No Respect

Jim Henley notes the very small gap between John Edwards and Bill Richardson in fundraising and argues that "surely Richardson’s dough means that he’s at least as credible an alternative to the Big Two as Edwards now. It’s either a two-person race or a four-person race, but it’s not a three-way." The difference, it seems to me, is that Edwards has mostly been leading in Iowa polls.

That said, while I'm not exactly persuaded Richardson should be the nominee, I am sure I wish he would get more respect and attention. Richardson has staked out the best positions on both Iraq and climate change, and a Richardson boomlet would indicate to the other candidates that these are important issues to their constituents. The effect here on Iraq, in particular, could be large. What's more, in crass terms, Richardson is well-positioned to damage Hillary Clinton in two of her major pockets of support -- Latino voters and voters who place a high value on "experience."

Comments

I agree, and for the same reasons. I donated to Richardson last week and I'm about to send him another one. I've been baffled from the beginning of this dance why his credentials haven't been respected more.

Posted by Rich | July 2, 2007 9:47 AM

So, as Dodd has raised, on the year, about the same as Richardson, should he then also be included, making it a two person or a five person race?

Posted by bubba | July 2, 2007 9:48 AM

I don't know who Jim Henley is, but I know he's an idiot, or has been paying zero attention to the race. If he'd been watching he'd know that Richardon can't go on national TV without making a buffoon of himself, whether by looking generally clueless or by naming Whizzer White as his ideal Supreme Court Justice or by not knowing when Roe was passed. And did you see his response to a question about AIDS? I'll dig up the transcript, in case you want a chuckle. If he gets the scrutiny worthy of a top-tier candidate, he'll crumble further.

As for policy, yeah, good on Iraq and climate change, but he's for a constituional amendment to balance the budget and slams those tax-and-spend Democrats and cites his work getting NAFTA passed when in the House as his proudest achievement.

As for the poll numbers, yeah, there's Iowa, where Edwards is leading, and the national polls, which have Richardson at 2 percent (2 percent!), the same as Biden. Now, either national polls mean something or they don't. If they mean something, Richarson is third-tier. If they don't mean anything, Edwards is the frontrunner.

Posted by david mizner | July 2, 2007 10:22 AM

Have any of you seen Richardson speak in public? In a debate? Answer simple questions? On MTP?

the man is a walking disaster. He is LUCKY he is not taken more seriously. He would be getting hammered from pillar to post.

Posted by Armando | July 2, 2007 10:29 AM

And Richardson's strategy seems to be to alienate as many Democratic primary voters through sour rhetoric as might be attracted by his sound positions.

Posted by Marshall | July 2, 2007 10:32 AM

Movement towards Richardson wouldn't necessarily be taken as an endorsement of his "full withdrawal from Iraq" position. It could just as easily be spun as support for his more centrist notions, like his insistence that he's not like all those other Dems on taxes.

I'm pretty confident I know which way the Beltway press will choose to spin it. So if you're rooting for Richardson because you want to see his progressive ideas get more play, don't bet on it turning out that way.

Posted by Steve | July 2, 2007 10:37 AM

As the previous two comments above illustrate, Richardson's 2Q success is borderline incomprehensible to me and anyone else who's had the schadenfreude-laced pleasure of (a) watching Richardson on MTP (wherein he couldn't even choose between Red Sox/Yankees, let alone actual policy positions); (b) reading Ryan Lizza's devastating profile/blog entries (precisiely which one of his positions on Iraq was the "right" one?); or (c) watching Richardson fail to gain any traction in any of the recent debates.

While I initially had relatively high hopes for a Richardson candidacy, I have been repeatedly disappointed. We don't need another glad-handing frat boy in chief, long on charm but short on substance.

Posted by Will in Philly | July 2, 2007 10:38 AM

I agree with everyone who has noticed that his televised appearances have been downright awful. That's a pretty important part of being a presidential candidate, wouldn't you think?

Posted by David | July 2, 2007 10:49 AM

"Richardson's 2Q success is borderline incomprehensible to me"

Raising money operates under far different rules than other kinds of political success.

-----

That said, Richardson isn't in the same tier as Edwards, Obama, and Clinton simply because he's not nominatable.

Not being nominatable really tends to hold down your tier advancement possibilities.

Posted by Petey | July 2, 2007 10:53 AM

Bill Richardson has raised as much as he has because, of the top four, he is friendliest to big financial interests. His Anglo name comes from his father, who headed Citibank's Mexico City division and married an upper-class Mexican woman. Richardson's main complaints against his fellow candidates are that they are insufficiently pro-business. Greg Palast quipped that he's half Mexican-American and half Citibank-American.

As far as I can tell, Richardson has far fewer contributors than Edwards does, and I'll bet most of them have maxed out. He's the money guy, and reminds me of John Connally (who headed Democrats for Nixon and then switched parties), the guy who out-spent everyone and wound up with one delegate at the Republican National Convention.

So in my view the gap between Edwards and Richardson is bigger than the money totals indicate; furthermore, I don't think that Richardson will keep up the pace for another quarter, while Edwards will.

Posted by Joe Buck | July 2, 2007 12:18 PM

I have to disagree with the negative comments above. Richardson is probably the best the Democrats have to offer:

youtube.com/watch?v=CifLm6z32eA
youtube.com/watch?v=i0YRHXoygRM
youtube.com/watch?v=MiszkrzoOs0

Posted by TLB | July 2, 2007 12:30 PM

I like both Edwards AND Richardson, and I thought Richardson did well in the first debate (only one I watched).

However, I don't think I'd agree that Richardson will do more on climate change than Edwards. Yes, Richardson's saying 90% emission reduction by 2050, as opposed to 80% for the other good candidates. But it's what's going to happen in the next 10 years that matters more than some far-off goal, and Edwards has some good short term plans with cap and trade and selling quota alliances to fund renewables and carbon sequestration.

Posted by Brian Schmidt | July 2, 2007 1:15 PM

I wanted to like Richardson as an alternative, but he's a terrible politician. I seem to recall his debate performances were embarrassing. No way in hell he wins this thing. He's running for veep.

And let's be honest, John Edwards raised less than a third the money Obama did, and Clinton is trouncing them both in the polls. At this point he's getting my vote, but he's already a long-shot candidate grandfathered some attention by his 2004 veep run.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | July 2, 2007 3:00 PM

Congressman, cabinet secretary, U.N. ambassador, Nobel Peace prize nominee and in his second term as governor of New Mexico, Governor Richardson has been described as a "force of energy," recognized even by his opponents as a formidable political figure. "You won't find a person who works harder," stated Rep. Dan Foley, the Republican whip in the New Mexico House of Representatives, in an interview earlier this year.

The only governor competing for the Democratic nomination, Governor Richardson is uniquely positioned to win in November 2008. Over the past 30 years four governors have won the presidency. In the entire history of our nation, only two senators have accomplished that feat. Moreover, the ability to generate support from outside the Democratic base is critical to our regaining control of the White House. Governor Richardson has repeatedly shown he can attract support from Independents and Republicans, gaining 40% of the Republican votes cast in his re-election last November.

With Governor Richardson at the head of the Democratic ticket, we start with the same states carried by Senator Kerry in 2004. Latinos, who voted for the Republican nominee in 2004 in a greater percentage than ever before, would largely return to the Democratic Party. New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona and Florida would become blue states. Even Texas would come into play. No longer would the fate of the Democratic candidate rise or fall on the outcome of one state.

The race for the Democratic nomination is wide open. The sense of inevitability of Senator Clinton as the Democratic nominee at the beginning of the year has vanished. Her favorability/unfavorability rating is almost even, the worst of any major Democratic candidate.

Senator Edwards has been campaigning in Iowa for over five years - he should be in the lead. But I doubt it will last. Governor Richardson is gaining momentum and doing better in Iowa today than Senator Kerry was in November 2003. Plus, what's the value of an Iowa poll in the summer prior to the caucus? A huge percentage of Iowa caucus voters don't firmly decide to support a candidate until the last few weeks of the campaign. They "try out" all candidates before deciding upon one.

As Governor Richardson gains name recognition and more persons learn of his outstanding record of accomplishment, his support will continue to grow. Governor Richardson has the best plan among the Democratic candidates on the issue voters care about the most Iraq. He is the only candidate advocating for a crystal clear, total withdrawal, with no residual forces let to fight and die in Iraq. And Governor Richardson is the only candidate with the experience and expertise to pull off the diplomatic offensive that will be necessary for the U.S. to leave Iraq without further conflict unfolding in the region.

Of all the Democratic candidates, Governor Richardson possesses the best combination of experience, knowledge, leadership skills and vision to be a great President. If he wins the nomination, the Democratic take the White House in a landslide, and extend their majorities in the House and Senate.

For those who put stock in The New Republic hit piece on Governor Richardson by Ryan Lizz, would you fall for a hit piece against your favorite candidate?

Check out whom you're relying on. Lizza and The New Republic beat the drums of war for Iraq as loudly as anyone in the media. On FOX news on February 26, 2003 Lizza praised Lieberman, Kerry, Gephardt and Edwards for their vote for the Iraq war resolution, commenting they knew "why we need to do what we're going to do in Iraq."

On March 7, 2003, Lizza on CNN said, "Bombing Iraq and leaving isn't going to be enough, we need to overthrow the regime." Yet, Lizza has the gall to criticize Governor Richardson on Iraq as being pro-war.

Governor Richardson felt Hussein was a brutal dictator and threat to peace in the region. However, he was not step in step with President Bush, nor the Democrat war hawks, which included Iowa front runner Senator Edwards.

Governor 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.
Governor 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 Senator Edwards, and ultimately was the path President Bush pursued.

Remember what Senator Edwards - who claimed to have superior knowledge than most American as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee - was saying? Invade and invade now.

“My position is very clear," Senator Edwards stated on October 7, 2002, the same day President Bush in a televised address called on Congress to support his war plans. Edwards continued: "The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. I’m a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that is presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein’s regime is a grave threat to America and our allies. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today, that he’s used them in the past, and that he’s doing everything he can to build more. Every day he gets closer to his long-term goal of nuclear capability.”

On March 11, 2003, eight days before President Bush announced the U.S. was at war with Iraq, in an interview on CNN, Governor Richardson urged patience and diplomacy, criticizing the Bush Administration's rush to war. This is a minority view at the time, even within the Democratic party. Polls showed most Americans were critical of the U.N. and supported going to war. Governor Richardson defended the work of the U.N., and explained how unilateral U.S. military action would undermine the U.N. and hurt the prestige of the U.S. abroad.

Senators Clinton and Edwards may be excellent debaters but on the most important vote in their careers they got it wrong. They either put politics first when they voted for war - afraid of being seen as weak on terrorism if they didn't support President Bush - or they believed the faulty intelligence, and failed to spot its faults when others in the Senate who did their homework weren't fooled. Senators Edwards and Clinton failed to pay attention to detail, read all relevant reports that only they had access to and ask demanding questions. I put my trust and confidence in Governor Richardson's judgment.

Here is an excerpt from Governor Richardson on CNN about a week prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq:

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.

Posted by Stephen Cassidy | July 5, 2007 12:28 AM

I really admire Mr. Edward's work on behalf of impoverished people. While combating domestic poverty is certainly important, we must also look beyond our lives as Americans. We--as members of the global community--face common problems and must work together as a world community to fight them. The United Nation's Millennium Development Goals, which call for cutting world hunger in half by 2015 and eliminating it altogether by 2025, are a good place to start thinking and acting with a global mindset. According to the Borgen Project, whose goal is to flight global poverty, it is estimated that the expenditure of a mere $19 billion would eliminate starvation and malnutrition worldwide. In a time when the United States' current defense budget is $522 billion, the goal of eradicating world hunger is clearly well within reach if we act together as one world.

Posted by Mstessyrue | July 9, 2007 8:08 PM