Tag Archives: Bill Richardson

The Case for Bill Richardson: Leadership for America

This diary is part of the candidate series on MyDD for Bill Richardson.  I am Californian supporter of Richardson.  I am not part of his campaign.

Congressman, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Secretary of Energy and in his second term as Governor of New Mexico after a landslide victory in November 2006, Governor Bill Richardson is running for President to heal America and restore our place in the world. He possesses the experience, vision and leadership skills to be a great President.

Richardson is goal-oriented, assertive and confident. He has the ability to quickly evaluate a situation but is not rigid in his thinking and will modify policy when necessary. He takes a practical approach to governing, focusing on solutions to problems rather than ideology.

Richardson has been called a “force of nature.” When he served in Congress, he was regarded as one of the hardest working members, respected for his intelligence and detailed knowledge of the issues. In a profile earlier this year, Democratic state Senator Mary Jane Garcia stated, “It just never stops; it’s busy, busy, busy. He’s got an agenda like you can’t believe.”  New Mexican Republican Representative Dan Foley added, “People shouldn’t count him out. You won’t find a person who works harder.”

Richardson fights for the principals he believes in. I offer two of many examples:

First, while Secretary of Energy, against opposition in Congress and even criticism from within the Clinton Administration, Richardson acknowledged the Energy Department’s long history of denying responsibility for workers’ injuries at the nation’s nuclear weapons plants. He stated, “We need to right this wrong.”

Richardson successfully lobbied Congress to enact legislation providing payments and medical benefits to the workers that developed cancer and other serious diseases.

Second, in April 2007, Richardson spoke at Rally to Save the People of Darfur in San Francisco. He was the only Presidential candidate that attended, even though they were all in California that weekend for the California Democratic Party Convention.  Prior to speaking, a reporter asked Richardson why he was there. Richardson’s response was an inspiration to all fighting for social change: “You have to be part of the causes you believe in.”

Richardson has been to Sudan three times visiting refugee camps and negotiating the release of American aid workers and journalists. He has never given up on Africa.

Richardson has had an outstanding record as Governor of New Mexico.  He increased school funding, expanded health care coverage, extended civil rights protections to include sexual orientation, made New Mexico a model for the rest of nation in promoting clean energy and fighting global warming, while cutting taxes to promote sustainable growth and balancing the state budget. For his commitment to protecting the state’s environment, the Conversation Voters of New Mexico gave Richardson “a solid A.

Richardson understands that the Democratic Party must be the party of economic progress.  He has assisted the private sector in New Mexico in creating new, high paying jobs. He calls on Democrats to “stand for policies that encourage innovation and expand economic opportunity.”

On education policy, Richardson understands that No Child Left Behind sets up our public schools for failure.  Unlike the other major candidates that want to somehow fix and preserve NCLB, Richardson’s approach is simple and clear:  scrap it.  Richardson writes::

NCLB has failed. It has failed our schools, it has failed our teachers and it has failed our children. The Bush administration claims victories, but upon closer scrutiny it becomes clear that the White House is simply dressing up ugly data with fancy political spin. Far from leaving no child behind, President Bush seems to have left reality behind. 

On global warming and energy policy, Richardson has set forth the most detailed and aggressive plan of all candidates – calling for a 90% decrease in greenhouse emissions by 2050.  Dave Hamilton, the Sierra Club’s Director of Energy and Global Warming program, stated Richardson’s “18-page energy policy is much more aggressive than anything we’ve seen so far from the candidates.  It is also significantly better-elaborated in theory with regard to where we end up.” 

Richardson is the product of two nations, Mexico and the United States. His childhood friends included many of the poor in the neighborhood where his family lived in Mexico City.  He saw first hand the devastating impact of poverty on families and children. His bi-national upbringing necessitated understanding and then bridging two cultures. This laid the foundation for Richardson as an adult to become a peacemaker among nations and an expert in the art of diplomacy.

Richardson has articulated a new foreign policy for America which starts by recognizing the new challenges we face in the 21st century:

Jihadists and environmental crises have replaced armies and missiles as the greatest threats, and globalization has eroded the significance of national borders. Many problems that were once national are now global, and dangers that once came only from states now come also from societies-not from hostile governments, but from hostile individuals or from impersonal social trends, such as the consumption of fossil fuels.

Richardson calls on the U.S. to foster “the cooperation needed to solve the issues that face the modern world. The U.S. government needs to see the world as it really is – so that the United States can lead others to make it a better, safer place.”

On Iraq, Richardson has eloquently stated:

The War in Iraq is not the disease. Iraq is a symptom. The disease is arrogance. The next President must be able to repair the damage that’s been done to our country’s reputation over the last six years. It’s why experience in foreign affairs has never been more important.

Richardson has the best plan for ending the war in Iraq. He is only major candidate that has repeatedly and unequivocally called for the complete withdrawal of ALL American forces from Iraq.

The others candidates lack the confidence to stand up to the military and political establishment and follow the will of the American people.  They accept the argument that a complete withdrawal of all American forces would be “irresponsible.”  As Richardson wrote wrote in a recent Op Ed, “On the contrary, the facts suggest that a rapid, complete withdrawal — not a drawn-out, Vietnam-like process — would be the most responsible and effective course of action.”

The fundamental difference between Obama, Edwards and HRC verse Richardson on Iraq is that Richardson understands that by the U.S. remaining in Iraq, we unwittingly perpetuate the war.  Our troops have become the targets in a civil war.  The Iraqi government has become dependent on the U.S. for security the Iraqis should provide.  Richardson notes: “The Iraqis won’t take the necessary steps toward political reconciliation until the U.S. makes it clear that it will leave the country for good.”

Likewise, without the direct and committed action by the President of the United States, Iraq will remain in chaos. Richardson is the only candidate with a track record of foreign policy success.  Richardson will lead a diplomatic offensive to bring peace and stability to the region.

That we must exit Iraq now is a message Richardson constantly delivers to voters.  He doesn’t tailor his message to the audience. Yesterday, Richardson spoke on ending the war at two town halls in Iowa.  The first was at the National Guard Armory in Council Bluffs and second at the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post in Sioux City.

In closing, with Richardson we get two for the price of one: an energetic, can-do leader on domestic issues and an experienced diplomat on foreign affairs.

How We Still Take the White House if the Rep Power Grab Initiative Passes

I want to add to the analysis of the proposed California Republican power grab initiative.  Should it pass, we could lose about 19 of California’s 55 electoral college votes to the Rep candidate.

If the initiative qualifies for the June 2008 California primary election, we will of course fight it tooth and nail.  But all is not lost if it passes.  We can still win in 2008 in a landslide.  We don’t have to have Rep Presidents forever.  However, we must nominate a candidate that can win in solid Red states – and the best candidate for that task is Bill Richardson.

Generating support from outside the Democratic base is critical to taking the White House.  The Presidential election of 2004 demonstrated the fallacy of the argument that all Democrats need to do is line up behind a candidate, generate a massive turnout and victory will be ours.

John Kerry received more votes than any other Democratic candidate for President in history, yet he still lost.  On the other hand, as we saw in the 2006 Congressional elections, when Democrats attract votes from Republicans and Independents, Democrats win. 

If the Rep power grab initiative passes in California next year, it becomes imperative that we not nominate another Northern liberal like Clinton or Obama.  Forget the meaningless presidential match up polls more than a year before the election.  They are just based on national name recognition at this point.  Northern liberal Democrats don’t carry solidly Red states.  The White House will be lost if the Rep aren’t challenged in the South, Southwest, Rocky Mountain and Western states, and that is guaranteed if the Rep power grab initiative passes in California. 

The candidate I’m supporting is Bill Richardson.  More than John Edwards, because of Richardson’s Latino heritage and Western values as well as economic policies and stance on 2nd Amendment issues, Richardson is the ideal candidates for Dem to take Red states regardless of what happens in California.

New Mexico politics mirrors the partisan split in America today.  In the last two Presidential elections, the outcome of the vote in New Mexico was decided by less than 1% of the ballots cast.

Richardson has been the most successful governor at the ballot box in New Mexico history. In a state evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, Richardson won his first term in office by a 56 to 39 percent margin.

Four years later, when the campaign issue was his leadership and performance, Richardson was re-elected by an incredible 68 to 32 percent vote – more than twice his margin of victory in 2002.  Forty percent of the Republicans that went to the polls in New Mexico last November voted for Richardson. 

With Richardson at the head of the Democratic ticket, no longer would the fate of the Democratic candidate rise or fall on the outcome of one state.  We would start with the same states carried by Senator Kerry in 2004. 

Latinos who voted for Bush in 2004 would largely return to the Democratic Party.  Independents would also favor Richardson.  We already are seeing this.  In the latest ARG poll for Iowa , Richardson, among Independents that lean Democratic, is leading the Democratic field:

Biden  3%
Clinton  18%
Dodd  3%
Edwards  8%
Kucinich  5%
Obama  21%
Richardson  25%
Undecided  17%

Add in his Western values, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada and Arizona would become blue states.  That brings 29 electoral votes to the Dems, more than compensating for the lost electoral votes in California if the Rep power grab initiative passes but not enough to win the White House (assuming we carry all states Kerry won in 2004). 

Florida with 27 electoral votes could make the difference.  With Richardson as the nominee it could easily turn blue.  Adam Smith, one of the top political commentator in Florida, described earlier this year Richardson’s appeal in the state. 

I defy anyone to name a Democrat better equipped to take Florida than New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.

Think of it: a tax-cutting, NRA-supported progressive Democrat who can make a strong case in the conservative Panhandle; and the first Latino presidential nominee sure to energize the crucial Hispanic vote in South Florida and Central Florida.

For Central Florida’s crucial swing voters disillusioned by what they’ve seen with Iraq and Katrina, the two-term red- state governor, former U.N. ambassador, and U.S. energy secretary can sell competence. Nobody on either side is as experienced and tested on the key issues of the day – foreign policy, energy independence and economic growth.

What Smith wrote would apply in other Southern states, in particular Texas.  With 34 electoral votes, Texas is to Reps what California is to Dems. Kerry lost Texas by 23 points in 2004. The last time the Dems took Texas was Carter in 1976.

Today though, Democrats have been winning in local races in Texas.  Again with Richardson’s Western values and Latino heritage, he will have great appeal in Texas and could take the state.

How electable a Presidential candidate is should be taken into consideration, and all factors need to be considered including the possibility the California Rep power grab initiative could pass.  Moreover, electability should not be viewed solely from the viewpoint of the Presidential race. 

To achieve true health care reform, an aggressive plan attacking global warming and other policy initiatives that require Congressional approval, we must support a Democratic candidate that can assist down ticket Democrats win.

Richardson is the one Democratic candidate for President that has repeatedly shown an ability to attract support from Independents and Republicans. That will propel him to victory in November 2008, as well as lead to landslide victories for Dem candidates for the House and Senate nationwide.

Fourth Amendment For Me But Not For Thee

Are you poor?  Black?  Hispanic?  Congratulations!  The city of San Diego wants to look at everything you own without a warrant!  All of this is in the context of ensuring that there are no “cheaters” and that money distributed to the poor by the state is being done legitimately.  This is actually a Constitutional question that was upheld in 1971.  Oddly enough, and sit down for this one because it’s shocking, it’s only ever applied to the poor and not the literally millions of other entities, whether corporate or agricultural, who receive the same type of largesse.

If waiving one’s Fourth Amendment rights based on the receipt of government funds were applied outside of the impoverished, most people would instantly see the problem. Given the number of people who benefit from some kinds of government subsidy, the government could simply abrogate the Bill or Rights through its spending power. This can’t be right. And whether or not it’s unconstitutional, certainly these kinds of searches without cause are bad policy, for the same reasons. As soon as executives at Archer Daniels Midland agree to waive their Fourth Amendment rights, we can start talking about welfare recipients.

I know that the Fourth Amendment is no longer operative, so this may be something of a moot point.  But it’s so clear that those quick to jump on the indigent for “ripping off the taxpayer” has no similar fervor for those in corporate America.  I was astonished when I heard Bill Richardson use the phrase “corporate welfare” at the Yearly Kos Presidential Forum.  Maybe some of our more progressive cities might want to start barging in to some corporate offices just to make sure their books are the same as they claim.  Who knows, maybe we can end welfare as we know it again.

Where is Obama’s California Campaign?

One of the more overlooked parts of the official Obama fundraising memo was this line:

First, we are on a financial course that will allow us to both fully fund efforts in the early primary and caucus states, and also participate vigorously in all the February 5 contests, including large states like California, New Jersey, New York, Georgia and Missouri.

Well, that’s good, but you have known that for a while.  Where is the investment in California?  Why have there been no staffing announcements?  The media has been busy talking about your ability to dictate the television advertising pace with your large amounts of money.  However, there is little talk about how your fundraising allows for early field investment.

Hillary Clinton may just run away with the thing, unless you start organizing here.  Last week she announced her latest round of hires and now has staff in both LA and San Francisco. 

Poll numbers aren’t looking that good either.  The latest SUSA numbers, released today show Clinton leading with 49%.  Obama is at 24% and Edwards 14%.  It is early yet, but Clinton is moving to solidify her lead while you stand by.

BTW Edwards is not completely off the hot seat here, but he obviously has a lot fewer resources to bring to bear right now.  Richardson has spent a lot of time in the state already.

Its time for Obama to invest in California and not just come here and pick up a bunch of checks.

Bill Richardson Roundup: June 23-30, 2007 News Review

Highlighting his considerable foreign expertise, Governor Bill Richardson last week set forth a path to avoiding military confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program. Richardson called on Bush administration to stop threatening Iran with “incendiary rhetoric,” and instead recognize our interests in engaging Iran diplomatically. 

Richardson’s week ended with a well-received speech before Latino leaders in Florida.  Decrying the tone of the debate in the Senate on the immigration bill and how Latinos are portrayed in the media, Richardson asked

Do you notice that when they depict immigrants, they have someone crossing a wall, jumping as if they are criminals? How about the farmers who break their backs working or those who are cleaning the toilets and working at the hotel where we stay? How about the American media covering the immigrant who died protecting his country?

Also of note, Pollster.com added Richardson to its Top Democrats charts, joining Clinton, Obama and Edwards.  Charles Franklin of Pollster.com stated, “For other Democratic candidates, we’ve not seen a substantial upturn anywhere. Richardson stands alone in that respect at the moment.”

For a full review of Richardson’s week, continue reading.

Last week began with Richardson campaigning in Iowa.  He stepped up his rhetoric opposing the ongoing U.S. occupation in Iraq. As noted by the Rocky Mountain News:

While all the other Democrats call for an end to the conflict, Richardson goes a step further by saying virtually every American soldier – with the exception of Marine embassy guards – should be pulled out by the end of the year. He is pressuring congressional Democrats to pass a resolution by the end of the summer revoking authority for the war.

Richardson also addressed the question of the process he would employ if as President he believed war necessary:

If I am president, I would only go to war if I get authority from Congress. If you go to war, it’s my view that first you exhaust every diplomatic option, you exhaust mediation, even sanctions, build international support for your goals.  I would not hesitate to go to war if it preserved the security of this country, but I believe this administration has been too trigger-happy. And I would use diplomacy.

Richardson has been consistent on the primacy of diplomacy in conflict resolution.  On Iraq, Richardson advocated that the U.S. explore all diplomatic avenues, including returning to the U.N. and developing support within the Security Council for U.S. objectives.  Under the U.N. Charter, only the Security Council can authorize a member state to wage war. 

Richardson’s view, that the U.S. must place the matter of invading Iraq to a vote of the Security Council prior to commencing hostilities, was rejected by many in Congress, including John Edwards, and ultimately was the path President Bush pursued.

On March 11, 2003, eight days before President Bush announced the U.S. was at war with Iraq, Richardson urged patience and diplomacy, criticizing the Bush Administration’s rush to war, in an interview on CNN.  At this time, polls showed most Americans supported going to war and were critical of the U.N. Richardson defended the work of the U.N. Richardson explained how unilateral U.S. military action in Iraq would undermine the U.N. and hurt the prestige of the U.S. abroad:

CROWLEY: I want to ask you the question, first, if there is no Security Council resolution approving of a war on Iraq, and if the Bush administration should go ahead, who loses in that scenario?

RICHARDSON: Well, I think the United Nations loses because it shows a lack of relevance to this crisis.

And, secondly, I think, Candy, that the United States loses because we’re going into a major conflict without the blessing of the U.N. Security Council, without some of our major allies like France and Russia, and also those 10 other members of the Security Council, the 10 non-permanent members that have a voice right now.

So I think it would come at considerable cost especially if we’re to win the war, which we would, issues relating to a post-Iraq configuration to the prestige of the United States worldwide to bring some kind of order to the Middle East and bring some kind of Persian Gulf-lessening attention. So, I think everybody would be a victim. The United Nations, the United States and, certainly, our NATO allies. I think would be hurt, too, because if they don’t support us the breakdown of the NATO alliance might be next to go.

CROWLEY: Well, I want to cite a couple of figures for you. One of them just came from a CBS/New York Times poll, which showed that right now only about 34 percent of Americans believe the U.N. is doing a good job handling this situation.

Fifty eight percent think it’s doing a poor job. On top of that, we also found that 55 percent would support an invasion, even if the Security Council says don’t do it. What does that say about how Americans view the U.N., and has that changed since you were the ambassador?

RICHARDSON: Well, the United States as a populous, here in new Mexico, there’s not much support for the United Nations. But at the same time, Candy, what everyone should understand is the United Nations does a lot of things that we, the U.S. as the only superpower, don’t want to do.

They get involved in conflicts in Kosovo, in the Congo in Africa, in Guatemala and Latin America. Immigration issues, AIDS, refugees. We don’t want to get directly involved in these, but we use the arm of international support, legitimacy of the United Nations to do it.

Now, in the Persian Gulf, conveniently, the U.N. supported our efforts in 1991 to get a broad coalition. And I think we’ve used the U.N. in the war on terrorism to get international support.

But clearly in this Iraq crisis, the U.N. has to step up and simply enforce its 1881 resolution. And it’s not doing that. So, it’s going to be a big loss for the U.N. in terms of its peacekeeping relevance, unless it really steps up and gets tough on Saddam Hussein. I think that’s the issue.

CROWLEY: So, am I right, am I hearing you correctly that you believe that the U.N. Security Council should pass the resolution that Britain and the U.S. are proposing?

RICHARDSON: Well, I would go a little differently, Candy. I think the U.S. and Britain should compromise. That’s the essence of diplomacy. To get nine votes, if it means postponing for 30 days, or 15 days or 10 days, a new resolution with benchmarks on Iraq’s behavior, let’s do it. I think that France and Russia are basically gone.

They are going to veto. But it would be a partial victory if we get nine votes for a victory of a majority in the Security Council. If we don’t do that, I think it’s going to be tremendous prestige loss overseas. I think, domestically, it’s going to cause more problems for the administration. The Congress will be divided. This is a time when it’s frustrating, but what’s the rush, really. Iraq is not heading down Baghdad into the United States.

Again, it is a threat, but it’s not an immediate threat. It’s not something that is like the war on terrorism, where we’re under alert from a potential terrorist attack in this country. So let’s be judicious. Let’s be calm. Let’s be patient.

While in Iowa, Richardson sat down for an interview with the editorial board of The Des Moines Register. The reporter covering the interview wrote:

Richardson might not be the best-known candidate – for now, anyway – but he might have the best credentials. His resumé includes U.S. congressman, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy and governor. He served in Congress under three presidents: Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. He holds bachelor’s and master’s degrees. He has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

That’s him on paper.  In person, he’s a bit beefy, his eyes scrunch up, and his body shakes when he laughs. He boasts that he holds the world’s handshaking record – more than 13,000 handshakes in eight hours. And his sense of humor comes through loud and clear. . . .

Yet he has a serious side.  It’s the side that made him a go-to envoy while still in Congress. He helped negotiate the release of the body of a U.S. Army helicopter pilot killed in North Korea in 1994. The next year, he negotiated the release of two Americans detained in Iraq. Then he secured release of three Red Cross workers being held in Sudan.

During the interview, Richardson highlighted three issues of such importance that he would make special efforts to reach bipartisan consensus: getting out of the Iraq war; setting up solid funding for Social Security and Medicare for future generations; and achieving energy independence.  The reporter added:

If that sounds like a lot, his vision for the country is equally expansive. Building an America without divisions by race or ethnicity. Launching an Apollo-like program to secure energy independence. Curing cancer. Giving the middle class a break. “My vision is to think big for this country,” he said.

On June 27th, Richardson gave a major address at the Center for National Policy in Washington, D.C.  Richardson laid out his vision for engaging Iran and convincing Iran to halt its development of nuclear weapons.  Richardson also spoke on building support to fight international terrorism and nuclear proliferation, while bringing peace and stability to the Middle East.

I am convinced that a concerted diplomatic effort, backed up by tough sanctions, undertaken with our international partners and grounded in bipartisan cooperation at home, stands an excellent chance of persuading Iran to forego nuclear weapons and to adopt more responsible policies.  We need to end the taboo on open-ended talks, so that we can begin serious, continuing, and senior-level negotiations on the full range of nuclear, Middle East security, and economic issues. . . .

We need to be absolutely clear that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable, and we need to be absolutely credible when we say what we will do about it if the Iranians continue to disregard the will of the international community. . . .

Richardson added the Bush Administration was foolish to fund Iraqi exile groups in the delusional expectation that they would somehow topple the regime, and called on Bush not to repeat the mistake with Iran:

The Bush administration foolishly tried this approach with Iraq, and we know what it got us. There is no reason to expect better results with Iran. . . No constructive dialogue with Iran is possible until we break the vicious cycle of suspicion and hostile, incendiary rhetoric. If we want Iran to improve its behavior, we would do well to stop threatening to attack them.

Bill Richardson advocated that the U.S. reach out to moderate elements in Iranian society to defuse the standoff between the two countries.  Richardson reiterated his position that the U.S. must remove all troops from Iraq as soon as possible:

The presence of American troops in Iraq fuels the insurgency and strengthens Al Qaeda.  I strongly believe that the complete withdrawal of all US military from Iraq will have a salutary effect on all of our goals in the region, including our efforts to build a better relationship with Iran, and to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Back in New Mexico, the leading state organization on environmental issues, the non-partisan Conservation Voters New Mexico gave Richardson an “A” in its annual scorecard of elected officials:

The CVNM Scorecard recognizes Governor Bill Richardson with a solid “A” for his commitment to protecting the environment. The Governor weighed in behind a strong renewable energy agenda in 2007 and exercised his veto power on several anti-conservation measures, including a line-item veto of $945,000 for “Gila basin water development”, and a pocket-veto of SB 220 that would have provided a de facto $6.9 million subsidy to the coal industry.

Sandy Buffet, the Executive Director of the CVNM applauded Richardson’s efforts to make “New Mexico the ‘Clean Energy State.‘” She also complimented Richardson for his work on a non-environmental issue, but one affecting the integrity of the state government and New Mexico elections:  uphelding strong campaign finance reporting rules from efforts by the state legislature to reverse progessive statutes.

In response Richardson stated:

We have worked closely with all those who seek to conserve our water, air and public lands and establish New Mexico as the clean energy state — and this grade shows we’ve worked well together.  Having enacted 23 pro-conservation bills this year, this legislative session was an unprecedented success with significant increases to our renewable energy portfolio standard, passage of the surface owner’s protection act and the Renewable Energy Transmission Authority.

On the political front, independent polls issued last week re-confirmed Richardson’s growing support in Iowa and New Hampshire.  The campaign’s internal poll released to the media showed Richardson at 13% in Iowa, and at 18% (above Obama) among likely caucus voters.  And, in in action I believe is related to Richardson’s rise in the polls, the week also saw Obama launch TV ads in Iowa and Edwards commence a TV campaign in New Hampshire. 

In response to Richardson’s momentum in Iowa and New Hampshire, Pollster.com added Richardson to its Top Democrats charts, joining Clinton, Obama and Edwards.  Charles Franklin of Pollster.com explained, “While Richardson is still in fourth place in both states (5th in NH if you include Gore), his is the only trajectory that is clearly moving up.” 

The positive trend in Iowa polls was noticed by reporters in the state:

Lending credence to a poll showing his support has jumped to double digits among likely Iowa caucus-goers, Bill Richardson attracted more than 200 people to a “job interview” in Iowa City. The Democratic governor of New Mexico made an impression Tuesday with the folks who will be doing the “hiring” when Iowans caucus in January.

“He’s the ‘been there, done that’ guy in the field” of Democratic candidates for the 2008 presidential nomination, Sally Peck of West Branch said of listening to Richardson. “He’s not just mouthing platitudes. He has the experience others don’t.”

For months, Richardson has been calling for comprehensive immigration reform in harmony with the ideals upon which our nation was founded.  In a speech last December at Georgetown University, Richardson spoke on the issue:

I come here today as a border state Governor, and a  Hispanic-American who knows that our nation can no longer afford to  ignore the issue of illegal immigration. I come here as a Democrat who  believes my party has an obligation as the new majority party to pass  comprehensive legislation to reform our immigration laws. And I come  here as someone who believes it’s time for our leaders to tell the  simple truth about this — and every other — issue.

Today, there are over 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States. Most are law abiding, except for the fact that they have entered this country illegally. And almost all have come here to work — to build a  better life for themselves and their families, just as previous generations of immigrants have done.

Eleven million people living in the shadows is a huge problem, and we need to address it intelligently and thoughtfully — and urgently. If Congress fails to do so, it will only get worse, and the demagoguery about it which we have heard so much of recently will only get louder.

Sadly, Richardson’s prediction that the demagoguery on immigration would only get worse proved true last week. Following the failure of the Senate to advance a bill, Richardson stated:

I am deeply disappointed. You can’t solve a problem by ignoring it. We have got to find a way to bridge the divide and bring people together to address the critical problems facing our nation — immigration, energy, healthcare, education. This is the price America pays for divisive leadership. Congress should continue to work on passing immigration reform.

Richardson explained further his opposition to the Senate immigration bill, while calling for immigration reform, in an address to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials on June 30, 2007 in Orlando, Florida.  As reported in the Boston Globe:

“The Congress failed to pass an immigration act, and they must return” to it, said Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, a lawmaker of Hispanic background who received one of the most enthusiastic receptions among the seven Democratic candidates for president from the members of the National Association of Latino Elected Officials.

“But it was a bad bill. What I objected to was that they stopped working” on it, Richardson said. He decried that he called an overly onerous provision that would have required undocumented immigrants to return to their home countries to be considered for a green card giving them permanent legal status.

As reported in the Chicago Tribune, at the same conference Obama decried an “ugly undertone that crept into the debate” this year. Yet, Obama defended his vote last year to build the 700-mile fence along U.S. boarder with Mexico because that provision was just one part in a “much more humane” reform bill.  This was not the case.  The “Secure Fence Act of 2006” that Obama, Clinton, Dodd and Biden voted for contained only provisions authorizing the wall and securing the border. Richardson has consistently opposed the border wall as ineffective, a terrible symbol for America and in conflict with our goal of seeking Mexico’s cooperaton on immigration issues.

The Chicago Tribune’s coverage of the Florida conference continued:

But Richardson landed the hardest punch with the crowd when he suggested that the failure to pass fair immigration laws is due partly to a societal failure to recognize that “immigration has historically been a very positive element.”

“I have a message to the American media,” Richardson said. “Do you notice when they depict immigrants, they have somebody crossing a wall … as if they’re criminals? How about the American media looking at the farmworker who breaks his back? How about the American media covering the Latino immigrant that has died for this country?”

Richardson added:  “I’m not running as a Latino candidate. I’m running as an American governor who is enormously proud to be Latino.”

There has been significant blog commentary on the Democratic Presidential debate last Thursday at Howard University.  I won’t add anything further with one exception.  Much of the commentary focused on style and ignored the substance of the candidates’ statements. In particular, on the question of economic growth and tax unfairness, Richardson set forth an unique vision. 

Richardson’s voice is important as he is the only Democratic candidate in the race with executive branch experience and success in working with local communities, private corporations and public entities in creating thousands of new, quality jobs. 

Richardson advocated repealing the Bush tax cuts at the very top of the income bracket, which other candidates did as well.  But Richardson would go much further by replacing the Bush tax cuts with tax cuts for the middle class and to promote job growth, including in the inner cities and rural areas.  Richardson stated

We need to rebuild this economy by being pro-growth Democrats. We should be the party of innovation, of entrepreneurship, of building capital, getting capital for African American small businesses. We need to find a way in this country that we say that globalization must work for the middle class.

Finally, the Bay Area Reporter, the leading LGBT paper for the San Francisco Bay Area, profiled Richardson last week:

B.A.R. publisher Thomas E. Horn, who was born and raised in New Mexico and whose family has been involved in the state’s politics – an uncle served as a state legislator and then the state’s Democratic Party chair in the 1950s and 1960s – first met Richardson when he served as a congressman.

“I really think he is the most qualified Democrat in the race for president,” Horn wrote in an e-mail. “His track record is exceptional. He’s done a fine job as governor … and was re-elected with around 70 percent of the vote.”

Horn, who said he expects to make an endorsement in the primary but has yet to back a candidate, said winning the southwest will be key to the Democrats taking back the White House. Not only does he see Richardson having an advantage in the West, but Horn also praised his gay rights track record.

“If a Democrat carries New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada, we don’t need Ohio or Florida to win. Richardson is very popular throughout the southwest and stands the best chance of being able to do that,” wrote Horn. “His record of LGBT issues has always been stellar.”

Bill Richardson Roundup: Week in Review

This was a significant week in Bill Richardson’s campaign for President, with a major address on climate change and how to end the bloodshed in Iraq. 

It was also a significant week for peace and stability in Korea and Asia – which highlights Richardson’s expertise in foreign affairs and his diplomatic skills. With Richardson as President we get two for the price of one – a can-do leader on domestic issues and an experienced diplomat that knows how to bring people and nations together.

First, Richardson spoke in D.C. at the Take Back America Conference and set forth an unambiguous approach to Iraq – total withdrawal of U.S. forces combined with a diplomatic offensive:

But there is a fundamental difference in this campaign — and that’s how many troops each of us would leave behind. Other than the customary marine contingent at the embassy, I would leave zero troops. Not a single one. And if the embassy and our embassy personnel aren’t safe, then they’re all coming home too.

No airbases. No troops in the Green Zone. No embedded soldiers training Iraqi forces, because we all know what that means. It means our troops would still be out on patrol with targets on their backs.

A regional crisis is worthy of military intervention. A true threat to our country’s security is worthy of war. But a struggle between a country’s warring factions, where both sides hate the United States, is not worthy of one more lost American life.

Richardson also discussed his plan to addressing climate change:

I’m proud to have the most aggressive plan of anyone running for president. Within twelve years, my plan would reduce global warming pollution by 20 percent, lower demand for oil by fifty percent, and push fuel economy standards to 50 miles per gallon.

By the year 2040, my plan would require that 50 percent of our electricity be generated from renewable sources and would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent.

You can read the plan for yourself at my campaign website or you can listen to the League of Conservation Voters. They rated it the most aggressive plan with the highest goals of any other candidate. These aren’t pie in the sky proposals, but they are ambitious.

If we can spend billions waging war in a country that never had weapons of mass destruction … then we can certainly find the will to stop the mass destruction of our planet.

It’s time that we as a nation chose the collective good over the desire to collect goods. And frankly, buying carbon offsets isn’t enough. Just like paying somebody else to go to church doesn’t make you religious … paying somebody else to conserve doesn’t make you a conservationist.

Earlier this year, Richardson visited North Korea and helped revive U.S.-North Korean negotiations on nuclear weapons issues.  During his April visit, North Korean leaders promised Richardson that they would meet with U.S. officials and representatives of the International Atomic Energy Agency to monitor the shutdown of North Korea’s nuclear reactor, in exchange for the U.S. unfreezing funds owned by North Korea and held outside the country. 

In statement issued by the campaign, Richardson noted:

North Korean leaders made a promise to me to invite Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill to meet in North Korea. This high-level meeting comes on the heels of progress made toward shutting down the Yongbyon nuclear facility. Both of these actions are important steps in the process toward the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

In an Op Ed published in The Hill, Richardson called on Congress to pass and fully fund the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2007 in order to move America to a reliable and verifiable paper-ballot system now, and discussed efforts in New Mexico to adopt paper ballots:

In 2005 a grassroots coalition of concerned New Mexicans demanded action — and we acted. Working together with these citizens and the state legislature, I fought for legislation to increase voter confidence in our democracy through specific and concrete measures. We improved and standardized training for poll workers. We established statewide standards for provisional ballots to ensure that voters in low-income areas will not be disenfranchised. We made absentee voting fair, simple and uniform. And we established a random, statewide 2 percent audit of voting machines.

One year later, I signed a bill to move New Mexico to an all-paper-ballot system using optical scanners to count votes. We ended the hodgepodge of systems that confused voters and raised questions about reliability.

New Mexico’s conversion to a paper-ballot system made sense. Paper ballots are the least expensive, most secure form of voting available. . . .Using optical scanners meant quick and accurate results, while at the same time paper ballots became the permanent, verifiable, durable record of the vote.

Campaigning in Iowa, Richardson was asked to respond to John Edwards’ claim that he is more electable than Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama. Richardson noted that the Rocky Mountain and Southwest states were becoming increasing Democratic:

We in the Democratic Party seem to be nominating candidates that maybe are very strong in the East Coast and the far West Coast.  The only dispute I have with the senator’s perception is that I can deliver the Rocky Mountain states that other candidates can’t.

When questioned on his position on abortion rights, Richardson made clear his support:

Democrat Bill Richardson says that if he’s elected president, he would reject any Supreme Court nominees who believe Roe versus Wade should be overturned. . .  Richardson made the comment today in Des Moines, acknowledging that his stance probably upsets some people. Presidents typically say they don’t ask potential justices about their views on specific cases, but Richardson says he would make an exception for Roe versus Wade.

Another article on the question of abortion rights observed:

Richardson said he’d treat abortion rights differently than other issues because it’s so crucial to so many Americans. ‘‘I say this because we always dance around this issue,’’ said Richardson. ‘‘I’m also going to ask them, you do support civil rights, right? You do support a right of privacy, right?’’

By not directly discussing standards for picking nominees, Richardson said presidential candidates hide vital information from voters. ‘‘I would put men and women on the court who would shape policy for a generation,’’ said Richardson. ‘‘That’s the biggest legacy of a president. We’re already paying for the Bush legacy with these last few decisions on privacy and choice.’’

Questioned on his position on illegal immigration, Richardson stated:

I have to deal with this issue every day as the governor of New Mexico. There are four border states, and we are one of them. Am I for this wall? No. It’s a 10-foot wall. First of all, Congress didn’t fund the whole thing. And do you know what’s going to be built? Eleven-foot ladders.

Richardson criticized the new Senate energy bill passed by the Democrats as a Band-Aid approach that did not go far enough to curb our dependency on imported oil or spur serious technological innovation and promote renewable energy:

A haunting question hangs over the new energy bill passed by the Democratic-controlled Senate just before midnight Thursday: Would it work if it became law?

The real answer lies far in the future, but skepticism was rampant Friday. One prominent presidential candidate, New Mexico’s Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson, called it a “Band-Aid approach,” a sentiment expressed by other critics. Some called price-gouging provisions in the bill virtually meaningless, and President Bush has threatened to veto any bill containing such provisions.

Democratic leaders held out great promise for the legislation, saying it would reduce the nation’s reliance on foreign oil and help keep gasoline prices in check. “A giant leap forward,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) declared.

. . .In counterpoint to high Democratic praise in the Senate, Richardson, who served as energy secretary in the Clinton administration, said in a statement the bill did not go far enough and would not break U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

“It’s another Band-Aid approach, not the comprehensive medical treatment our nation’s energy policy needs,” he said. He called for a 50 m.p.g. fuel economy standard for cars instead of the 35 miles per gallon in the bill, which would have to be attained by 2020.

Richardson called for legislation that would incorporate the following elements as part of a comprehensive, integrated approach to climate and energy policy by 2020:

* Sharp incentives for making the plug-in car 50% of the auto market, giving consumers the option to fuel up at a fraction of the cost of gasoline;
*  A 50 mpg fuel economy standard for conventionally fueled vehicles, helping stimulate technologies that save fuel and save consumers gas money;
*  A 30% renewable energy requirement, which will help fuel our plug-in cars and will cause the retirement of dirty old coal plants;
*  A 20% improvement in energy efficiency across the board;
*  A climate change cap and trade program that auctions rights for industries and utilities to emit carbon at lower and lower levels — at least 20% less by 2020, and 80% less by 2040.

Finally, Richardson spoke on the importance of LGBT rights and Pride Month:

I am very pleased to join my friends in the GLBT community and Americans across the country in celebrating Pride Month. This month is a deserved commemoration of the contributions of GLBT Americans to the United States and a welcome symbol of how far we have come as a nation.

We must also acknowledge that we are in the midst of a difficult struggle for basic human rights and we have a long way to go. This month is a worthy symbol of our progress towards full civil rights for every American, but we cannot ignore the challenges we still must conquer before we can truly move forward and create a better society.

New Mexico Voices in Support of Bill Richardson

So much of the news on the Presidential campaign is impacted by how the political editors, commentators and talking heads in D.C. and N.Y.C. view the race.  They often determine the press coverage that occurs, and can have their biases. 

I’m from California and supporting Bill Richardson.  I want to share commentary on Richardson from two active Democrats from New Mexico who have watched him in office for years.  These commentaries were originally posted on DailyKos and MyDD. They give you a much better sense of Richardson and his record than what you’ll find elsewhere.

“For those of you who don’t already know me, I am Cara Valente-Compton. During the week I am a mild-mannered stay at home mom of four small kids in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Well, maybe not so mild-mannered, depending on the day. Today, for instance, I am dealing with the emotions of a 9 year old who is being manipulated by her “BFF” and a 5 year old eating popcicles in her closet, so I am a little on the grouchy side. On the weekends I work at a local Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, helping the nurses care for the preemies and sick babies. I love it.

I have had a lifelong passion for politics. I remember watching the 1972 conventions, both democratic and republican, with my parents. I was four. I have watched every convention since, for both parties. I was raised to make an informed choice between the parties, but I knew the moment I saw Jimmy Carter speak at the DNC in 1976 that I was a democrat. My father even tried to take me to a Gerry Ford rally at the Winston-Salem airport, but I threw up on the tarmac.

Over the years I have worked hard for a number of candidates. I started with Dukakis in 1988, and was wildly enthusiastic for Clinton in 1992 and 1996. But I have never been so sure of a candidate in my life as I am of Bill Richardson.

Yes, that’s right. I am betting on the dark horse in the race this time, and here is why…

First I must say that I have personal reasons for liking Bill Richardson so much. Back in 1990 I was a Bernalillo County Young Democrat and was asked by a Lt. Governor candidate to make a speech for him at our state party convention. It was my first opportunity to speak to a large group, and I was pretty nervous. Well Bill Richardson, then Congressman from northern New Mexico, was on the dais with me, and we met and exchanged a few words and I told him how nervous I was, and he was so great. He said not to worry, just pretend it was a group of five, not five hundred, relax, and be natural. I took his advice, and it worked. I didn’t speak for more than about five minutes, but it was pretty easy after his pep talk. When I was done he gave me a big, fatherly hug and said, “You did such a great job I am going to let you give all my speeches from now on!” I knew he was just saying that, but it really made me feel better, and I never had problems speaking in public again.

Now, that said, I have a number of other reasons to be supporting Richardson, and honestly if I felt that there was one other candidate more worthy of support I would be working for her or him. But there isn’t. Bill Richardson is by far the superior candidate of either party.

Richardson’s foriegn policy credientials are widely known in the political world. He served under Bill Clinton as the UN Ambassador, and has negotiated with hostile leaders on a number of occasions to release hostages and prisoners. He even brokered a cease fire agreement between Al Bashir and the rebel leaders in Darfur. Other American diplomatic efforts were rebuked, I have heard that Al Bashir refused to meet with Jesse Jackson, he refused to meet with Barak Obama. Though the cease-fire was fragile and broken within days, Richardson knows how to negotiate and leverage third party relationships to acheive peaceful resolutions to conflict.

Bill Richardson is also the strongest candidate on the issue of Iraq, and is demanding that Congress act NOW to remove our troops, not wait until October to think about it.

I am most concerned, as a mom of four, about how a president leads our nation at home, and Richardson’s domestic accomplishments are really vast. On a personal note, again, my husband and I left New Mexico in 1996 shortly after we were married because we didn’t feel that we could raise a family here. The economy was terrible, we were young and dead broke, and the job market was awful. Crime was really high. Everywhere it seemed was bad news, and we decided that we wanted to have kids right away, and so we moved to Missouri. It took us nine years to get back home, and we are so glad to be back.

Since returning to New Mexico we have been amazed at the changes, and credit the improvements in large part to Bill Richardson. Job creation in New Mexico is particularly impressive, with 82,000 new jobs having been created under Bill Richardson’s watch. Now in a state of about 1.5 million, that is a huge improvement. Richardson encouraged companies to bring their businesses here by offering tax incentives to businesses that paid employees over the prevailing wage, so these are by and large great jobs. They are also innovative companies, like Tesla Motors, building mid-sized electric cars, Eclipse Aviation, and new alternative energy plants, such as biomass, solar, and wind farms.

Speaking of energy, Richardson was the former Secretary of Energy. As Governor, Richardson fought for the creation of a light rail system that has connected the major towns and cities along the Rio Grande Corridor, from Belen to Bernalillo, and will eventually reach past Santa Fe to Las Vegas. The League of Conservation Voters says that Bill Richardson is the strongest candidate on energy and environmental issues, and can “restore America’s reputation as leaders” in this all too important issue. Richardson’s plan calls for a huge reduction in carbon emissions over the next decade, and New Mexico is following the Kyoto accord. Richardson also has a new book on the horizon, “Leading By Example: How We Can Inspire an Energy and Security Revolution” which is slated for release in November.

Richardson has brought real tax relief to every New Mexican by reducing state income taxes, and eliminating sales taxes on food and medicine altogether. New Mexicans now have more of their own money to spend. In doing this he has also managed to fund social programs, like pre-k programs, and balance the state budget.

Richardson has a great record on health care. Thanks to him every child in our state is covered until age 5. It is far from universal coverage, but it is a good start. And thanks to his efforts and the efforts of his wife Barbara the number of children lacking immunizations is down dramatically. The Richardsons have also helped to create a new wing at the University of New Mexico Hospital, called the Bill and Barbara Richardson Pavillion, which deals largely in pediatric medicine, with intensive care units for infants and childrens and a new emergency room for “peds”. He has also committed New Mexico to a leadership role in stem cell research, and this year signed into law a bill legalizing the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

Bill Richardson has also been instrumental in law enforcement. New Mexico has traditionally had a huge problem with drunk driving, and under this administration’s tough standards drunk driving is down significantly. Also, being a very rural state, we were developing a huge problem with meth labs. Richardson has cracked down on this problem, making harder to attain the ingredients for meth and aiding law enforcement in cracking down on offenders.

Is it any wonder, in light of all he has done for New Mexico, that Jon Stewart of the Daily Show called Bill Richardson “Batman”? I personally agree. We need a hero for President, not empty rhetoric. Join me in supporting Bill Richardson, and visit my grassroots website at www.richardsonbringshope.com. If you have any questions, too, you can email me at [email protected].”

——————

“Bill Richardson has a knack for giving diverse groups what they want most without terminally alienating people who don’t want that, whatever “that” happens to be.  He gave the pugs an upper tax bracket rate cut right out of the box in 2003, which pissed off a lot of liberal Democrats like me.

However, there were a few things I didn’t know at the time which the Governor certainly did.  First, the tax cut didn’t take effect immediately.  When oil prices went through the roof, the state had a windfall of revenue despite the loss from the income tax.  If oil and gas prices hadn’t shot up the way they did, he could have put off the tax cut a while longer.  Second, by giving pug voters what they wanted most, he was able to set the stage for several important liberal initiatives that would have been more difficult to achieve otherwise.

He convinced the voters to allow more investment money (our “Permanent Fund” from oil, gas, and mineral severance taxes) to be used for education.  It was a very close vote, but he got it done.

He convinced the legislature to spend a huge amount of money for a commuter train between Belen (south of Albuquerque) and Santa Fe, which has been talked about for more than 20 years.  This train will likely be extended south to Las Cruces and North to the Colorado border, where it will possibly connect to the incipient Colorado commuter train system.  We will soon have commuter rail linking the major metropolitan areas of the state, which now don’t even have bus service between them!  This is a really big deal for New Mexicans, and Big Bill set it all up by cutting Repugnant opposition off at the knees by giving them their core economic need.

Gov. Richardson even convinced the legislature and southern NM voters to approve even more money for a commercial spaceport, which will fuel economic development in that depressed part of the state for at least the next 50 years. 

Most important to me, Governor Richardson got behind the paper ballot early in 2005, recognizing that his Democratic base needed to know that they weren’t being cheated at the ballot box.  I can tell you that we would not have the paper ballot in NM without he Governor’s support.  Period.

Governor Richardson actually represents all of his constituents.  When he was my Congressman in ultra-liberal Santa Fe, he was reliably liberal, leading the fight against WIPP, the radioactive dump we have here.  When he couldn’t delay it any longer, he made good and sure that we got the Federal highway money we needed so that radioactive waste wouldn’t be shipped through the center of town.  What’s more, he told people exactly what he had to do, even though they didn’t want to hear it.

Now that he’s the Governor of the whole state, including the heavily conservative southern part of the state, he has more varied interests to serve.  Yet I’m certain that he’s still just as liberal as he used to be.  Sometimes I don’t understand what he’s trying to accomplish, but I can’t argue with the results.  Bill Richardson is a political genius.

Bill Richardson was reelected in the biggest landslide in NM history because he does a great job.  He’s done amazing things in NM, and if you give him a chance he’ll do great things for the whole country.  We need him.”

 

Richardson Talks Light Rail, Continues to Change the Debate

Bill Richardson was in Los Angeles yesterday talking mass transit.  He was touting the success of commuter light rail in New Mexico and said light rail would be equal to highways in a Richardson administration.

“I believe light rail is for the future,” he said. “The president can be a partner, working with state and city and local communities in joint funding.”

This obviously is a nice compliment to recent Calitics discussions about High Speed Rail in California and the broader concerns over responsible growth management and community development.  But what strikes me most is that Bill Richardson isn’t talking about Iraq.  He’s free to talk about things like light rail because for him, Iraq is no longer an issue.  Bill Richardson unequivocally wants all troops out of Iraq now.  He thinks that congress should de-authorize the war, and if he were to become president, all American personnel would leave Iraq.  That’s it, next question.  Say what you will about the rest of his platform and framing (I have), but by dispatching with Iraq and leaving no doubt about his plan and commitment to ending the war, Richardson is free to talk about everything else.  You know…the stuff that actually makes up a presidency.

I’ve bounced around the idea lately of a president maknig a major commitment to subsidizing commuter mass transit around the country, and it’s interesting to hear Richardson coming out as a proponent.  But this isn’t about supporting or not supporting a presidential candidate or about the merits of public transportation systems.  This is about framing the debate in Democratic terms.  This country has decided the war needs to end and the troops need to leave Iraq.  The debate is OVER.  We should be expecting our candidates to accept that and move onto the rest of the business of being President.

At the California Democratic Convention, most of the major candidates talked a lot about Iraq and about clawing out of the hole that George Bush has dug this country into.  All important, and all great ways to get the crowd excited.  But amid all the rhetoric about recovering from Bush, there’s very little discussion about what happens after.  Bill Richardson has, in many instances, simply taken it for granted that the first step is reversing every failed Bush policy, and the rest of us in the party should be taking that for granted as well to a certain degree.  We shouldn’t presume that our party leaders are actually going to do that, but we should not accept this as the parameters of the debate.  It’s just a given.  Talk to me about what comes next.

Bill Richardson is talking about what comes next.  Whether you agree with his ideas about what comes next or not, it is, in itself, something that we should be demanding of our other candidates.  We shouldn’t be stuck talking about how various candidates will restore us to 1996.  We should be talking about the things that nobody’s thought of yet.

Also Orange and Blue.

Presidential Townhall Meetings Happening Right Here in California

(cross-posted from ATM Watch)

Starting with Hillary Clinton back in February, several presidential candidates so far this year have visited Google headquarters in Mountain View, CA for a one-on-one chat (Clinton) or a full-fledged townhall meeting (McCain, Richardson and Edwards) in front of 1,000 or so Google employees. While we always hear about Google executives being a great source of Silicon Valley cash for the candidates, these forums are more akin to, as Carla Marinucci puts it,

the New Hampshire pancake breakfast, the Iowa school auditorium, [or] the South Carolina church hall.

Yes, retail politics IS happening right here in California and, thanks to Google's YouTube channel (umm, yeah they have one) the forums are available for all of us to see. They give us a rare glimpse of the candidates off script (rare for those of us not in N.H. or Iowa or permanently glued to CSPAN that is.) And while the candidates do their best to stick to the basic elements of their stump speeches, it's the unexpected little moments that are most interesting, such as Hillary Clinton's sense of humor, the warm war hero's welcome John McCain receives or the stumbles of Richardson (calling on Google to go solar when they already have) and Edwards (it was in this forum that he mistakenly claimed to have read the Iraq NIE.) And yes the candidates even talk California such as when Hillary repeated her praise for California's having kept electricity usage steady over the past two decades while nationwide it's increased 50%.

Want to get a close-up and personal look at the candidates, check out the videos over the flip:

Sen. John Edwards, May 30

 

Gov. Bill Richardson, May 14

 

Sen. John McCain, May 4

 

Sen. Hillary Clinton, Feb. 25

Bill Richardson officially announces in LA

From the LA Times:

Flanked by local Latino leaders and a large contingent of politicians from his home state, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson formally entered the 2008 presidential campaign today, saying that his thick resume offered him an unmatched ability to tackle the country’s problems at home and abroad.

The Democratic candidate, who has been running for months and has already aired campaign ads, made his announcement inside downtown Los Angeles’ Millennium Biltmore Hotel. Richardson noted that John F. Kennedy accepted his 1960 Democratic nomination for president at the Biltmore.

Richardson is still running a distant fourth at this point, but he does well when he talks about Iraq and foreign policy.  He begins to lose some street cred when he talks about taxation.  But whatever you want to say about him, he has a resume that is simply unmatched.  He would be a solid nominee, but seems that he is a bit too comfortable with his DLC status.  It is interesting that he chose to announce in California. So, did this help to get people to consider him? I don’t know. What about you folks in SoCal?

Over the flip, check out the Governor’s interview with California bloggers.