Bill Richardson

I tend to agree with Ezra Klein that Bill Richardson would be a poor choice for Vice President mostly because you don't want to pick an ambitious politicians who seems like he'd be a bad president. And whether for that reason or for some other reason, Obama doesn't seem to be seriously considering him.

But it does seem to me that Richardson might be a good Secretary of State. Not only does he have a lot of experience in foreign affairs generally, but his experience is specifically relevant to Obama's controversial proposals to have high-level talks with "the bad guys."

Comments

Yes nothing screams great diplomat more than a guy who is known for his gaffes and lack of etiquette.

Posted by Rob | June 14, 2008 12:18 PM

I tend to agree with Ezra Klein that Bill Richardson would be a poor choice for Vice President mostly because you don't want to pick an ambitious politicians who seems like he'd be a bad president. And whether for that reason or for some other reason, Obama doesn't seem to be seriously considering him.

I can haz editors?

Posted by cd6 | June 14, 2008 12:55 PM

I don't know what to do with Richardson. On paper, he looks like the perfect VP choice: both executive and foreign policy experience (a rarity), popular in a swing state, Hispanic. But in reality, he's fairly feckless and I don't see how he fits into an Obama Administration. I would make Biden or even Colin Powell Sec. of State over Richardson any day of the week.

Posted by Kathryn | June 14, 2008 1:14 PM

I think Richardson is better suited to be a VP or Commerce Secretary than to be Secretary of State. Richardson is an awkward speaker, lacks polish and is not particularly quick-witted under questioning. He's also gaffe prone. The Secretary of State needs to be a much more effective communicator.

I have no problem with him as VP. He has a lot of executive experience as a governor, which is the best kind of training for the job of president. He also has international and executive branch experience. So he is well prepared to do a credible job.

Loathe as I am to admit it, I suspect Clinton would be an excellent Secretary of State. In the next administration the State Department needs, in my view, a strong, aggressive and ambitious leader, someone who will be willing to fight hard to take back the power that has been lost during the Bush administration to the Defense Department, the intelligence agencies and other parts of the national security state.

My worry, of course, is that Clinton could not be fully trusted to pursue Obama's agenda, and would pursue her own instead. Care would also have to be taken to assure no conflicts of interest between State Department and Bill's Clinton's global initiative, and no appearance of any financial improprieties.

Posted by Dan Kervick | June 14, 2008 1:25 PM

I'm a big fan of Bill Richardson, and gave money to his campaign last year. So obviously I disagree about what kind of a president he would make. For some of the same reasons that he's been a pretty effective governor here in New Mexico, though, vice president would be a poor fit for him.

Richardson could be brilliant in State; he is wilier than this year's campaign made him out to be, and he has the imagination that Clinton lacks. Clinton's real strength is in domestic issues and I'd like to see her in Obama's cabinet on that basis.

Both Clinton and Richardson are highly autocratic, but Richardson makes people feel good about doing things his way.

Posted by Viejita del oeste | June 14, 2008 1:58 PM

Clinton as Sec State?

Yeah, like we need another AIPAC powned clown like Rice to deal with the Palestinians.

Not to mention gaffes like "obliterate Iran". You really think Iran wants to talk to her if Obama actually does pursue "diplomacy" there?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 14, 2008 1:58 PM

Bill Richardson has yet to pay for the malicious and racist treatment of Wen Ho Lee.

He should get nothing out of the next administration.

Neither should that anti-Indian bigot Joe Biden.

Posted by Siva Vaidhyanathan | June 14, 2008 3:23 PM

Richardson seems best-suited to be what he is: the affable governor of a small state. He seems much too undisciplined and sloppy to have a highly visible cabinet position.

Posted by THS | June 14, 2008 3:46 PM

Why the scare quotes on "bad guys?" They are bad guys. There are arguments for dealing with them anyway (alongside arguments for not doing so), and if you do decide it's worth dealing with them you'll probably have to trim back the bad guy rhetoric for tactical reasons, but at bottom they're bad guys.

Posted by David J. Balan | June 14, 2008 4:15 PM

At the same time as BR was running for president, he was also an unpaid shill for a pan-American group. While the U.S. is a member of that group, the majority of its other members support illegal activity inside the U.S., and BR was on the side of that bloc.

So, despite what Ezra and MattY say, he'd be a great choice for BHO.

Posted by TLB | June 14, 2008 4:18 PM

What THS said. Richardson campaigned like a buffoon, torching his own campaign. Ryan Crocker should be Secretary of State no matter who wins the election.

Posted by robert powell | June 14, 2008 5:31 PM

Richardson would make a great Secretary of State. That affable quality that turns some people off is most likely what disarmed the rogue leaders he's negotiated with in the past. His success speaks for itself.

Posted by Jim | June 14, 2008 8:50 PM

At the same time as BR was running for president, he was also an unpaid shill for a pan-American group. While the U.S. is a member of that group, the majority of its other members support illegal activity inside the U.S., and BR was on the side of that bloc. So, despite what Ezra and MattY say, he'd be a great choice for [Obama].

Yeah, because it's not as if we would ever want to pursue better relations with our Spanish speaking neighbors.

Posted by Dilan Esper | June 14, 2008 10:22 PM

I'm for making a career diplomat Sec of State. I think Christopher Hill would be better than Ryan Crocker, because he's more pragmatic and hasn't been up to his eyebrows in middle eastern affairs. Probably there are other, but one doesn't hear much about these people.

Posted by SqueakyRat | June 15, 2008 1:28 AM

Another illogical comment from Dilan Esper. We do want "better relations with our Spanish speaking neighbors", however, we want those pursuing the negotiations to be government officials and not those running for a higher office. And, we want it to be broadcast so we know what's going on, yet I'm the only source aside from the group involved that ever discussed it to my knowledge. BR never addressed it nor was he asked about it.

And, once again, BR was on the side of those countries who want to profit from illegal activity inside the U.S. He wasn't representing the interests of the great majority of Americans, he was representing the interests of a) HispanicEthnicSolidarity and b) foreign countries like Mexico.

In the future, let me suggest learning all the facts first, then commenting.

Posted by TLB | June 15, 2008 3:43 PM

Let's see: Ezra and Matt both think Richardson is "foggy" on foreign policy.

That's good enough for me. I guess all those Heads of State who have liaised through Richardson over the past ten years don't know anything.

Posted by Ken Houghton | June 16, 2008 12:39 PM

Let's see: Ezra and Matt both think Richardson is "foggy" on foreign policy.

That's good enough for me. I guess all those Heads of State who have liaised through Richardson over the past ten years don't know anything.

Posted by Ken Houghton | June 16, 2008 12:42 PM