So I am really wondering why Bill Richardson is not more covered by the media, becoz his absence is pretty striking

I have no idea if this is media strategy to keep the spot light on 2 front runners who could KO each other, but not deliver the votes in a general election.

At this point, I feel that it is up in the air, but the chances are more that Obama or Clinton would lose to Mitt Romney in the general, I do not feel the Red States will trust them.

With Bill Richardson, there is a fighting chance becoz some of the Southern states could become pink bluish, becoz of his Southern Governorship.

But I am really surprised the Usual media have not touched him.

I think Mitt Romney will be a very scary president, with his lack of foreign policy experience, although I think he will try and get informed, a little more than say, Barack Obama.

Hillary, I am scared, might get pushed into being more pushy and hawkish than she needs to be like when she threatened to shoot down planes in the Sudan, thereby potentially jeopardizing countless mercy flights and aid carriers, who might run into the draconian policy, if it had been adopted.

With Richardson, the problem is that he might be too mild and be seen as a pushover, should militant Shia ism and militant Islamism start to rise.

Right now, countries that India trades with, Syria and Iran are not seen as threats, but in 20 years we have no idea the brand of militance that might emerge.

That is why it is actually important for Iran to show that it will become more like Syria and Lebanon, rather than like Saudi Arabia.

That is an issue completely separate from the nukes, and liberalization and democratization are of importance in reassuring the world that militance is not the choice. Of course it could emerge anyway, but let's go with liberalization and democratization.