The Richardson Factor

Tom Bevan at RealClearPolitics notes:

I'm beginning to think Bill Richardson possesses some sort of Jedi-mind trick capability, which would explain not only why he's been able to convince vicious dictators to do his bidding but also why he continues to rise in the polls despite some sub par debate performances and an incoherent appearance on Meet the Press that might have derailed other candidates.

Richardson's latest knee-slapper was his assertion yesterday that Iowa is one of the Top 10 states in the country at risk of a terrorist attack.

And, indeed, everyone I know in DC medialand, no matter how liberal or how conservative, views Richardson as ridiculous. And I think it turns out that Richardson is a pretty problematic candidate in a bunch of ways. That said, I don't think he's using Jedi mind tricks to build support for his candidacy, I think he's using the fact that he's promising to actually end the war in Iraq without "residual forces."

The Clinton/Obama/Edwards troika have all, though to various extents, softened their backing for the residuum over the past couple of months, but they could still all go further in this direction -- to where Richardson is, for example -- and at a minimum I hope Richardson keeps gaining support until one of them does. It's obvious that the first instinct of the three other candidates' political consultants was that Democratic primary voters don't really care about the war and can be easily bought off with some Bush-bashing applause lines and misleading rhetoric.

Comments

Fix the html, Matt.

Posted by Christmas | July 29, 2007 9:51 AM

Not mind tricks Matt, unless you call spending a decent amount of money on advertising mind tricks.

You see Matt, Bill Ricchardson upped his named ID in Iowa and NH by this thing called advertising. That is what pushed up his numbers.

But you go with that "residual force" thing ads the explanation.

I guess none of us are immune from wanting our pet theories to be the explanation for everything.

Posted by Armando | July 29, 2007 9:54 AM

It's obvious that the first instinct of the three other candidates' political consultants was that Democratic primary voters don't really care about the war and can be easily bought off with some Bush-bashing applause lines and misleading rhetoric.

I don't think it's an instinct; it appears to be a conscious decision. And, no, they don't believe that Democratic primary voters don't really care about the war. They believe that a clear and definitive stand for withdrawal will draw fire from the Beltway. They will be called unserious and irresponsible.

This resembles the tack that Kerry and Edwards each took in Iowa in 2004 to distinguish themselves from the unserious and irresponsible Dean. Dean did come in third.

Posted by James E. Powell | July 29, 2007 10:25 AM

Matt, if you just watched This Week you would know that the Democratic candidates' push for withdrawal from Iraq is going to be a problem in general election, and if it wasn't for Harry Reid's partisanship then we would have a sensible measure for Republican senators who are up for reelection to have some symbolic and hollow vote against the President.

Aint that right Cokie?

Posted by Tim | July 29, 2007 10:47 AM

Tim:

Heh. IF Dems listen to Cokie they deserve what they get.

Posted by Armando | July 29, 2007 11:01 AM

It's obvious that the first instinct of the three other candidates' political consultants

This says it all.

In matters of life and death, war and peace, candidates do not say what they, themselves, believe and actually intend to do, but rather follow whatever story line their consultants tell them will sell.

We'll find out what we have actually voted for later.

Under these circumstances, some sort of pre-packaged pseudo-candidate - one filled with meaningless slogans and no sincere purpose - would work fine. A regular guy, good to have a beer with, compassionate, a uniter.

Come to think of it, we've already elected such a guy. His name is George Bush.

Posted by Duncan Kinder | July 29, 2007 11:39 AM

Iowa is at great risk for their corn, which to the sadness of cereal lovers everywhere will soon become more expensive than oil. At any time the evil-doers could release a swarm of locusts (WBW) that would eat said corn.

Posted by Rula Lenska | July 29, 2007 11:59 AM

everyone I know in DC medialand, no matter how liberal or how conservative, views Richardson as ridiculous

Why?

Posted by b-psycho | July 29, 2007 12:09 PM

It's because Richardson is from New Mexico and hasn't spent enough time in the Beltway. Of course, he's ridiculous: he's from Out There Someplace...you know, where all the nuclear waste goes, thank God.

Posted by Garuda | July 29, 2007 12:27 PM

Garuda, that was very funny.

Posted by Walt | July 29, 2007 12:34 PM

Garuda, Richardson has spent plenty of time in the Beltway - from his time in Congress (where he headed the effort to push NAFTA through) to his time in the Cabinet (where he spent time as an undistinguished Sec. of Energy.)

Posted by Clark | July 29, 2007 12:37 PM

Richardson has said some weird stuff over the past couple months -- before this bizarre Iowa stuff, his support for the Balanced Budget Amendment was the last thing I recall.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | July 29, 2007 12:54 PM

My favorite Richardson story involves him securing the release of a young woman from a jail in Bangla Desh after she was arrested on drug charges. Once released, he promptly began hitting on her, which did not evidently please the woman in question.

Where's the gratitude? I mean it was a jail in Bangla Desh after all. It wasn't like he just bought her a meal at the Olive Garden.

Posted by klein's tiny left nut | July 29, 2007 2:16 PM

Here's what Edwards was saying in April:

When we say complete withdrawal we mean it. No more war. No combat troops in the country. Period. But we're also being honest. If John Edwards is president, we're not going to leave the American Embassy in Iraq as the only undefended embassy in the world, for example. There will be Marine guards there, just like there are at our embassies in London , Riyadh , and Tokyo . And just the same, if American civilians are providing humanitarian relief to the Iraqi people, we're going to protect them. How in good conscience could we refuse to protect them and then allow humanitarian workers to be at risk for their lives or the work not to happen at all? Finally, it's also Senator Edwards' position that we will have troops in the region to prevent the sectarian violence in Iraq from spilling over into other countries, for counter-terrorism, or to prevent a genocide. But in the region means in the region - for example, existing bases like Kuwait , naval presence in the Persian Gulf , and so forth.

Has he changed his stand since then? If not, it seems pretty clear-cut to me. I realize that some people think this isn't good enough somehow, but why?? It's not like Iraq's going to be safe enough for civilian humanitarian missions anytime soon, even if they're accompanied by a military escort.

So what's the deal? In what way isn't this sufficiently clear?

Posted by low-tech cyclist | July 29, 2007 2:41 PM

Richardson has a lot of the things that voters say they're looking for: a distinguished CV, executive experience, diplomatic experience, manly-man credentials. If that were the contest, the race would be between Clinton, Biden, and Richardson.

Richardson's performance at the debates, though, has left me underimpressed.

Posted by Jackmormon | July 29, 2007 3:33 PM

Clinton has manly-man credentials?

Posted by next big thing | July 29, 2007 4:11 PM

And Biden? Is running your mouth non-stop and incoherently with as many caveats and curlicues as can be mustered really what we are seeking from the next president?

Posted by Klein's tiny left nut | July 29, 2007 5:00 PM

Yeah, I think Armando is finally right in one of his criticisms.

Richardson (a) acts like a doof, (b) calls for actual withdrawal and (c) spends on advertising. It's (c) that's cancelling out (a), not (b). Democratic primary voters are not yet particularly knowledgeable on the specifics of candidates' plans.

Posted by DivGuy | July 29, 2007 6:11 PM

Clinton has manly-man credentials?

She and Biden are the hawkiest people up there, and the negative version of Clinton's public persona has always been "castrating bitch." Biden has been a senator for a bijillion years, with seats on important committees, and hasn't been making too poor a showing during the debates---not nearly as bad as during the judicial confirmation hearings for one.

Posted by Jackmormon | July 29, 2007 6:35 PM

Was Biden the cat who plagiarised Kinnock's speeches?

Posted by Rex | July 29, 2007 7:06 PM