Okay, so I was away last week. To Baja to kayak on the Sea of Cortez, a trip taken to celebrate my 10th anniversary, and man! An amazing trip. It was also my first trip to Mexico, and I have to say, I enjoyed getting away from everything.
I'm not fully caught up yet, but I see the headlines blazing with Israel's invasion of Gaza - and the Patriots missed the playoffs, but the Eagles already won a playoff game? Anyway, the first thing that made me stutter-step in political news was the news that Bill Richardson withdrew as Obama's nominee for Commerce because of an investigation into the New Mexican's political dealings during his tenure as governor.
While Steve Benen wonders how Richardson slipped through the Obama transition team's vetting process, I'm left scratching my head that Richardson thought he had a shot at the presidency while this was ongoing. His chutzpah in this thing reminds me of Edwards' - running an outside chance at the Democratic nomination with a gigantic scandal hanging over his head.
Now it still may turn out that there's nothing here - but, besides Edwards', has anyone's political stock fallen as far as Richardson? He started out the campaign season as everyone's dark horse pick, then blundered his way through the early primaries, and frankly embarassed himself during the debates. He subsequently alienated himself from his closest allies - the Clintons - with an endorsement of Obama, and alienated himself from the Obama administration with this recent brouhaha. With both New Mexico Senate seats now occupied by Demcrats, there doesn't look like there's much upwards room left for the governor for the forseeable future.
Look who's on the hot seat now! Old friend, Bill Richardson!
As the highest-ranking Hispanic in the Democratic Party, Richardson's endorsement is being aggressively sought by the Clinton and Obama campaigns. California, Colorado, Arizona, Utah and New Mexico are among the 22 states voting next week, and each have sizable Hispanic electorates. Richardson, who cruised to re-election as New Mexico governor in 2006, is a popular figure in the Hispanic community.
That's right, if Richardson endorses, he needs to do it by the end of the week. And his endorsement is likely to help either Clinton or Obama on Super Tuesday. And if Richardson picks the winner...would he win himself a cabinet seat?
Only thing, his loyalties are apparently divided. On one hand, he already served in Bill Clinton's administration and still has obvious ties and loyalty to the family. On the other hand, Ted Kennedy - who just came out for Obama - is his mentor. Plus, Obama was nice to him!
I had just been asked a question -- I don't remember which one -- and Obama was sitting right next to me. Then the moderator went across the room, I think to Chris Dodd, so I thought I was home free for a while. I wasn't going to listen to the next question. I was about to say something to Obama when the moderator turned to me and said, 'So, Gov. Richardson, what do you think of that?' But I wasn't paying any attention! I was about to say, 'Could you repeat the question? I wasn't listening.' But I wasn't about to say I wasn't listening. I looked at Obama. I was just horrified. And Obama whispered, 'Katrina. Katrina.' The question was on Katrina! So I said, 'On Katrina, my policy . . .' Obama could have just thrown me under the bus. So I said, 'Obama, that was good of you to do that.'"
Tough spot for Richardson here. I suspect he would prefer to not endorse: he's an obvious cabinet candidate for either Obama or Clinton. But because the race is still tight, he probably needs to pick between them if he has aspirations beyond being governor of New Mexico .
As requested, Wulfgar! wrote up a great post on his reaction to Bill Richardson's dropping out of the presidential race last week. In it, he rightly notes that "he was the only candidate on either side of the aisle who really appeared to understand the West." In a very real way, Richardson's fate is tied to the role that the Rocky Mountain West has played in the presidential contest.
This was supposed to be our year, after all. The DNC recognized the brewing possibility for change here, and maneuvered to have the Democratic Convention in Denver. Nevada's primary was pushed up in the schedule to give a chance to the presidential candidates to air their views on Western issues when it still mattered.
Today, Kossak mcjoan - herself a Westerner - examines the political environment in the region, and rues the fact that the West hasn't become key to the current race, because the West has a lot to teach politicos, especially Democrats (emphasis hers):
There is also the risk of misreading the basic anti-partisan orientation of [the region's independent] voters as a longing for bipartisanship. It's important to note that, in the context of this region, anti-partisan is not the equivalent of bipartisan. Western voters are highly pragmatic, looking for problem solvers first, and ideological debate is of less interest than action. Misreading this as some great yearning for comity can result in short-lived and uneasy compromises that erode the Democratic brand and end up diluting policies and programs. That doesn't have to happen. Voters in the Mountain West are more swayed by results than by process. Battles can be won, even in the most unlikely of places, by taking strong, principled, progressive stands.
[snip]
Taking strong, controversial, and unabashedly progressive stands hasn't proven to be the direction that either of our front-running candidates tends to take, at least not thus far. In a primary campaign, they arguably don't have to, but they might want to start getting some practice in before the general. If they want to win the West, and arguably the country, they're going to have to show some of the grit of those illustrious Western Dems.
The latest presidential campaign rumor? Bill Richardson is to drop out of the race. Not a surprise, given Richardson's results in Iowa and New Hampshire, but a sort of important event in these parts. Richardson had a lot of early support here as our "Western Democrat" candidate, his stance on Iraq, alternative energy, and guns, but he lost us.
Steven Benen attributes Richardson's demise to a supply-side economic policy and a past brush with neo-conservatism. I don't agree. Richardson was a terrible campaigner, period. He lost me the first time I saw him debate. (And there was the Red Sox - Yankees thing, of course.)
Bill Richardson simply looked unprepared and outclassed.
But Richardson's support - 5 to 10 percent - gives rise to the obvious question in this tight race: does he endorse, and who? It's not difficult to imagine Richardson parlays his run into a Cabinet position - for which he's obviously well qualified - and, given his lackluster performance, maybe that was the plan all along.
"It is with great pride, understanding and acceptance that I am ending my campaign for president of the United States," he told supporters in Santa Fe, New Mexico.
"It's been an exhilarating and humbling year. An experience I will treasure and I will never forget."
The report says Richardson "has been mentioned as a possible vice presidential candidate or secretary of state in a Democratic administration."
Not sure if his debate skills earned him a VP slot (maybe Dodd?). Secretary of state is intriguing...
While we're on the topic of the Iowa Democratic caucus, one of the most important "events" that take place during the proceedings is the designation of a second-choice candidate for those candidates that don't win 15 percent support during the caucus. As a result, second-tier candidates may have a role in deciding who wins the caucus by directing their supporters to back someone else.
Kucinich has already asked his supporters to back Obama. (An interesting choice, given that he backed Edwards over Dean in 2004. Why the nod for more conservative candidates?) And Ralph Nader asked his supporters to go for Edwards.
Christopher Dodd says he won't make any deals during the caucus. Presumably, his supporters will decide for themselves who to back.
The big mover and shaker and Iowa could be Bill Richardson, who enjoys about 10 percent of support in the state. Given that the top three Democratic candidates are polling about even, even a few percentage points one way or the other could significantly alter the outcome of the caucus. According to an "exclusive" in today's Iowa Independent, Richardson is planning to throw his support behind Obama, a surprise, given the buzz that Richardson was angling for the VP spot on a Clinton ticket after his defense of the New York Senator during a recent debate.
(In an unrelated matter, check out the poll numbers from MoveOn.org members. It pretty much mirrors the composition of national Democrats, doesn't it? With two exceptions, of course: about twice as much support for Kucinich as found in national polls, and an undecided amount that hovers near ten percent.
So much for MoveOn.org being a "radical" organization. In reality, it appears to be a mirror of rank-and-file Democratic supporters...who make up a plurality of the entire electorate...)
The latest and greatest baseball/politics news is Rudy Giuliani's avowed support for the Red Sox in the World Series in front of a New Hampshire crowd.
...fans interviewed at Yankee Clubhouse Shop in Manhattan gave Giuliani a Bronx cheer. "Any Yankee worth his salt cannot root for the Red Sox under any circumstance at all. Period. End of story," said Ken Schlesinger, 44, a lawyer from the Upper East Side.
Armando Quintero called Giuliani a "fake fan" for backing Boston . "He needs a true Yankee fan to talk to him, put him in his place, let him know what a real Yankee fan is all about," said the 39-year-old dry cleaner from Queens.
Montana Headlines notes that Hillary Clinton, too, is a newfound Yankee "fan." I agree whole-heartedly: the idea of two bandwagon Yankee fans winning their respective nominations is a harrowing thought. Indeed, for this True Believer (i.e., Red Sox fan, for you baseballphobes), it's enough to make me start work on my bomb shelter.
This is cross posted at The Huffington Post and posted here for your convenience in case you missed it yesterday.
Truly ending the war in Iraq will only come about when our troops are no longer targets. That is why Governor Bill Richardson believes that we should not leave behind any of our troops. --Joaquin H. Guerra, Bill Richardson for President.
It's Time to Make a Choice in Iraq
By Governor Bill Richardson
Yesterday,twelve former Army captains wrote that short of reinstating the draft, "our best option is to leave Iraq immediately." In an extraordinary editorial in the Washington Post, these captains--all of whom served in Iraq--made it clear that we need to end this war and we need to end it now. They wrote that a " scaled withdrawal will not prevent a civil war and it will spend more blood and treasure on a losing proposition."
I strongly urge every American to read this important report from those who served in the failed conflict in Iraq. Army captains are the staff officers who plan operations against insurgent strongholds. They are the company commanders who lead our soldiers through the streets of Baghdad. And they are the soldiers who will direct our withdrawal from Iraq.
These men and women know the score. They know that we must leave Iraq. As they put it, "It's time to make a choice." Americans are fed up with the President's stalling and Congressional failure to act. Frankly, it is well past time we make a choice. And the only responsible choice left to us is to get all of our troops out of Iraq, with no residual forces left behind--no combat forces, no non-combat forces. As President, I will do it. I will get all of our troops out within a year after I take office - sooner if we can get it done safely.
The other major candidates in this race have said--again and again--that they will not. Senators Edwards, Obama, and Clinton have all refused to commit to getting all of our troops out of Iraq by 2013. None of them are willing to be clear about removing all troops - combat and non-combat. It's unbelievable. Are they looking at the same war the rest of us are? Furthermore, they are all advocating precisely the sort of scaled withdrawal that these twelve captains are warning against. It doesn't make any sense. Real leadership is about making the tough choices, and knowing when it is time to make bold moves. Now is the time for action, not hesitation. Ending this war requires real change, not more incrementalism.
Ending this war is the most important issue of our time. And it is the fundamental difference between me and Senators Edwards, Obama, and Clinton. I will end the war; they will not. I will get all of our troops out; they will leave troops behind indefinitely. I will order a safe and rapid withdrawal and have our troops out within a year. They have proposed a long, protracted withdrawal that will only increase the danger to our fighting men and women and drag out the war.
2013 is six years from now - six years. In six years, will we have lost 6,000 men and women in Iraq? 10,000? More? In six years will this be a $2 trillion mistake? Or $3 trillion? The war has been going on for four and half years already. Six years from now, we will have been there for more than a decade. Are you okay with that? I'm not.
The choice in Iraq is clear. We need to get all our troops out quickly. We need to end this war for real. Go to getourtroopsout.com to join Americans across the country in calling for a quick, clear, responsible end to the war in Iraq.
