, Richardson included, to be more careful about the first impressions they make upon 'casual' voters at the beginning of the campaign cycle.

Posted by: Jaype, in the final summation .... | April 19, 2007 10:02 PM | Report abuse

Richardson is an unbelievably qualified candidate to be President, with international credibility (as recent trip to Darfur shows), Administration experience in a key issue (energy), diplomatic experience as UN Ambassador, and executive experience as a moderate popular Governor of a purple state.

Its such a shame that he's struggling for media attention. Lets hope the next few months rectify that...

Posted by: JayPe | April 19, 2007 9:29 PM | Report abuse

All it takes is a photo for you to decide not to research a candidate to find out whether they're worth voting for?

How pathetic. Thats just lazy. No wonder the electorate is focusing on Edwards/Obama/Hillary, instead of the more substantial experienced politicians like Biden and Richardson.

Posted by: JayPe | April 19, 2007 9:26 PM | Report abuse

I see that incredibly inane and moronic kingofzouk is still around and contributing nothing to this site. too bad.

Posted by: brave, intelligent guy | April 19, 2007 9:13 PM | Report abuse

zouk, i find it a little odd that you accuse drindl of "total inability to understand economics or warfare."
excuse me, hasn't your party spent this country into a hole?
and didn't your party involve us in 2 conflicts, neither of which we are winning and neither of which we seem to know how to win?
and isn't your party now snarling aggressively at north korea, despite the fact that the armed forces are running out of manpower, as witnessed by gates' recently extending the length of a standard tour of duty?
and in re: the "civilized" discussion of guns and gun control the other day - if each side repeats the party line over and over again, it's not a discussion.

Posted by: meuphys | April 19, 2007 9:07 PM | Report abuse

For the last time, anonymous, I'M NOT RUNNING! I appreciate the support and all, but dude, let it go. Find a hobby.

Posted by: Tim Kalemkarian | April 19, 2007 9:00 PM | Report abuse

and a photo op with sharpton, so what? i know al is a polarizing figure, but then keep in mind that so is bill clinton, at least to some extent... and of course, ann coulter, who appeared with all the gopers but mccain (she introduced the mittster, at around the same time she made the f*ggot remark about edwards.) that is a finger that can be pointed at any candidate, from one perspective or another.

Posted by: meuphys | April 19, 2007 8:59 PM | Report abuse

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate

Posted by: anonymous | April 19, 2007 8:56 PM | Report abuse

richardson is well worth consideration. i am taking him more seriously every time i hear or read about him. he'd be great in either the #1 or #2 slot, or as nm senator, i think, but it's really going to have to wait for the debates so we can see them head to head.

Posted by: meuphys | April 19, 2007 8:55 PM | Report abuse

after seeing him photo-op with the infamous Al Sharpton. Give me a break, governor. Just when I was planning to research your record and bio to find out more about what kind of candidate you would be (I was initially encouraged by what little I had read about you in the news), and then you publicly associate with this clown? With one photo, I've learned all I need to about you as a potential candidate. Is this really the kind of image you wanted to project to voters? Very poor strategic move. Anyway, on to the next would-be candidate....

Posted by: I won't consider Richardson anymore.... | April 19, 2007 8:13 PM | Report abuse

spartan: I can't give you a number as yet, but the dems should gain in both houses due in large part to Iraq and the dislike of GW. Pete Dominici, IMO, will be connected to the firings as will Heather Wilson and both of them will have a hard time keeping their seats. Norm Coleman seems another likely loss. Warner in Va. most likely will not run again and a good chance for the dems to pick up one there. The repubs have about a 2 to 1 ratio in the seats up in the Senate. I do not, at this time, think the dems could get to the magic number of 60.

Posted by: lylepink | April 19, 2007 8:11 PM | Report abuse

I seem to remember Howard Dean and Richard Gephardt running early TV in Iowa too.... mmmmm....

Posted by: William | April 19, 2007 7:29 PM | Report abuse

I like Richardson and respect him a lot, but is anyone more irrelevant right now? (besides Chris Dodd?)

And I took a shot for every time I read the phrase "talking points" in the previous posts, I am now hammered! ;)

Posted by: fulch | April 19, 2007 7:02 PM | Report abuse

I hope these ads will show what many of us have known for a while:

Bill Richardson is simply the most qualified to be president.

Once voters get tired of the Democratic beauty contest between Clinton, Obama, and Edwards they will see this too.

Let's nominate the most qualified person for a change...

Posted by: MBW | April 19, 2007 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Though I am an Obama supporter, I really like Richardson. I see him as the one to watch and I think the race will come down to the two of them.
I could vote for Richardson if he beats Obama. I will never, ever vote for Hillary. and I don't trust Edwards, who I think is phoney.

Posted by: vwcat | April 19, 2007 6:57 PM | Report abuse

drindl-no not yet but ill be sure to change the channel when they come on now. so far its basically "hi im mitt romeny i used to live"spiel. his dad is more well known as the former governor of mi. anymore about his boyhood is skechy on my part and mostly hear say.

lyle-i can see him as vp on someone's ticket. but if he's not nominated, maybe he might make a run for dominici senate seat? the polls on pete is dropping fast and could be vunerable next year.

just out of curiousity how many seats do you think might be up for grabs next year? i know chris does that but he sucks at it.

Posted by: spartan | April 19, 2007 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Those are by alex Castellanos, spartan, a guy well known as a swift-boater. How are the ads? Are they nasty yet?

Posted by: drindl | April 19, 2007 6:32 PM | Report abuse

Richardson is my second choice and I think he is a strong VP pick. I still can see many different issues coming up and most of the dems are in agreement on them. The gun and abortion debate will remain among the top issues with little, if any, different facts being discussed.

Posted by: lylepink | April 19, 2007 6:28 PM | Report abuse

figures as much. every tom,dick and harry with a internet connection would jump on.

i dont know if any posters live in michigan but did anyone notice that mitt romeny was airing ads recently? its funny since he hasnt lived instate in 30 or 40 years.

Posted by: spartan | April 19, 2007 6:11 PM | Report abuse

The reason there were so many yesterday is that CC's article made it onto Google News.
Richardson going on the air is a great idea. He has the money and people are going to make up their minds soon in places like Iowa and NH. There is no reason to raise 6 million bucks and then don't spend it.
I also want to apologize to all the people of Iowa cause this is just the begining of you guys getting hammered for the next 8 months with ads for both sides.

Posted by: Andy R | April 19, 2007 6:05 PM | Report abuse

everyone-i read thru the discussions about birth control and abortion and came to one conclusion, both sides are f*cked! the only reason you didnt see ol spartan was a)i dont own a gun,b)im not a woman,and c)i just came back online after going thru dental surgery. all i just saw was repeated talking points and the same ol bs that wapo allows.

with that being said, i come on line to check my news sites and lo and behold cc is talking about someone else other than hillary! good going chris!

imho richardson maybe the best canidate that the dems can put up,because he's from a southwestern state(puts new mexico,az,colorado and a few others in play) the most experienced,a govenor(sorry no senators or congressmen) and moderate.

barring a slip up from one of the front 3(with the news coverage they unfairly get)richardson can jump in to the 2nd or 3rd spot.

Posted by: spartan | April 19, 2007 6:00 PM | Report abuse

What was vile was the white house press demanding an answer to the "are new gun control laws immenent?" before the shock even wore off. talk about pressing an agenda.

"constant repitition of the time tired, hackneyed lies and talking points " you mean like - "You cons totally politicized and prostituted the issue, start with bush. How cold cynical and calculating and vile "

Poor disillusioned drindl - never grew up and realized the 60s were over and the world is often a cruel place. If anyone on this blog can be certified as "constant repitition of the time tired, hackneyed lies and talking points " it is you drindl. and you never let facts or values get in the way of a good lie. I must admit your most endearing trait is the total inability to understand economics or warfare. I suppose this is a Dem thing since most suffer that same imbecility.

but this exchange vertifies my original point. the queen doesn't like to share the spotlight with anyone or be challenged in any way. If confronted, watch out for her stinger. since it is her only resource, she tends to use it a lot.

blarg, I never noticed you minded anyone who agrees with you, no matter how crude. Is it only crude cons you don't like? I have always thought you represented the best side of the Dem/Lib wing. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt because fo your excellent track record.

I suppose that Chris considers high volume a success and doesn't care much about the actual leaning of the conversation. Is your argument so weak that a bunch of visiting nimrods can throw you off your game. Now you sound like Obama who won't debate on fox. why the insecurity?

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 19, 2007 5:22 PM | Report abuse

'Let's see according to drindl, a near record turnout stifles discussion.'

Let me repeat. 500 people saying exactly the same thing is not a discussion. It is an attack.

' we were confronted by something truley evil and terrible this week and you Libs decide it is a good chance to revive a failed and discredited policy from long ago'

You truly are delusional. You cons totally politicized and prostituted the issue, start with bush. How cold cynical and calculating and vile was talking about '2nd amendment rights' to the parents of murdered children? Christ, I thought I'd vomit.
Now I'm goijng back to ignoring you becvause your constant repitition of the time tired, hackneyed lies and talking points bores me.

Posted by: drindl | April 19, 2007 5:10 PM | Report abuse

It has nothing to do with being in the minority. Go back and read those posts. (Instead of praising a discussion that you admit to barely skimming.) Most of the posts were crude, obnoxious, and repetitive. I understand why you'd praise that; it must have been like a family reunion for you. But the quality of the discourse here took a nosedive yesterday, as it always does when a flood of single-issue posters arrives from elsewhere. (No matter what issue or perspective they have.)

Posted by: Blarg | April 19, 2007 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Let's see according to drindl, a near record turnout stifles discussion. Or did you really mean, your ability to stifle discussion? show me a single instance where you regular fix Libs don't repeat the same talking points. Often stolen from other huff and Kos posts. and the really embarrassing ones are left unsigned. you won the election, what are you going to do about it. It seems - nothing.

why is it you can praise Dem behavior and condemn the exact same thing when done by cons? Is this because you are so morally bankrupt? we were confronted by something truley evil and terrible this week and you Libs decide it is a good chance to revive a failed and discredited policy from long ago - gun control. when forcibly confronted, you whine about the tactics used, because they are applied to you instead of by you.

boo hoo. Poor libs.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 19, 2007 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, Blarg. that Army of posters must eithr have been Drudgers or from an NRA site -- they were all repeating the same talking points and being really offensive and crude about it.

It's not surprising, though -- the NRA sent out an alert yesterday, with links provided, so the 'enthusiasts' could do exactly what they did -- which was to stifle public discussion.

Good to see Richardson is finally getting out there. He's got an uphill slog.

Posted by: drindl | April 19, 2007 4:55 PM | Report abuse

BTW - it is almost always pointless to say anything.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 19, 2007 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Blarg - you can't stand to be in the minority for a change. type a mile in my shoes. I saw many citations and links to facts. why whine about it? embrace it. I admit I only skimmed it over a little and didn't fully read much but it seemed like the liberal echo chamber effect may have been temporarily relieved.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 19, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, the content was great yesterday. Hundreds of people came in to scream the same slogans, often in all caps, then brutally flame anyone who disagreed with them. There was no meaningful discussion, and it was impossible to actually make a point because of the overwhelming number of the posts. Most of the regulars disappeared because they saw it was pointless to even try to say anything.

I can see why you liked it so much.

Posted by: Blarg | April 19, 2007 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Two points. First I am encourage that a true moderate liberal like Richardson is running. However, the chances of his being unable to compete in the megaprimary is a travesty. The primaries are supposed to provide an opportunity for us to look over the candidates, see their strengths and weaknesses, have them discuss their positions, get to know them. The whole idea of the megaprimary flies in the face of this. It means we may, likely WILL, get a turkey, all wrapped and half baked, a full year before the general election. If it's someone we cannot abide and buyers remorse sets in, it is too late to do anything about it. So, we will likely get candidates that are selected by well financed and organized special interest groups that the general voting public cannot stand...nor understand. My bet is that Gulliani and Clinton will have the nominations locked up early and three or four months before the general election we will be on the forum discussing how/why we ended up with such bad choices.

Posted by: MikeB | April 19, 2007 4:44 PM | Report abuse

chris, I want to congratulte you on an excellent blog turnout the other day on the gun issues. It was very refreshing to hear so many new voices. all the best features of blogging were evident with point and counter-point, arguments with logic and citations and overt feelings with no back-up. the dissappearance of most of the daily regulars of the fix contributed to the value. I noticed when certain nameless individuals disappear, the content and tenor is raised significantly. Are there any measures you are prepared to take to encourage the succesful behavior and eliminate the insulting, undistinguished one liners from our shadow participants? they really are ruining your blog. Can you tie my moniker to my WaPo sign in ID?

In the meantime I will continue to ignore ignorant coward and anon drindl until they find the courage to sign their work and start making sense and stop being childish.

you other fix regulars will see what I mean by this shortly.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 19, 2007 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Interesting on Richardson's Presidential website he doesn't have the new ad up but he does have releases from his Governor's office. Is that some sort of violation?

Posted by: Concerned New Mexican | April 19, 2007 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Democrats worship political numerology. They campaigned last fall on a "Six for 06" agenda. These half-dozen bills were then jammed through the House in "The First Hundred Hours." Yet their numbers don't add up to accomplishments. The Los Angeles Times also notes the Democrats' reliance on sloganeering with integers. "But when it comes to how many of their top priorities have become law," they wrote earlier this month, "a different number stands out: zero. None of the six bills that the House Democrats passed in their initial legislative juggernaut has made it to the president's desk." Yet the election is over; they won. It's time to calm the rage and produce results.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 19, 2007 4:33 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company