Anyone bothered by the fact that our most experienced candidate is "2nd tier?"

[Deep13]

Okay, maybe Bill Richardson is not your first choice. Still, shouldn't he at least be a leading contender? As a former ambassador, congressman, present governor, diplomatic expert and former sec. of energy he is the single most experienced candidate running next year. (He's not the most qualified ever, though. That was Al Gore.) It really bugs me that the media and campaign donors have already selected our choices for us and don't seem to give a shit what the country wants or what it needs. Unless Edwards wins Iowa and somehow spins that into a win in NH, our choice is either a political lightweight or, well, Hillary Clinton. I pisses me off. Christ, even Joe Biden would better than those two.
:banghead:

[w4rma]

1. He lacks charisma and he's a neo-liberal. (nt)

[ProudDad]

2. He's also pro-gun and pro-death

I might be able to forgive the pro-gun-nut stance but I cannot EVER work for, support or vote for anyone who's pro-death penalty.

And richardson is gleefully pro-death penalty. SIcko, sicko...

[Alexander]

4. You won't vote for Gore?

I'm also very anti-capital punishment, and Gore supports it, although I think he's more on the side of DNA tests and absolute proof, and hence not as gleeful as Richardson.

He's still my #1 hope, though.

[MH1]

9. You don't like Edwards either I guess. Who is anti-death penalty that's running?

Kucinich, I'm guessing. Anyone else?

[Tejanocrat]

22. Obama is anti-death penalty.

[Deep13]

29. Well, he will not win nation-wide then.

The Rs will club him with it like they did to Dukakis in 1988.

[Deep13]

27. So am I.

Most Americans are pro-death penalty. I myself have prosecuted death penalty cases. I we are going to flip red states we had better be pro-gun and pro-d.p. too.

Gleeful? What a bunch of crap.

[sam sarrha]

3. at this point it is ALL relative, relative to Crazy king George: Neo-Nero fiddleF*cking around while

the Constitution Burns as well as the middle class and the Middle East and our economy

really ANYONE but a Republican, republicans are not fit to serve the United States Government because their platform is to Destroy the Government of the USA, and create a Fascist Theo-cleptocratic plutocracy.. or a Libertarian who's only difference is to smoke dope while Rome burns... and praise the benefits of total Anarchy and the blessing of NO physical or social Infrastructure what so ever.

literally any Democrat running who can drag in 60 votes in the senate and 2/3's in the Congress should be met with flowers in the streets..

[melody]

5. Amen n/t

[Bombtrack]

6. Experienced at WHAT ?

Something that, when it comes down to it, is arbitrary for every candidate.

Richardson has one of the worst personalities of any Presidential candidate of other party in many elections.

[MH1]

7. Diplomacy. Balancing budgets. Creating jobs. Raising wages.

I know, minor stuff.

He's negotiated a few international agreements....I guess that's all "arbitrary" though.

[Clark2008]

16. Maybe we can take him out and put Clark in.

He's experienced at all that stuff (yes, he was, at the OMB and as Commander-in-Chief of NATO) AND he has a charming personality and isn't a neo-liberal. ;)

[Deep13]

28. Clark is not running.

I doubt he will. I supported Clark last time, but by the time the Ohio primary came around my choice was limited to Edwards or Kerry. I made the wrong choice and went with Kerry. Besides, the OP was not asking who is best, but shouldn't the most experienced declared candidate have a top-tier position?

[MH1]

8. In a word? YES.

Richardson has some stances I don't agree with but so do all of the candidates (even my first choice, who isn't running).

He seems to have been VERY successful as governor of New Mexico, he's had important diplomatic successes, and he has excellent positions on Iraq and global warming.

I am determinedly uncommitted for 2008. I want real dialog about the issues and I wish Richardson's positions and achievements had a higher profile.

[1932]

10. In 1992, most experienced candidate was GHWB. I'm glad B.Clinton won.

[loyalsister]

11. That's politics

I think tht he is good one on one and in front of committed voters, but he doesn't play as well to more diverse audiences.

My sense is that a national campaign would be tough for him.

It's not just about policy. It's about winning hearts and minds and that takes the kind of charisma who can win over people who don't agree with you on some issues.

I love the way he relates to people one on one. Love his background. Can't get over simultaneous ardent support of guns and the death penalty.
The cowboy mentality is what got us where we are.

[Blue_In_AK]

20. Maybe a national campaign would be tough on him...

...but I think of all the Democratic contenders he has the best chance in a place like Alaska. Of course, we don't count for much, but I can see Richardson being very popular in the west generally.

[loyalsister]

25. Everyone counts

You definitely count as a voter and your opinion is valued. Accounting for the west is important.
All of the states count.
I personally think that being able to relate to the reality of the common experiences of voters is what really makes a candidate presidential material.

[skipos]

12. I like Richardson a lot

but experience isn't the end all be all for me as well as many other voters. Though I disagree with him on a few things, I think he would be the best President of the bunch.

I wonder how Obama and Richardson would do on a ticket, since one has what the other lacks?

[PresidentObama]

13. I enjoy Richardson a lot.

I just hope he takes every opportunity to break through to his advantage. I was fairly disappointed in his performance at the first Democratic debate, and for me that was troubling. If he wants to break into the top tier candidates, he has to do something to gain the attention. Because right now all that attention and spotlight is on Hillary, Obama, and Edwards. My fear is he won't ever gain the spotlight he would need to become a serious contender for the nomination.

[LWolf]

14. It bugs me too,

and I'm not a fan of Richardson. I will not be voting for any of the "top" tier candidates in the general election.

There should be no "tiers" in the Democratic primaries.

Democratic principles.

[Greyhound]

15. He's not an insider, and he doesn't have his head far enough up the asses

of the real powers behind the party.

I have to disagree that Joe "MBNA" Biden would be better.

[Capn Sunshine]

17. Yeah, he's got a good resume BUT

he's an unapologetic pro NAFTA corporatist and free trader, anti-tax repeal, and someone who inexplicably blocked a recount of New Mexico's vote in the 04 elections.

0 fer 3 in my book.

[Deep13]

26. That's a lot of crap.

He blocked nothing. There was no legal basis for a recount and it would not have changed the national result anyway. This is old ground.

Corporatist is an easy label to throw around. A lot of us were pro-NAFTA in 1993 including the Dem. president and Jimmy Carter. NAFTA is like our gay marriage. We wheel it out to get the base riled up, but in fact it has slight effect in the scheme of things. After all, China did not sign NAFTA.

[OHdem10]

18. GOP Candidates" First Commercial will show Richardson

appearing before Congress as Secretary of Energy
being grilled, His response "I was asleep at the switch".


On paper his Resume looks good. He has been good when
sent on foreign affairs missions to negoatiate.

He does not grab attention--does not look presidential
and I am sorry but in a TV age this matters.

[mmonk]

48. I thought the chimp looked real presidential, didn't you?

[DesertRat]

19. He has the most executive experience of the current candidates

Maybe he's just not telegenic enough in this current age of politics. :eyes:

[Tejanocrat]

21. He's an effective leader, but he'd lead where many Democrats don't want to go. He's not progressive

as compared to the other candidates by his own admission:

He stood at the center of "Spin Alley" -- a room given over to candidates and their chosen mouthpieces for hours of post-debate "analysis." And Richardson was analyzing away.

"I came out as the most moderate candidate with the clearest position on Iraq," Richardson insisted as he took a slug from a bottle of water. "I'm a different kind of Democrat."

Richardson was working overtime -- hence the sweat -- to sell that message, a pitch he had struggled to make during the 90-minute debate, where he often looked uncomfortable on stage and failed to distinguish himself from the other "second-tier" candidates.

For Richardson, Spin Alley offered a second bite at the apple, a unique opportunity to change conventional wisdom before it hardened.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/04/28/AR2007042800748.html

"I am not a rock star, but I've got a solid record," he said. "I have got serious experience. I get things done."

Richardson is a former congressman, an ambassador to the United Nations and Secretary of Energy under President Clinton. A staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, he said he believes he is the party's moderate candidate.

http://www.charleston.net/assets/webPages/departmental/news/Stories.aspx?section=localnews&tableId=141418&pubDate=4/28/2007

Moving from foreign policy Richardson struck a theme of being "practical, pragmatic, and patriotic." He struck that chord frequently and often; He noted numerous times that he was a pro-business moderate Democrat who was running in the center and would not be swayed.  He said he will not be liberalized by Iowa or New Hampshire...

http://www.burntorangereport.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3262

Also, Richardson is the most pro-NAFTA of all the candidates:

"NAFTA was critically important, and not only for the reasons commonly cited by its supporters. Yes, the treaty would create the world's largest free-trade region, a market of 360 million people in the US, Canada, and Mexico. Estimates of NAFTA's economic impact varied, but the treaty promised to be a win-win-win for all three countries.

That didn't mean the absence of dislocation: while NAFTA figured to create more jobs in the US, some jobs would be lost. A key part of the final bill presented to Congress needed to include worker-adjustment programs and other so-called side agreements addressing such issues as labor standards and the environment.

I felt the treaty was crucial to Mexico. I thought NAFTA would create positive economic change and help to stimulate a broader political debate. I thought it also had the potential to affect the immigration issue: if Mexico's economy boomed, beter-paying jobs would provide Mexicans an incentive to stay home."

Source: Between Worlds, by Bill Richardson, p.112-3 Nov 3, 2005
...

Q: Do you support broadening North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to include other countries?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you support the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you support the WTO?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you support imposing tariffs on products imported from nations that maintain restrictive trade barriers on American products?
A: No....

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Bill_Richardson_Free_Trade.htm

He's the most pro-NRA of all the candidates:

A large man sitting in a small office, wearing a brown suede vest and heavy, battered boots, Richardson clearly revels in his image as the quintessential Westerner. "You have to talk about guns in the context of lifestyle, recreation, a way of life," the Governor argues, rather than as just a measure to prevent murders and deaths. Democrats need to move into a void in the West. ...; "Richardson’s a very politically astute individual," says Robert Goode, NRA regional representative for West Texas and New Mexico. "He knows you’re beating your head against a wall when you go after the firearms issue. And he backs his words with his votes." Goode continues that, if a candidate like Richardson ran for the presidency, he believes the NRA would step back and not take a partisan stance on the election. Goode’s colleague Charles Weisleder, a 70-year-old NRA lobbyist, agrees. "Richardson," says Weisleder, a bald man smiling broadly over coffee at an Albuquerque Shoney’s, "got a lot of gun votes because of what he said to us. A lot of people are driven by the firearms issue."

The NRA likes Richardson and has for a long time. I particularly like his open and public support for shall issue concealed carry:

"He’s been a pretty solid guy on the gun issue," Van Horn, a member of the NRA’s board of directors, said.... "He has treated us first class," said Kayne Robinson, NRA’s executive director for general operations.

http://www.snubnose.info/wordpress/news/bill-richardson-on-gun-control

He's the most pro-death-penalty of all the candidates:

"I am in favor of NM's death penalty law. It sends a strong message of zero tolerance for heinous crimes, and it provides certain justice for the victim's families.

At the same time, we must ensure that capital punishment is applied equally, without regard for race or economic status, and we must work to apply DNA testing to make sure only the guilty are executed.

I support the proposal to make the murder of a child under 11 years old an 'aggravating circumstance' and eligible for the death penalty."

Source: Campaign web site, RichardsonForGovernor.com, "Priorities" Oct 24, 2002

Broaden use of the death penalty for federal crimes.

Impose "truth in sentencing" for violent criminals so they serve full sentences with no chance of parole.

Limit the number of appeals allowed to inmates on death row.

Fund programs to provide prison inmates with vocational and job-related skills.

Expand funding for community policing programs.<br>  * Prosecute youths accused of murder as adults.

Source: 1996 Congressional National Political Awareness Test Nov 1, 1996
Voted NO on maintaining right of habeus corpus in Death Penalty Appeals.

Vote on an amendment to delete provisions in the bill that would make it harder for prisoners who have been given the death penalty in state courts to appeal the decision on constitutional grounds in the federal courts ("Habeas Corpus").

Bill HR 2703 ; vote number 1996-64 on Mar 14, 1996

Voted YES on making federal death penalty appeals harder.

Vote on a bill to make it harder for prisoners who have been given the death penalty in state courts to appeal the decision on constitutional grounds in the federal courts.

Bill HR 729 ; vote number 1995-109 on Feb 8, 1995

Voted NO on replacing death penalty with life imprisonment.

Amendment to replace death penalty crimes in the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill with life imprisonment.

Bill HR 4092; vote number 1994-107 on Apr 14, 1994

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Bill_Richardson_Crime.htm

In addition to these policy issues, Richardson has also shown himself to be very comfortable with the appointment of partisan Republicans in a hypothetical Richardson administration.

For example, when Richardson says he would appoint Bush family consigliere James Baker as a foreign policy envoy in a Richardson administration:

Whoever Richardson's foreign policy handler is, he failed miserably:

Richardson entered a room full of reporters. He didn't have much time, so the number of questions was limited. I knew what question will produce the headline we wanted: Who's the envoy Richardson has in mind. They always fall for this question if they come unprepared, and Richardson proved just that. Israel, he said, should be a bi-partisan issue he said charitably. And with this sense of bi-partisanship in mind pulled out of his hat the first name he could think of: Former Secretary of State James Baker.

We're willing to be charitable and file this under "he just didn't know any better". It's the same as what we said about Dean when he dropped that "the US should be even-handed" comment during the election (an incident that Rosner also compares to this gaffe) - no one had ever bothered telling him that "even handed" is nudge-nudge wink-wink anti-Israel among people who talk about the Middle East. So we're not taking this as an admission Richardson actually wants one of the most anti-Israel American diplomats in recent history to run the the peace process.

http://www.mererhetoric.com/archives/11273628.html

Bill Richardson has a problem that may be harder for him to get out of. During a speech to the National Jewish Democratic Council, Richardson stated that he would consider appointing James Baker as his special envoy to the Middle East. Shmuel Rosner writes about the serious problems that this indicates in the Richardson campaign:

...Baker, as I mentioned in the article published in Haaretz today, was a member of an administration "widely viewed as the most hostile ever to Israel." ... Richardson builds his whole case on the argument that he is the experienced, knowledgeable, sophisticated candidate ... That makes this Baker gaffe a lose-lose situation for him. Either he admits it was a gaffe - which makes all this bragging about experience seem quite silly. Or he can stick to the Baker proposal - which makes the pro-Israel bragging quite questionable.

"This is what happened when a candidate doesn’t have a professional campaign, and professional staff making sure that he is well prepared to such events," a knowledgeable professional told me after hearing about Richardson’s remarks. This, he said, will never happen to Hillary Clinton. And judging by her performance this morning at the NJDC I tend to agree.

This type of gaffe will significantly hurt Richardson on the foreign policy front for many of the reasons indicated above. Bill Richardson and Eli Suissa Whereas Romney can afford to punt, silence from Richardson on the issue will only make potential supporters look past him and to the front runners.

http://2008central.net/?p=544

I have even more concern about Richardson's support for Attorney General Al Gonzalez:

Tavis: It occurs to me now, listening to you talk about your friend who you know, Mr. Gonzalez, it draws a stark contrast between—I haven't checked where all the other candidates are, but I know Obama is on record very clearly saying Gonzalez should step down. I suspect other Democrats running for president are maybe saying the same thing. That's a contrast between you and others on whether or not this guy should step down.
Richardson: That's right. I do believe that it's up to a president to make those decisions about Cabinet members. Obviously, Alberto's very damaged, and he's gotta be frank and testify and do what has to happen. But I think that's up to the president.<p>
Tavis: So you would not call for his stepping down right now.<p>
Richardson: No, no. And you know what? Part of it maybe is because he's the highest-ranking Hispanic ever.

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/200703/20070321_richardson.html

We know Richardson did simply misspeak when he said his support for Gonzalez was racial because Richardson has repeated that statement:

Presidential candidate and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D) said Monday the reason he has not called for the removal of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is that the two both have Hispanic backgrounds.

Richardson, in an interview with The Hill, said he is "pretty close" to making such a call, but added that he is reluctant to do so before Gonzales’s Senate testimony despite the high-profile involvement of New Mexico in the U.S. attorneys scandal.

"The only reason I’m not there is because he’s Hispanic, and I know him and like him," Richardson said, adding, "It’s because he’s Hispanic. I’m honest."

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/gov.-richardson-pretty-close-to-calling-for-gonzales-to-resign-2007-04-17.html

I like Richardson, I just don't agree with him on very many domestic issues.

[ProudDad]

23. Let's see if I've got this right

The president should be the one who is most "experienced" in a corrupt, bankrupt economic/social system.

Yeah, that's it. The most experienced with corruption is our guy!

Cool, glad to get that straight... :eyes:

[Deep13]

30. This is for the Democratic Party, not the Socialist Party.

Most voters don't think that way.

[ProudDad]

39. Strange post

number 13...

[bklyncowgirl]

24. I like Richardson but then I see choosing a candidate sort of like hiring someone for a job.

I want to see things in the person's past that make me think that he or she could do the job and do it well.

Of the announced candidates Richardson has the most executive experience. I like his position on the Iraq war, his energy policy and his environmental record. I'm not crazy about but can live with his stands on the death penalty and gun control. He seems to have changed his tune on trade policy somewhat and is demanding better labor and environmental protections. He's been a good governor of New Mexico, bringing in jobs, raising the minimum wage and encouraging alternative energy and mass transportation.

The fact that, unlike Edwards or Clinton, he did not play a role in getting us into this debacle in Iraq is a big plus. I also like the fact that he's a westerner--good to have someone from that part of the country. It would also be nice to have a president who could go to Latin America, speak Spanish and not be a national embarrassment.

Like many other DUers, I'm waiting to see if Gore gets in. If you put a gun to my head and tell me I had to vote for one of the announced candidates today, I'd probably vote for Richardson.

[Deep13]

31. Pretty much how I see it.

A good resume gets an applicant an interview. Without experience, the applicant gets a polite letter of rejection. In 2000, I voted in the Republican primary for McCain, briefly becoming an R under Ohio law, because Bush's track record of failure told me that he absolutely was not suitable for the White House. Somehow, Bush has been even worse than I expected.

[Colobo]

34. I guess Lincoln would have gotten the polite letter of rejection from you...

[Deep13]

46. Well, he was a Congressman.

Anyway, this election isn't about Lincoln. It's about who we have this year.

[bklyncowgirl]

42. Yes, Bush's history was not a string of successes or even near misses.

It was one disaster after another. That's why I voted for Gore in 2000 instead of taking a flyer on Nader.

[dave_p]

32. To hell with experience

Experience of what? Being a safe appointee and not rocking the boat? (Not just Richardson, I mean the whole experience issue).

Political lightweights to me aren't people without long official CVs, they're people without policy depth, commitment and insight. Sadly that often seems to go with lots of experience.

I think the whole issue's a red herring. With Gore out, I don't think any of the other candidates have that much top-level hands-on experience.

They've less than Cheney, anyway. It could be worse.

[smalll]

33. He's got GREAT experience, but he's tubby and (worse)jowly and so in the 2nd tier he'll stay -

"Appearance is destiny" as someone else here said recently in relation to presidential questions. Kind of sucky, but there it is. Unless they know how to do facial liposuction these days, he has no chance.

[trudyco]

35. Have you read Armed Madhouse? I'm not a Richardson fan..

He sacrificed truth about vote counting to make sure his local political situation was secure.
Then he passed a law making it nearly impossible to get a recount in future elections.

He is not an American. He's just another corporatist shill.

[illinoisprogressive]

36. I like Richardson and think he will place well, though I support Obama

Richardson is my second choice.

[justinrr1]

37. It bothers me too

but after Richardson's first debate I see why he is not catching fire. However the media has the power and the will to make this a 2 or 3 person race. Experienced candidated like Biden and Richardson have no chance if the media decides that they dont want to give them one. And we(as a whole) buy into it and accept whatever the media wants to feed us.

[idlisambar]

38. can't quite get past the Wen Ho Lee affair

I'd like to give a serious look at Richardson but the way he handled this left a bad taste in my mouth.....

Former Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson, who had oversight of Los Alamos National Laboratory at the time and effectively ordered Lee's firing, is considered, by some, likely to have been the mysterious source who leaked Lee's name to reporters. Lee has sued the Energy Department, the FBI, and unnamed individuals to recover damages for harm to his reputation caused by leaks of confidential information from the espionage investigation. The success of his case hinges on knowing the identity of the leaker, and several reporters privy to this information have become embroiled in legal battles as they defy court orders to reveal their sources. Much of the case turned on whether a reporter's First-Amendment right to protect a source extends even to cases where the sources are possibly committing libel against another citizen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wen_Ho_Lee


http://198.170.104.197/60minutestrans.htm

[Orangepeel]

54. I don't blame him for that

The whole thing was handled badly, but I blame the FBI and the justice department, not Richardson. Richardson is responsible in a "buck stops here" kind of way, but I don't blame him for firing somebody the FBI told him was a spy.

As the wikipedia article you link to points out, Richardson has been accused "by some" as "likely" to have leaked Lee's name to reporters, but that's too much hearsay for me. A high ranking official in the Clinton administration was accused of doing something bad? Knock me over with a feather.

[calteacherguy]

40. I'm not bothered because I think that is changing.

Richardson was blacked out by the media for months with the glamor of the "top three," but now he's gaining ground. I suspect in the near future Richarson will be in the "top three" in some key states.

[Lord Helmet]

41. Richardson is too conservative.

I like him though.

[bigtree]

50. on guns, perhaps trade, death penalty

not much else though . . .

[Tejanocrat]

51. There is also Richardson's over-fondness for Repu trolls like James Baker and Guantanamo Gonzo:

In addition to opposing even moderate gun regulation, supporting "free" trade over fair trade, and seeking to expand the death penalty, Richardson has also shown himself to be very comfortable with the appointment of partisan Republicans in a hypothetical Richardson administration.

For example, when Richardson says he would appoint Bush family consigliere James Baker as a foreign policy envoy in a Richardson administration. Here's some views of Richardson's statements in that regard:

Whoever Richardson's foreign policy handler is, he failed miserably:

Richardson entered a room full of reporters. He didn't have much time, so the number of questions was limited. I knew what question will produce the headline we wanted: Who's the envoy Richardson has in mind. They always fall for this question if they come unprepared, and Richardson proved just that. Israel, he said, should be a bi-partisan issue he said charitably. And with this sense of bi-partisanship in mind pulled out of his hat the first name he could think of: Former Secretary of State James Baker.

We're willing to be charitable and file this under "he just didn't know any better". It's the same as what we said about Dean when he dropped that "the US should be even-handed" comment during the election (an incident that Rosner also compares to this gaffe) - no one had ever bothered telling him that "even handed" is nudge-nudge wink-wink anti-Israel among people who talk about the Middle East. So we're not taking this as an admission Richardson actually wants one of the most anti-Israel American diplomats in recent history to run the the peace process.

http://www.mererhetoric.com/archives/11273628.html

Bill Richardson has a problem that may be harder for him to get out of. During a speech to the National Jewish Democratic Council, Richardson stated that he would consider appointing James Baker as his special envoy to the Middle East. Shmuel Rosner writes about the serious problems that this indicates in the Richardson campaign:

...Baker, as I mentioned in the article published in Haaretz today, was a member of an administration "widely viewed as the most hostile ever to Israel." ... Richardson builds his whole case on the argument that he is the experienced, knowledgeable, sophisticated candidate ... That makes this Baker gaffe a lose-lose situation for him. Either he admits it was a gaffe - which makes all this bragging about experience seem quite silly. Or he can stick to the Baker proposal - which makes the pro-Israel bragging quite questionable.

"This is what happened when a candidate doesn’t have a professional campaign, and professional staff making sure that he is well prepared to such events," a knowledgeable professional told me after hearing about Richardson’s remarks. This, he said, will never happen to Hillary Clinton. And judging by her performance this morning at the NJDC I tend to agree.

This type of gaffe will significantly hurt Richardson on the foreign policy front for many of the reasons indicated above. Bill Richardson and Eli Suissa Whereas Romney can afford to punt, silence from Richardson on the issue will only make potential supporters look past him and to the front runners.

http://2008central.net/?p=544


I have even more concern about Richardson's support for Attorney General Al Gonzalez:

Tavis: It occurs to me now, listening to you talk about your friend who you know, Mr. Gonzalez, it draws a stark contrast between—I haven't checked where all the other candidates are, but I know Obama is on record very clearly saying Gonzalez should step down. I suspect other Democrats running for president are maybe saying the same thing. That's a contrast between you and others on whether or not this guy should step down.

Richardson: That's right. I do believe that it's up to a president to make those decisions about Cabinet members. Obviously, Alberto's very damaged, and he's gotta be frank and testify and do what has to happen. But I think that's up to the president.<p>

Tavis: So you would not call for his stepping down right now.<p>

Richardson: No, no. And you know what? Part of it maybe is because he's the highest-ranking Hispanic ever.

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/200703/20070321_richardson.html

We know Richardson did simply misspeak when he said his support for Gonzalez was racial because Richardson has repeated that statement:

Presidential candidate and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D) said Monday the reason he has not called for the removal of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is that the two both have Hispanic backgrounds.

Richardson, in an interview with The Hill, said he is "pretty close" to making such a call, but added that he is reluctant to do so before Gonzales’s Senate testimony despite the high-profile involvement of New Mexico in the U.S. attorneys scandal.

"The only reason I’m not there is because he’s Hispanic, and I know him and like him," Richardson said, adding, "It’s because he’s Hispanic. I’m honest."

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/gov.-richardson-pretty-close-to-calling-for-gonzales-to-resign-2007-04-17.html

[bigtree]

52. lots of opinion there pulled from one acknowledged statement about Baker

and another one offered second-hand from an Israeli columnist with whatever motives he carries for his opinionated rag. The Israeli columnist suggested Richardson said he would appoint Baker himself. That comment hasn't been repeated anywhere else and no one has confronted Richardson with those comments reported by the Israeli columnist.

What Richardson HAS been directly quoted as saying is that Bush should send HIS friend Baker back to the Mideast. I think that's much different than saying he'd independently appoint Baker, which I doubt he would.

The rest about Gonzales is just whipped up nonsense. He called for his resignation after the testimony before Congress; unequivocally.

[Adelante]

53. Very different

Do you have a link to his quote? Thanks.

What Richardson HAS been directly quoted as saying is that Bush should send HIS friend Baker back to the Mideast. I think that's much different than saying he'd independently appoint Baker, which I doubt he would.

[sampsonblk]

43. This campaign is about the 'WAR.'

His positions on the war and his ability to communicate them will determine how he does in the campaign.

[bigtree]

49. He's calling for an exit this year with NO residual forces or contractors

from MyDD: http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/4/11/14755/6603

Richardson: "I Would Have No Residual Force Whatsoever"

by Chris Bowers, Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 01:47:55 AM EST

I am currently listening to the entire MoveOn.org forum on Iraq. Right now, I am about halfway through Clinton's segment. So far, in the entire forum, no line struck me more than Bill Richardson's "I would have no residual force whatsoever" in his opening statement (which he repeated in his response to question #1). With perfect clarity, that is exactly the line I have been looking for from Democratic candidates for President. It is a profound, substantive difference than what we have heard from, for example, Hillary Clinton, when she states that if she is President there will be a "remaining military as well as political mission" in Iraq. This is, in the final analysis, a difference between ending the war in Iraq, and simply decreasing the size of the war Iraq.

What really makes me happy about this statement is that it came from Bill Richardson. This is a man who, earlier today, brokered a deal with North Korea to allow weapons inspectors back into the country, and who, three months ago, brokered cease-fire deal in Darfur. To use the favorite term of neoliberal hawks, no one alive today is more "serious' about foreign policy than Bill Richardson. And yet, here he is, running for President of the Unites States, and stating that the United States should have no residual force in Iraq whatsoever. Doesn't he know that "serious" people aren't supposed to say things like this?

This changes the debate on Iraq. For months, progressives have tried to make a big deal out of Clinton's refusal to apologize for her Iraq war vote. At the same time, many candidates, not just Clinton, have claimed they are in favor of ending the war in Iraq, while simultaneously maintaining an American military presence in the country. This has been extremely problematic, since as long as the Iraq debate in the Democratic primary is still framed about the AUMF in 2002, and as long as "ending the war" in the Democratic primary means continuing it, there is ultimately no way to articulate a meaningful difference between the Democratic candidates on the future of American involvement in Iraq. Now, however, there is a clear difference, and it is one we must press.

There are Democratic candidates who will entirely end American military involvement in the war in Iraq, like Bill Richardson, and there are Democratic candidates who simply want to reduce, but not end, American military involvement in the war in Iraq, like Hillary Clinton. That is the direction the debate over Iraq should and must take during the Democratic primary season if the party is going to make an informed choice about its next leader. There are candidates who will end the war, and there are candidates who will decrease its size but not end it. During the primary season, the only candidates who I will end up supporting when we start closing in on the primaries fall into the former camp. While I am sure that this makes me a naive, dirty fucking hippie, I guess it makes Bill Richardson one too. In fact, I am going to give $25 to his campaign for making this statement, and be on the lookout for Richardson 2008 drum circles in my neighborhood. Mind you, I'll keep voting for Edwards in straw polls for now, but this makes me take a long look a Bill Richardson.

It is essential that this become the new way Iraq is framed in the Democratic primaries, and that we determine which camp each candidate fits into. Bickering over how people voted five years ago, or even how they feel about their votes five years ago, is pretty pathetic when compared to the difference between ending the war and simply reducing it in size. I will take a one-time war supporter who wants to end it, over a long-term war opponent who simply wants to reduce it in size. Ideally, I'd like to have both, (cough, Feingold, cough), but I will take what I can get.

This is a potentially game-changing statement, as long as it means what I think it means. I hope Richardson's line is repeated ad naseum online for the foreseeable future. Which camp, the enders or the reducers, is each candidate in?

MoveOn forum: http://pol.moveon.org/townhall/iraq/report_back.html


from his campaign: http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/issues/iraq

The Iraq War is costing Americans $8 billion each month. By implementing my plan to de-authorize the war and withdraw ALL troops by the end of the year, we can start redirecting these funds toward what matters most for Americans: improving education, expanding access to quality health care, and addressing the REAL security threats like the Taliban, nuclear proliferation, and global warming. My seven-point 'New Realism Plan for Iraq' describes in detail what is required:

Troops Out in 2007

We should get our troops out of Iraq this year. Our continued presence there only enables the Iraqi factions to delay making the hard political choices they need to make to end the civil war.

No Residual Forces Left Behind

We must remove ALL of our troops. There should be no residual US forces left in Iraq. Most Iraqis, and most others in the region, believe that we are there for their oil, and this perception is exploited by Al Qaeda, other insurgents, and anti-American Shia groups. By announcing that we intend to remove all troops, we would deprive them of this propaganda tool.

Congressional De-Authorization of War

President Bush has demonstrated neither competence nor honesty nor a sense of reality in his conduct of this war.

Congress must continue to use the power of the purse without cutting funds for troops on the ground, but we should also go one step further. Congress should assert its constitutional authority and pass a resolution de-authorizing the war under the War Powers Act. Congress can then set a military pull-out date and appropriate funds accordingly for the re-deployment of troops.

Promote Iraqi Reconciliation

We should promote an Iraqi Reconciliation Conference to bring the factions together to seek compromises and to begin confidence-building measures, including the end of militia violence. Our redeployment will give us more leverage than we have now, caught in the crossfire, to get the Iraqis to reconcile.

Work With All Neighbors and Allies

We should convene a regional conference to secure the cooperation of all of Iraq's neighbors -- including Syria and Iran -- in promoting peace and stability. Among the key objectives of such a conference should be guarantees of non-interference, as well as the creation of a multilateral force of UN peacekeepers, should the Iraqis request one. The US should support such a force, but it should be composed of non-US, primarily Muslim troops.

Global Cooperation in Reconstruction

We should convene a donor conference to fund Iraq's reconstruction. The United States needs to show the world that we intend to return to our tradition of being a trusted leader, not a unilateralist loner. The process of disengagement is an opportunity for us to show that we have turned the corner, and that we intend to rebuild our alliances, respect international law, and work with the international community.

Redeploy to Address Real Threats

We must redeploy some of our troops to stop the resurgence of the Taliban and to fight the real terrorists who attacked this country on 9-11. While all American troops in Iraq must be removed, we need to maintain a military presence in the region, including in Kuwait and in the Persian Gulf. We must have the regional capacity to use air power, special forces and other means to strike Al Qaeda anywhere. We do not need American troops in Iraq to perform this essential task.

We also must bring our National Guard home where they are needed for homeland security, and we must focus our energy and resources on real threats, such as nuclear proliferation, Al Qaeda, public health, and global warming.

[LandOLincoln]

Nope. As a New Mexican, what bothers me

is that our most experienced candidate isn't running.

And I don't mean Al Gore, as much as I love the guy...

[LandOLincoln]

44. Ooops. Dupe...

[LandOLincoln]

45. Dupe (and Oops) #2

[mmonk]

47. Absolutely.

Blame the media circus that is trying to choose candidates for the public instead of familiarizing people with the candidates' positions and credentials. This has all started too early anyway.