South Carolina for Richardson
About the Author
This group is dedicated to promoting the Presidential Campaign of Governor Bill Richardson in South Carolina.
Gov. Richardson Sits Down With YouTube
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D) sits down with YouTube's Ben Smith for a 10 minute interview. Richardson emphasizes his wide range of experience (surprise!), asks all Americans to "get greener" and talks about how his "insurgent candidacy" is reaching out to the Internet community. He says this election is important for Internet users because "the Telecoms want to take broadband over" and he wants the Internet to remain "free."
When asked to address a YouTube message to North Korean leader Kim Jong-il, Richardson says give up your nukes and we'll give you food, energy and money:
Richardson's YouTube channel is here.
Link
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D) sits down with YouTube's Ben Smith for a 10 minute interview. Richardson emphasizes his wide range of experience (surprise!), asks all Americans to "get greener" and talks about how his "insurgent candidacy" is reaching out to the Internet community. He says this election is important for Internet users because "the Telecoms want to take broadband over" and he wants the Internet to remain "free."
When asked to address a YouTube message to North Korean leader Kim Jong-il, Richardson says give up your nukes and we'll give you food, energy and money:
Richardson's YouTube channel is here.
Link
Watch Bill Richardson's interview on the Tonight Show.
Bill Richardson has been making some progress lately.
The last CNN poll showed him with 5%, more than Chris Dodd and Joe Biden combined, and nearly half the support level of John Edwards (12%). In other words, he has definitely left the 'second tier' and is starting to close on the leaders.
The poll was taken before two new Richardson ads and his Tonight show appearance.
View the Tonight Show appearance at:
Link
It will be interesting to see what kind of poll numbers he receives since the appearance
Bill Richardson has been making some progress lately.
The last CNN poll showed him with 5%, more than Chris Dodd and Joe Biden combined, and nearly half the support level of John Edwards (12%). In other words, he has definitely left the 'second tier' and is starting to close on the leaders.
The poll was taken before two new Richardson ads and his Tonight show appearance.
View the Tonight Show appearance at:
Link
It will be interesting to see what kind of poll numbers he receives since the appearance
did you vote for Gov. Richardson in the
Link
straw poll on KPOJ radio in Portland ? Do that right away.
Gov. Richardson leds all others as of 10:20 AM. Read More »
Link
straw poll on KPOJ radio in Portland ? Do that right away.
Gov. Richardson leds all others as of 10:20 AM. Read More »
My Foreign Policy Interview with Bill Richardson
by: Nonpartisan
Tue May 08, 2007 at 11:30:30 AM EDT
[Posted at ProgressiveHistorians, Daily Kos, My Left Wing, MyDD, Never In Our Names, European Tribune, Eteraz, and Nation-Building.]
New Mexico Governor and Democratic Presidential Candidate Bill Richardson is one of America's leading foreign policy experts. A former Ambassador to the United Nations, Richardson holds an M.A. from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. Richardson is also perhaps America's leading diplomatic negotiator, having recently brokered successful agreements in both Darfur and North Korea. Whether or not Richardson is elected President in 2008, he is certain to be one of the most influential foreign policy advisors in any Democratic administration. Therefore, it is important to ascertain just where Richardson stands on the foreign policy issues most important to progressive activists.
After reading my January diary about Bill Richardson and the need for a visionary foreign policy, a Richardson for President staffer contacted me to arrange a foreign policy interview with the Governor. I suggested the interview be conducted via e-mail, citing the need for lengthy and substantive answers and my own lack of proper recording equipment, and my contact agreed. I submitted my questions at the end of January, and received the completed interview over the weekend. (As a result of the time lapse, some questions are necessarily outdated.)
I drafted the interview questions after soliciting input from readers at each of the eight sites linked above. The resulting epistolary interview is, I believe, the most in-depth foreign policy interview with Governor Richardson to date. Many thanks to the Governor and his staff for agreeing to this interview.
Over the flip, the complete text of the interview.
Nonpartisan :: My Foreign Policy Interview with Bill Richardson
Nonpartisan: Congressman Earl Blumenauer has introduced H.R. 663, the "New Direction for Iraq Act" -- a comprehensive exit strategy for Iraq. According to Congressman Blumenauer's diary at Daily Kos, his plan includes the following provisions:
"Redeployment: Requires responsible redeployment of US troops from Iraq in one year.
Stops the escalation: Prohibits the escalation of the war without specific Congressional approval.
Reconstruction: Redirects reconstruction from large contractors to Iraqi owned businesses.
Prosecution of war profiteers: Investigate and prosecute war profiteers and recover lost funds.
Diplomacy: Increase diplomatic efforts with Syria and Iran to promote stability in Iraq.
Benchmarks for the Iraqi government: Requires performance benchmarks and progress before further support.
Refugee assistance: More assistance for Iraqi refugees who have been driven from their country.
No permanent bases: Prohibits permanent US military bases in Iraq."
Do you support Congressman Blumenauer's bill in whole or in part, and if not, can you describe the specifics of your Iraq exit strategy?
Bill Richardson: My own thinking on Iraq is substantially in line with this approach. I also believe that Congress should de-authorize the war under the War Powers Act, and redeploy all troops by the end of 2007. My seven-point plan for redeployment with no residual US troops is summarized on our web site.
NP: What role do you believe the United States should play in the Middle East? How should we deal with the corruption and anti-democratic tendencies of our allies in places like Pakistan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, while simultaneously reaching out to the moderates in the Arab world? What influence should we have on the stalled peace process between Israel and Palestine?
BR: The most important single thing the US can do in the Middle East is to get out of Iraq, where our presence is fueling the insurgency and serving as a recruitment fair for Jihadists across the region.
The next most important thing we can do is to re-engage the Israelis and Palestinians to produce a just peace that ends the violence and insures the security of Israel and a sovereign Palestinian state. A stable two-state solution is right for Israel, right for the Palestinians, and right for America, because the suffering of the Palestinians is the most useful propaganda weapon the Jihadists have.
I also advocate a multilateral Marshall Plan for the Middle East, to promote development, reform and human rights in the poorer countries. We should link aid and trade concessions to political reform, respect for human rights, ending anti-US governmental propaganda, and educational reform to reduce the role of those Madrassas that teach Jihad. With a small fraction of what we are spending in Iraq making enemies, we could make many friends.
We also must promote political and educational reform through stronger diplomacy with the rich Arab countries like Saudi Arabia, and with big aid-recipients like Egypt.
NP: In their 2006 report, Forging a World of Liberty Under Law, Princeton professors Anne-Marie Slaughter and G. John Ikenberry proposed a radical retooling of international peace organizations. Their proposals included an expansion of the U.N. Security Council, an elimination of the Council members' veto power over the authorization of "direct action in response to a crisis", and the creation of a new "Concert of Democracies" consisting of self-selected nations who agree to outlaw war among themselves and to hold free and fair democratic elections. Do you support these provisions in whole or in part, and if not, what would you do to improve the functionality of international peace organizations such as the United Nations?
BR: I am broadly sympathetic with these goals and these means, and my administration will engage these issues diplomatically, to produce new and stronger international institutions and agreements. We need to modernize, re-invigorate, and in some cases fundamentally reform or supplement international organizations to meet the challenges of the 21st century. The permanent membership of the UN Security Council should be expanded to include Japan, Germany, India, and one Latin American and one African nation. I also favor negotiations over the veto power in an expanded UNSC.
My own "New Realism" foreign policy is very much in synch with Professor Ikenberry's "Liberal Realism." Please see the speech I gave at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which outlines the "New Realism".
NP: In the same report, Slaughter and Ikenberry write, "Instead of insisting on a doctrine of primacy, the United States should aim to sustain the military predominance of liberal democracies and encourage the development of military capabilities by like-minded democracies in a way that is consistent with their security interests." Do you agree with this position? If so, do you support its extension to tribunals such as the International Criminal Court? Should U.S. leaders be subject to these tribunals?
BR: The essence of American international leadership is not the argument of our power, but rather the power of our arguments. Our remarkable military gives us the power to lead, but others follow us because they share our goals and are inspired by our ideals. Our own strength is enhanced by solid alliances with strong democratic allies. Solving the pressing problems of the international community will require multilateral cooperation and American leadership in this spirit, not in the spirit of domination.
If we want others to respect human rights and obey international law, we also must do so. And our own behavior should be impeccable: there shall be no torture, prisoner abuse, secret prisons, or evasions of international law including the Geneva Conventions under my administration. I strongly support the International Criminal Court and will propose that the United States join my first DAY in office. Every square inch of the planet should be free of human rights abuse, and under the jurisdiction of the ICC. This includes the US. Only those who trample human rights have anything to fear from the ICC.
NP: In 1997, President Clinton failed to sign the Ottawa Treaty, which would have banned the use, production, and ownership of all antipersonnel land mines. As President, will you make America a signatory of the Treaty, and will you support an international effort to clear all land mines and unexploded cluster bombs from all war zones within a decade?
BR: Yes. The US should sign this treaty and support all efforts to reduce the carnage caused by land mines and cluster bombs.
NP: I have read with interest your plan for a "New Realism" in American foreign policy. While your plan has many appealing features, nowhere does it mention America's role in international trade discussions or their impact on human rights in developing nations. As President, will you return to former President Jimmy Carter's stance of making fair trade and human rights a cornerstone of America's foreign policy?
BR: I have stated in many speeches that the US should use all its diplomatic carrots and sticks to promote human rights. This includes making fair trade and human rights cornerstones of our approach to trade agreements. We must reward countries which respect the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and engage, constructively but firmly, those who do not.
NP: While your "New Realism" contains a multitude of impressive policy initiatives, it often seems to be just that -- a collection of policy initiatives with no central unifying principle. Our greatest foreign-policy Presidents have typically had such a unifying vision, whether Woodrow Wilson's desire for peace enforced by "world moral opinion" or Harry Truman's support of containment of Communism and economic alliance throughout the free world. As President, what will be the overarching principle that motivates your foreign policy vision?
BR: The unifying vision of the New Realism is its embrace of global society, its rejection of unilateralism, and its understanding of the need for enlightened American leadership of strong international coalitions to address the many problems we face today. Because the greatest challenge we face in the 21st century - like global warming, overpopulation, and the risk of nuclear terrorism -- we face not as a nation, but rather as a species.
by: Nonpartisan
Tue May 08, 2007 at 11:30:30 AM EDT
[Posted at ProgressiveHistorians, Daily Kos, My Left Wing, MyDD, Never In Our Names, European Tribune, Eteraz, and Nation-Building.]
New Mexico Governor and Democratic Presidential Candidate Bill Richardson is one of America's leading foreign policy experts. A former Ambassador to the United Nations, Richardson holds an M.A. from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. Richardson is also perhaps America's leading diplomatic negotiator, having recently brokered successful agreements in both Darfur and North Korea. Whether or not Richardson is elected President in 2008, he is certain to be one of the most influential foreign policy advisors in any Democratic administration. Therefore, it is important to ascertain just where Richardson stands on the foreign policy issues most important to progressive activists.
After reading my January diary about Bill Richardson and the need for a visionary foreign policy, a Richardson for President staffer contacted me to arrange a foreign policy interview with the Governor. I suggested the interview be conducted via e-mail, citing the need for lengthy and substantive answers and my own lack of proper recording equipment, and my contact agreed. I submitted my questions at the end of January, and received the completed interview over the weekend. (As a result of the time lapse, some questions are necessarily outdated.)
I drafted the interview questions after soliciting input from readers at each of the eight sites linked above. The resulting epistolary interview is, I believe, the most in-depth foreign policy interview with Governor Richardson to date. Many thanks to the Governor and his staff for agreeing to this interview.
Over the flip, the complete text of the interview.
Nonpartisan :: My Foreign Policy Interview with Bill Richardson
Nonpartisan: Congressman Earl Blumenauer has introduced H.R. 663, the "New Direction for Iraq Act" -- a comprehensive exit strategy for Iraq. According to Congressman Blumenauer's diary at Daily Kos, his plan includes the following provisions:
"Redeployment: Requires responsible redeployment of US troops from Iraq in one year.
Stops the escalation: Prohibits the escalation of the war without specific Congressional approval.
Reconstruction: Redirects reconstruction from large contractors to Iraqi owned businesses.
Prosecution of war profiteers: Investigate and prosecute war profiteers and recover lost funds.
Diplomacy: Increase diplomatic efforts with Syria and Iran to promote stability in Iraq.
Benchmarks for the Iraqi government: Requires performance benchmarks and progress before further support.
Refugee assistance: More assistance for Iraqi refugees who have been driven from their country.
No permanent bases: Prohibits permanent US military bases in Iraq."
Do you support Congressman Blumenauer's bill in whole or in part, and if not, can you describe the specifics of your Iraq exit strategy?
Bill Richardson: My own thinking on Iraq is substantially in line with this approach. I also believe that Congress should de-authorize the war under the War Powers Act, and redeploy all troops by the end of 2007. My seven-point plan for redeployment with no residual US troops is summarized on our web site.
NP: What role do you believe the United States should play in the Middle East? How should we deal with the corruption and anti-democratic tendencies of our allies in places like Pakistan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, while simultaneously reaching out to the moderates in the Arab world? What influence should we have on the stalled peace process between Israel and Palestine?
BR: The most important single thing the US can do in the Middle East is to get out of Iraq, where our presence is fueling the insurgency and serving as a recruitment fair for Jihadists across the region.
The next most important thing we can do is to re-engage the Israelis and Palestinians to produce a just peace that ends the violence and insures the security of Israel and a sovereign Palestinian state. A stable two-state solution is right for Israel, right for the Palestinians, and right for America, because the suffering of the Palestinians is the most useful propaganda weapon the Jihadists have.
I also advocate a multilateral Marshall Plan for the Middle East, to promote development, reform and human rights in the poorer countries. We should link aid and trade concessions to political reform, respect for human rights, ending anti-US governmental propaganda, and educational reform to reduce the role of those Madrassas that teach Jihad. With a small fraction of what we are spending in Iraq making enemies, we could make many friends.
We also must promote political and educational reform through stronger diplomacy with the rich Arab countries like Saudi Arabia, and with big aid-recipients like Egypt.
NP: In their 2006 report, Forging a World of Liberty Under Law, Princeton professors Anne-Marie Slaughter and G. John Ikenberry proposed a radical retooling of international peace organizations. Their proposals included an expansion of the U.N. Security Council, an elimination of the Council members' veto power over the authorization of "direct action in response to a crisis", and the creation of a new "Concert of Democracies" consisting of self-selected nations who agree to outlaw war among themselves and to hold free and fair democratic elections. Do you support these provisions in whole or in part, and if not, what would you do to improve the functionality of international peace organizations such as the United Nations?
BR: I am broadly sympathetic with these goals and these means, and my administration will engage these issues diplomatically, to produce new and stronger international institutions and agreements. We need to modernize, re-invigorate, and in some cases fundamentally reform or supplement international organizations to meet the challenges of the 21st century. The permanent membership of the UN Security Council should be expanded to include Japan, Germany, India, and one Latin American and one African nation. I also favor negotiations over the veto power in an expanded UNSC.
My own "New Realism" foreign policy is very much in synch with Professor Ikenberry's "Liberal Realism." Please see the speech I gave at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which outlines the "New Realism".
NP: In the same report, Slaughter and Ikenberry write, "Instead of insisting on a doctrine of primacy, the United States should aim to sustain the military predominance of liberal democracies and encourage the development of military capabilities by like-minded democracies in a way that is consistent with their security interests." Do you agree with this position? If so, do you support its extension to tribunals such as the International Criminal Court? Should U.S. leaders be subject to these tribunals?
BR: The essence of American international leadership is not the argument of our power, but rather the power of our arguments. Our remarkable military gives us the power to lead, but others follow us because they share our goals and are inspired by our ideals. Our own strength is enhanced by solid alliances with strong democratic allies. Solving the pressing problems of the international community will require multilateral cooperation and American leadership in this spirit, not in the spirit of domination.
If we want others to respect human rights and obey international law, we also must do so. And our own behavior should be impeccable: there shall be no torture, prisoner abuse, secret prisons, or evasions of international law including the Geneva Conventions under my administration. I strongly support the International Criminal Court and will propose that the United States join my first DAY in office. Every square inch of the planet should be free of human rights abuse, and under the jurisdiction of the ICC. This includes the US. Only those who trample human rights have anything to fear from the ICC.
NP: In 1997, President Clinton failed to sign the Ottawa Treaty, which would have banned the use, production, and ownership of all antipersonnel land mines. As President, will you make America a signatory of the Treaty, and will you support an international effort to clear all land mines and unexploded cluster bombs from all war zones within a decade?
BR: Yes. The US should sign this treaty and support all efforts to reduce the carnage caused by land mines and cluster bombs.
NP: I have read with interest your plan for a "New Realism" in American foreign policy. While your plan has many appealing features, nowhere does it mention America's role in international trade discussions or their impact on human rights in developing nations. As President, will you return to former President Jimmy Carter's stance of making fair trade and human rights a cornerstone of America's foreign policy?
BR: I have stated in many speeches that the US should use all its diplomatic carrots and sticks to promote human rights. This includes making fair trade and human rights cornerstones of our approach to trade agreements. We must reward countries which respect the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and engage, constructively but firmly, those who do not.
NP: While your "New Realism" contains a multitude of impressive policy initiatives, it often seems to be just that -- a collection of policy initiatives with no central unifying principle. Our greatest foreign-policy Presidents have typically had such a unifying vision, whether Woodrow Wilson's desire for peace enforced by "world moral opinion" or Harry Truman's support of containment of Communism and economic alliance throughout the free world. As President, what will be the overarching principle that motivates your foreign policy vision?
BR: The unifying vision of the New Realism is its embrace of global society, its rejection of unilateralism, and its understanding of the need for enlightened American leadership of strong international coalitions to address the many problems we face today. Because the greatest challenge we face in the 21st century - like global warming, overpopulation, and the risk of nuclear terrorism -- we face not as a nation, but rather as a species.
April 30, 2007
The Democrat candidates
Filed under: Politics â�" Jerry @ 9:46 am
Democrat Debate Bared a Lot More Than You Think: Kevin Hassett
(Kevin Hassett-Bloomberg.com)
April 30 (Bloomberg) â�" When eight Democratic candidates for president debated last week in Orangeburg, South Carolina, they took sides on almost nothing yet agreed unanimously that the U.S. should get out of Iraq. That was about it.
If you want a Hollywood analogy, think of that scene in the movie �Airplane'� where everyone takes turns slapping a hysterical passenger. Then let that passenger be President George W. Bush.
If it�s economic substance you were looking for, you went to the wrong place. John Edwards extolled the wonders of his health-care plan. Senator Barack Obama pretended impressively to have one (which he does not). New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson mumbled something about the minimum wage.
Still, even with the wriggling and evading, the debate told us a lot about the Democratic campaign.
Before the debate, everyone knew that the Democratic field has three tiers. The first tier (the Frontrunners) includes Senator Hillary Clinton and Obama; the second (the Challengers) includes Edwards and Richardson, and the third tier (the Impossibles) includes Senators Joe Biden and Christopher Dodd, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, and former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel.
We know a lot more now. How did each of them do?
Creepiness Record
Mike Gravel: If more viewers than usual stayed to watch through the end of the debate, there is no question that Gravel was the reason. He was angry, combative and unbalanced, at one point breaking the all-time presidential-debate creepiness record by screaming to Obama that he should tell us who he intends to nuke. Obama missed a golden opportunity to score with viewers when he evaded the question, rather than giving them the answer they craved: �France.'� (Grade: F)
Dennis Kucinich: I have a theory about Kucinich. I think the other candidates should pool their money and finance his candidacy, because anyone, man or beast, standing next to Kucinich on stage will appear presidential by comparison. Kucinich�s problem, however, is that Gravel came out of nowhere to steal his place as the strangest candidate. The train-wreck- loving crowd will clearly give their money to Gravel, and you should expect Kucinich to be gone from the field within six months. (Grade: F)
Joe Biden: Biden gave the shortest and best answer of the night. When asked whether he could be disciplined enough to control his legendary verbosity, he answered with one word, �yes.'� He made it through the debate without a gaffe, a first for him, but otherwise failed to distinguish himself. (Grade: C)
The Nuremberg Factor
Christopher Dodd: Dodd reminded voters of the wonderful job his father did serving as a counsel at the Nuremberg trials. On that he scored enormous points with everyone who watched the Nuremberg trials. He will be gone before Kucinich. (Grade: D)
Bill Richardson: It seems that every primary season some governor comes out of nowhere to steal the nomination. Richardson showed in this debate that it might well happen again. He was genuine and tough, the kind of guy who could pull the troops out of Iraq without looking wimpy. If he has a couple of more debates this good, money will start flowing his way. (Grade: A+)
John Edwards: Edwards deserves credit for being the most substantive candidate. He discussed his proposals to provide universal health care and raise taxes with details the others lacked. He talked about his efforts to unionize workers, and otherwise harm the economy, showing clear affinity for his base.
About Those Haircuts, Senator
He seemed completely unprepared, however, for a question about his $400 haircuts. He responded to that by talking about how poor he was when he was growing up, pointing to his dad in the audience. Telling America how terrible a provider your dad was, while he is watching, is something you might expect from Gravel or Kucinich, but a real loser for a major candidate. (Grade: C-)
Barack Obama: Obama was as jittery as an aged Katharine Hepburn, and gave away the natural advantage of his tremendous intellect by failing to provide any specifics. He shied away from engaging frontrunner Clinton and appeared timid and uninformed. His candidacy can�t afford another appearance this bad. (Grade: F)
Hillary Clinton: We learned in this debate that Clinton has a tremendous advantage. The other candidates are shy of confronting her, either because they think she is the presumptive nominee, or because they don�t want to appear to be bullying a woman. She showed genuine emotion when discussing her trip to Columbine High School, scene of the 1999 massacre, and impressive humility concerning her own failings. (Grade: A)
If the Democratic primaries continue along the path they began last week, then Richardson is the only thing between Clinton and coronation.
(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He was chief economic adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona during the 2000 primaries. The opinions expressed are his own.)
To contact the writer of this column: Kevin Hassett at khassett@aei.org .
The Democrat candidates
Filed under: Politics â�" Jerry @ 9:46 am
Democrat Debate Bared a Lot More Than You Think: Kevin Hassett
(Kevin Hassett-Bloomberg.com)
April 30 (Bloomberg) â�" When eight Democratic candidates for president debated last week in Orangeburg, South Carolina, they took sides on almost nothing yet agreed unanimously that the U.S. should get out of Iraq. That was about it.
If you want a Hollywood analogy, think of that scene in the movie �Airplane'� where everyone takes turns slapping a hysterical passenger. Then let that passenger be President George W. Bush.
If it�s economic substance you were looking for, you went to the wrong place. John Edwards extolled the wonders of his health-care plan. Senator Barack Obama pretended impressively to have one (which he does not). New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson mumbled something about the minimum wage.
Still, even with the wriggling and evading, the debate told us a lot about the Democratic campaign.
Before the debate, everyone knew that the Democratic field has three tiers. The first tier (the Frontrunners) includes Senator Hillary Clinton and Obama; the second (the Challengers) includes Edwards and Richardson, and the third tier (the Impossibles) includes Senators Joe Biden and Christopher Dodd, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, and former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel.
We know a lot more now. How did each of them do?
Creepiness Record
Mike Gravel: If more viewers than usual stayed to watch through the end of the debate, there is no question that Gravel was the reason. He was angry, combative and unbalanced, at one point breaking the all-time presidential-debate creepiness record by screaming to Obama that he should tell us who he intends to nuke. Obama missed a golden opportunity to score with viewers when he evaded the question, rather than giving them the answer they craved: �France.'� (Grade: F)
Dennis Kucinich: I have a theory about Kucinich. I think the other candidates should pool their money and finance his candidacy, because anyone, man or beast, standing next to Kucinich on stage will appear presidential by comparison. Kucinich�s problem, however, is that Gravel came out of nowhere to steal his place as the strangest candidate. The train-wreck- loving crowd will clearly give their money to Gravel, and you should expect Kucinich to be gone from the field within six months. (Grade: F)
Joe Biden: Biden gave the shortest and best answer of the night. When asked whether he could be disciplined enough to control his legendary verbosity, he answered with one word, �yes.'� He made it through the debate without a gaffe, a first for him, but otherwise failed to distinguish himself. (Grade: C)
The Nuremberg Factor
Christopher Dodd: Dodd reminded voters of the wonderful job his father did serving as a counsel at the Nuremberg trials. On that he scored enormous points with everyone who watched the Nuremberg trials. He will be gone before Kucinich. (Grade: D)
Bill Richardson: It seems that every primary season some governor comes out of nowhere to steal the nomination. Richardson showed in this debate that it might well happen again. He was genuine and tough, the kind of guy who could pull the troops out of Iraq without looking wimpy. If he has a couple of more debates this good, money will start flowing his way. (Grade: A+)
John Edwards: Edwards deserves credit for being the most substantive candidate. He discussed his proposals to provide universal health care and raise taxes with details the others lacked. He talked about his efforts to unionize workers, and otherwise harm the economy, showing clear affinity for his base.
About Those Haircuts, Senator
He seemed completely unprepared, however, for a question about his $400 haircuts. He responded to that by talking about how poor he was when he was growing up, pointing to his dad in the audience. Telling America how terrible a provider your dad was, while he is watching, is something you might expect from Gravel or Kucinich, but a real loser for a major candidate. (Grade: C-)
Barack Obama: Obama was as jittery as an aged Katharine Hepburn, and gave away the natural advantage of his tremendous intellect by failing to provide any specifics. He shied away from engaging frontrunner Clinton and appeared timid and uninformed. His candidacy can�t afford another appearance this bad. (Grade: F)
Hillary Clinton: We learned in this debate that Clinton has a tremendous advantage. The other candidates are shy of confronting her, either because they think she is the presumptive nominee, or because they don�t want to appear to be bullying a woman. She showed genuine emotion when discussing her trip to Columbine High School, scene of the 1999 massacre, and impressive humility concerning her own failings. (Grade: A)
If the Democratic primaries continue along the path they began last week, then Richardson is the only thing between Clinton and coronation.
(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He was chief economic adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona during the 2000 primaries. The opinions expressed are his own.)
To contact the writer of this column: Kevin Hassett at khassett@aei.org .
Link
Bill Richardson: Richardson probably has more riding on this one debate than any other candidate. He is at the top of the second tier and has been praised for his stump performances. He has to come away with a performance that blows away the press. Again, that’s easier said than done. His best bet is to stress what makes him different from the other candidates â€" his position as a statehouse leader; his foreign-policy experience, and, of course, his Hispanic roots.
Bill Richardson: Richardson probably has more riding on this one debate than any other candidate. He is at the top of the second tier and has been praised for his stump performances. He has to come away with a performance that blows away the press. Again, that’s easier said than done. His best bet is to stress what makes him different from the other candidates â€" his position as a statehouse leader; his foreign-policy experience, and, of course, his Hispanic roots.
April 17, 2007
Richardson Trails a Bit in Fundraising, But Western Roundup Makes Him a Player
By Greg Giroux, CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY
The 2008 presidential campaign of New Mexico Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson reported Sunday to the Federal Election Commission it raised $6.2 million in the first three months of 2007.
That take might have raised eyebrows in any previous presidential election campaign â�" or if Richardson were not competing in this round for the Democratic nomination against the likes of Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York or Barack Obama of Illinois, each of whom reported raising more than four times as much as Richardson.
But for a candidate who entered the 2008 White House race less well-known to the national electorate than Clinton, Obama or former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, Richardson�s $6 million appears a reasonable opening bid.
Richardson â�" a House member from 1983 to 1997 who served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and as Energy secretary during the second term of President Bill Clinton â�" has touted his public service in New Mexico as a major selling point.
He also has emphasized the political importance of the fast-growing Western states. Not surprisingly, his donor list has a distinctly Western flavor: Richardson reported receiving $2.8 million from individual donors in New Mexico, exceeding by far his intake from any other states.
This CQPolitics.com analysis of Richardson�s report is the last for the eight Democratic presidential candidates. Beginning Wednesday, CQPolitics.com will analyze the first-quarter financial reports of the Republican presidential candidates.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson
� Receipts, Jan. 1 to March 31: $6.2 million
� Receipts to date: $6.2 million
� Expenditures, Jan. 1 to March 31: $1.2 million
� Expenditures to date: $1.2 million
� Cash-on-hand, March 31: $5 million
� Debts, March 31: $19,600
Notable individual donors (who are allowed to contribute $2,300 to a candidate for a primary campaign and $2,300 for a general election campaign)
� Anne Bingaman, former head of the Antitrust Division at the Department of Justice and the wife of New Mexico Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman: $2,300
� Sallie Bingham, author: $1,300
� Judy Blume, author: $2,300
� Jill Z. Cooper, lawyer and wife of New Mexico Democratic Rep. Tom Udall: $2,300
� Nathan Daschle, son of former Majority Leader Tom Daschle and the executive director of the Democratic Governors Association, which Richardson once headed: $1,000
� Michael Douglas, actor: $1,500
� Denise Moreno Ducheny, a California state senator: $250
� Jon Feltheimer, chief executive officer of Lions Gate Entertainment: $2,300
� James A. Johnson, former chairman and chief executive officer at Fannie Mae and a former aide to Vice President Walter F. Mondale: $2,300
� James B. Lewis, New Mexico state treasurer: $1,000
� Phil Maloof, an executive with The Maloof Companies and a former New Mexico state senator who was the 1998 Democratic nominee in New Mexico�s 1st District: $2,300
� Anthony Podesta, chairman of The Podesta Group: $1,000
� Jim Slattery, a former House member from Kansas (1983-95) who served with Richardson in Congress: $250
� James Tisch, chief executive officer of Loews Corporation: $2,300
� Randy Travis, musician: $2,300
� Al Unser, race car driver: $2,300
Political action committees (PACs)
Richardson�s campaign reported receiving $59,450 from political committees in the first quarter.
Richardson received $2,000 from the campaign committee of New Mexico Sen. Jeff Bingaman, who was easily re-elected last year. Texas Rep. Silvestre Reyes, whose El Paso-based 16th District borders New Mexico, donated $1,000 through his House campaign committee and also gave a $883.16 contribution that was designated as an �in-kind� donation for catering.
Notable expenditures
Richardson spent $210,000 on payroll to 44 individuals. But his campaign�s largest expense was $301,000 on direct mail, paid to the Virginia Beach-based marketing firm Nexus Direct.
Rachel Kapochunas contributed to this report.
© 2006 Congressional Quarterly
Richardson Trails a Bit in Fundraising, But Western Roundup Makes Him a Player
By Greg Giroux, CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY
The 2008 presidential campaign of New Mexico Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson reported Sunday to the Federal Election Commission it raised $6.2 million in the first three months of 2007.
That take might have raised eyebrows in any previous presidential election campaign â�" or if Richardson were not competing in this round for the Democratic nomination against the likes of Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York or Barack Obama of Illinois, each of whom reported raising more than four times as much as Richardson.
But for a candidate who entered the 2008 White House race less well-known to the national electorate than Clinton, Obama or former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, Richardson�s $6 million appears a reasonable opening bid.
Richardson â�" a House member from 1983 to 1997 who served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and as Energy secretary during the second term of President Bill Clinton â�" has touted his public service in New Mexico as a major selling point.
He also has emphasized the political importance of the fast-growing Western states. Not surprisingly, his donor list has a distinctly Western flavor: Richardson reported receiving $2.8 million from individual donors in New Mexico, exceeding by far his intake from any other states.
This CQPolitics.com analysis of Richardson�s report is the last for the eight Democratic presidential candidates. Beginning Wednesday, CQPolitics.com will analyze the first-quarter financial reports of the Republican presidential candidates.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson
� Receipts, Jan. 1 to March 31: $6.2 million
� Receipts to date: $6.2 million
� Expenditures, Jan. 1 to March 31: $1.2 million
� Expenditures to date: $1.2 million
� Cash-on-hand, March 31: $5 million
� Debts, March 31: $19,600
Notable individual donors (who are allowed to contribute $2,300 to a candidate for a primary campaign and $2,300 for a general election campaign)
� Anne Bingaman, former head of the Antitrust Division at the Department of Justice and the wife of New Mexico Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman: $2,300
� Sallie Bingham, author: $1,300
� Judy Blume, author: $2,300
� Jill Z. Cooper, lawyer and wife of New Mexico Democratic Rep. Tom Udall: $2,300
� Nathan Daschle, son of former Majority Leader Tom Daschle and the executive director of the Democratic Governors Association, which Richardson once headed: $1,000
� Michael Douglas, actor: $1,500
� Denise Moreno Ducheny, a California state senator: $250
� Jon Feltheimer, chief executive officer of Lions Gate Entertainment: $2,300
� James A. Johnson, former chairman and chief executive officer at Fannie Mae and a former aide to Vice President Walter F. Mondale: $2,300
� James B. Lewis, New Mexico state treasurer: $1,000
� Phil Maloof, an executive with The Maloof Companies and a former New Mexico state senator who was the 1998 Democratic nominee in New Mexico�s 1st District: $2,300
� Anthony Podesta, chairman of The Podesta Group: $1,000
� Jim Slattery, a former House member from Kansas (1983-95) who served with Richardson in Congress: $250
� James Tisch, chief executive officer of Loews Corporation: $2,300
� Randy Travis, musician: $2,300
� Al Unser, race car driver: $2,300
Political action committees (PACs)
Richardson�s campaign reported receiving $59,450 from political committees in the first quarter.
Richardson received $2,000 from the campaign committee of New Mexico Sen. Jeff Bingaman, who was easily re-elected last year. Texas Rep. Silvestre Reyes, whose El Paso-based 16th District borders New Mexico, donated $1,000 through his House campaign committee and also gave a $883.16 contribution that was designated as an �in-kind� donation for catering.
Notable expenditures
Richardson spent $210,000 on payroll to 44 individuals. But his campaign�s largest expense was $301,000 on direct mail, paid to the Virginia Beach-based marketing firm Nexus Direct.
Rachel Kapochunas contributed to this report.
© 2006 Congressional Quarterly
1. Visit Bill Richardson for President and make a donation. No amount is too small to make a difference. Please give what you can.
2. Tell your friends and neighbors why you support Bill Richardson for President and encourage them to support him too. Visit Bill Richardson for President for more information on Governor Richardson’s biography and policy positions.
3. Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper, expressing your support for Bill Richardson for President.
4. Organize or attend a Richardson Meet-up in your city. For more information on Richardson Meet-ups in Washington, please contact me.
5. Go to Bill Richardson for President and sign up to volunteer for the campaign.
2. Tell your friends and neighbors why you support Bill Richardson for President and encourage them to support him too. Visit Bill Richardson for President for more information on Governor Richardson’s biography and policy positions.
3. Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper, expressing your support for Bill Richardson for President.
4. Organize or attend a Richardson Meet-up in your city. For more information on Richardson Meet-ups in Washington, please contact me.
5. Go to Bill Richardson for President and sign up to volunteer for the campaign.
One reason why I support Bill Richardson for President
by skymutt
Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 09:32:42 PM PDT
Over the past several months, I have gradually come to the conclusion that Bill Richardson is the best choice to become the next President of our country, and I've decided that, after Richardson's diplomatic achievements in North Korea this week, I'm confident enough in my conlusion to go ahead and say it-- I support Bill Richardson.
I realize that Richardson faces a bit of an uphill battle vs. some very attractive, well-financed opponents. So even though we are very early in the campaign, I believe that he needs all the support he can get-- now. As part of my humble offering of support, I intend to write diaries from time to time, highlighting examples of Richardson's achievements and vision, and offering up my case for a Richardson presidency.
skymutt's diary :: ::
Bill Richardson has demonstrated to me that he's willing to dig in and take on critical issues, without regard to whether the issue is at the forefront of public consciousness. Put simply, Richardson is not a panderer, but rather a thinker and a doer.
Take, for example, the critically important issue of nuclear non-proliferation. Richardson is committed to eliminating the threat of a terrorist attack on an American city with a nuclear weapon... and he has a plan to back up that commitment, along with the background and experience to know the players and the playing field he's dealing with on this issue.
Why should you care? Well, I'll let Richardson tell you, via excerpts from a recent speech devoted to the issue, about just some of the deadly nuclear material that is extremely vulnerable to falling into the wrong hands:
[Under Clinton,] we got an emergency $200 million supplemental to dispose of Russian weapons-usable plutonium. We worked closely with the Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy to determine how to use these funds to eliminate 34 tons of Russian plutonium. But I am sorry to say that the Bush Administration got entangled in delays and conflicts with the Russians -- and still has not spent this $200 million. Those 34 tons of plutonium are still there...
At of the end of FY 2005, U.S.-funded security and accounting upgrades had been completed for barely half of former Soviet at-risk sites - leaving many sites vulnerable even to relatively unsophisticated terrorists or traffickers...
In several countries, civilian nuclear facilities often are less secure than a grocery store, and even weapons-grade nuclear materials are vulnerable to theft.
Richardson knows of what he speaks. As Secretary of Energy under Bill Clinton, Richardson was in charge of the United States' stockpile of nuclear weapons, and also was instrumental in directing and funding our international non-proliferation efforts-- efforts which bore fruit on Richardson's watch, especially with regards to securing Russian nukes.
So when Richardson brokered a key concession from the North Koreans yesterday whereby North Korea will dismantle its nuclear reactor and allow UN weapons inspectors back into that country, it was not the first time that Bill Richardson has helped make the world safer from a nuclear holocaust.
In his speech, Richardson proceeds to lay out his vision of a "Manhattan Project" to rid the world of the nuclear threat in the form of a clear four-point plan:
Four Key Tasks to Establish Global Nuclear Safety Standards
A comprehensive strategy must focus on four key tasks. If we accomplish them all, it is unlikely that terrorists will get a nuclear weapon. If we fail to do them, sooner or later they will. We need to:
Halt nuclear weapons proliferation
Halt nuclear weapons production and reduce the size of nuclear arsenals
Halt or secure civilian programs that require or produce bomb-grade materials
Consolidate and secure all existing fissile materials and all future production associated with nuclear energy and research worldwide
Richardson examines how each of these four tasks can be accomplished and I invite you to read the speech for more detail.
The beauty of such a plan is that it reduces the threat of terrorism, not with expensive and bloody wars that chew up our army and drain our treasury, but with hard work and diplomacy-- and very little money in the grander scheme of things. Rather than Bush's obstinate unilateralism in combatting terrorism, Richardson has a plan to reduce the terrorist threat based on diplomacy and cooperation. And Richardson, unique among all the candidates, has proven that he can hit the ground running in repairing our neglected diplomacy around the world.
Look-- we're over five years removed from 9/11 and most of us are weary of hearing about the terrorist threat-- but the threat of a group such as al Qaeda obtaining and detonating a nuclear device in an American city is very real. Bill Richardson recognizes the threat and is willing to talk about it and (more importantly) explain what he aims to do about it, even though the issue is not a real "red meat" issue for his base. For that, and much more, he has my respect, my support, and my vote.
Link
by skymutt
Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 09:32:42 PM PDT
Over the past several months, I have gradually come to the conclusion that Bill Richardson is the best choice to become the next President of our country, and I've decided that, after Richardson's diplomatic achievements in North Korea this week, I'm confident enough in my conlusion to go ahead and say it-- I support Bill Richardson.
I realize that Richardson faces a bit of an uphill battle vs. some very attractive, well-financed opponents. So even though we are very early in the campaign, I believe that he needs all the support he can get-- now. As part of my humble offering of support, I intend to write diaries from time to time, highlighting examples of Richardson's achievements and vision, and offering up my case for a Richardson presidency.
skymutt's diary :: ::
Bill Richardson has demonstrated to me that he's willing to dig in and take on critical issues, without regard to whether the issue is at the forefront of public consciousness. Put simply, Richardson is not a panderer, but rather a thinker and a doer.
Take, for example, the critically important issue of nuclear non-proliferation. Richardson is committed to eliminating the threat of a terrorist attack on an American city with a nuclear weapon... and he has a plan to back up that commitment, along with the background and experience to know the players and the playing field he's dealing with on this issue.
Why should you care? Well, I'll let Richardson tell you, via excerpts from a recent speech devoted to the issue, about just some of the deadly nuclear material that is extremely vulnerable to falling into the wrong hands:
[Under Clinton,] we got an emergency $200 million supplemental to dispose of Russian weapons-usable plutonium. We worked closely with the Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy to determine how to use these funds to eliminate 34 tons of Russian plutonium. But I am sorry to say that the Bush Administration got entangled in delays and conflicts with the Russians -- and still has not spent this $200 million. Those 34 tons of plutonium are still there...
At of the end of FY 2005, U.S.-funded security and accounting upgrades had been completed for barely half of former Soviet at-risk sites - leaving many sites vulnerable even to relatively unsophisticated terrorists or traffickers...
In several countries, civilian nuclear facilities often are less secure than a grocery store, and even weapons-grade nuclear materials are vulnerable to theft.
Richardson knows of what he speaks. As Secretary of Energy under Bill Clinton, Richardson was in charge of the United States' stockpile of nuclear weapons, and also was instrumental in directing and funding our international non-proliferation efforts-- efforts which bore fruit on Richardson's watch, especially with regards to securing Russian nukes.
So when Richardson brokered a key concession from the North Koreans yesterday whereby North Korea will dismantle its nuclear reactor and allow UN weapons inspectors back into that country, it was not the first time that Bill Richardson has helped make the world safer from a nuclear holocaust.
In his speech, Richardson proceeds to lay out his vision of a "Manhattan Project" to rid the world of the nuclear threat in the form of a clear four-point plan:
Four Key Tasks to Establish Global Nuclear Safety Standards
A comprehensive strategy must focus on four key tasks. If we accomplish them all, it is unlikely that terrorists will get a nuclear weapon. If we fail to do them, sooner or later they will. We need to:
Halt nuclear weapons proliferation
Halt nuclear weapons production and reduce the size of nuclear arsenals
Halt or secure civilian programs that require or produce bomb-grade materials
Consolidate and secure all existing fissile materials and all future production associated with nuclear energy and research worldwide
Richardson examines how each of these four tasks can be accomplished and I invite you to read the speech for more detail.
The beauty of such a plan is that it reduces the threat of terrorism, not with expensive and bloody wars that chew up our army and drain our treasury, but with hard work and diplomacy-- and very little money in the grander scheme of things. Rather than Bush's obstinate unilateralism in combatting terrorism, Richardson has a plan to reduce the terrorist threat based on diplomacy and cooperation. And Richardson, unique among all the candidates, has proven that he can hit the ground running in repairing our neglected diplomacy around the world.
Look-- we're over five years removed from 9/11 and most of us are weary of hearing about the terrorist threat-- but the threat of a group such as al Qaeda obtaining and detonating a nuclear device in an American city is very real. Bill Richardson recognizes the threat and is willing to talk about it and (more importantly) explain what he aims to do about it, even though the issue is not a real "red meat" issue for his base. For that, and much more, he has my respect, my support, and my vote.
Link
06 April 2007
Richardson hires 3 new S.C. staffers
Democratic presidential hopeful Bill Richardson has hired three new S.C. campaign staffers.
Trav Robertson was named field director today. The New Mexico governor also announced that James Dukes will be state political director and Jeanie Brown-Burrows will be Pee Dee field director.
Robertson most recently ran former state Treasurer Grady Patterson's unsuccessful 2006 re-election campaign and served on Patterson's staff. Roberts also ran Patterson's successful 2002 and 1998 campaigns.
Dukes is a former interim executive director of the S.C. Democratic Party and was state director for John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign.
Brown-Burrows was Tommy Moore's Pee Dee campaign director during the Aiken Democrat�s unsuccessful bid for governor last year.
Already working for Richardson are state campaign director Lachlan McIntosh and S.C. chief adviser Crawford Cook.
Richardson hires 3 new S.C. staffers
Democratic presidential hopeful Bill Richardson has hired three new S.C. campaign staffers.
Trav Robertson was named field director today. The New Mexico governor also announced that James Dukes will be state political director and Jeanie Brown-Burrows will be Pee Dee field director.
Robertson most recently ran former state Treasurer Grady Patterson's unsuccessful 2006 re-election campaign and served on Patterson's staff. Roberts also ran Patterson's successful 2002 and 1998 campaigns.
Dukes is a former interim executive director of the S.C. Democratic Party and was state director for John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign.
Brown-Burrows was Tommy Moore's Pee Dee campaign director during the Aiken Democrat�s unsuccessful bid for governor last year.
Already working for Richardson are state campaign director Lachlan McIntosh and S.C. chief adviser Crawford Cook.
The Hill
April 4, 2007
Enjoying an Underdog (A.B. Stoddard)
@ 10:10 am
Why are underdogs such fun? New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson is having a great week, and it is far more entertaining than the exhausting Clinton/Obama rivalry marathon we will be subjected to all year. Not only did Richardson raise more money than his second-tier colleagues, Sens. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) and Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), but he got President Bush to bless his trip to North Korea, creating an opportunity to remind everyone again that he is the Foreign Policy Stud of the Democratic contest.
Richardson will visit Pyongyang to collect the remains of American troops who died in the Korean War. He will be accompanied by former Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony J. Principi, but it is Richardsonâ��s trip â�" after all, he is the one with an open invitiation to visit and confer with the North Korean government. He has earned his stripes not only as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations but has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating the release of political prisoners in Iraq, Cuba and North Korea.
Richardson promises to play an interesting role in the �08 primary narrative by virtue of his bona fides, which are unmatched by the other contenders. Sure, he may be the only governor whose lieutenant governor went on the record to say he touches her too much, but he there�s no getting around his usefulness to this race and ultimately to a Democratic nominee for president.
Link
April 4, 2007
Enjoying an Underdog (A.B. Stoddard)
@ 10:10 am
Why are underdogs such fun? New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson is having a great week, and it is far more entertaining than the exhausting Clinton/Obama rivalry marathon we will be subjected to all year. Not only did Richardson raise more money than his second-tier colleagues, Sens. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) and Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), but he got President Bush to bless his trip to North Korea, creating an opportunity to remind everyone again that he is the Foreign Policy Stud of the Democratic contest.
Richardson will visit Pyongyang to collect the remains of American troops who died in the Korean War. He will be accompanied by former Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony J. Principi, but it is Richardsonâ��s trip â�" after all, he is the one with an open invitiation to visit and confer with the North Korean government. He has earned his stripes not only as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations but has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating the release of political prisoners in Iraq, Cuba and North Korea.
Richardson promises to play an interesting role in the �08 primary narrative by virtue of his bona fides, which are unmatched by the other contenders. Sure, he may be the only governor whose lieutenant governor went on the record to say he touches her too much, but he there�s no getting around his usefulness to this race and ultimately to a Democratic nominee for president.
Link
Posts By Month
Posts