Bill Richardson tours northern New Mexico to speak out for Senator Barack Obama. Encouraging voters to register, working hard to bring in every voter possible to elect the proper president of the United States.
We need a leader that will make the United States the wonderful country we all know it can be. A leader who will honor the constitution and restore our integrity.
It’s an important election year and Bill Richardson is urging voters to get in early.
Bill Richardson on Tubbs radio show. Under Obama, tax cuts for individuals that make $120,000.
This ad will be running in Iowa. It’s a great issue ad. Aside from a minor quibble left over from years of college forensics (don’t fold your hands in front of you while you speak, Governor!) I think it’s quite good.
I am a big “message” guy. Issue positions are like ingredients for a meal. They’re essential, and you can’t make a good meal without good choices at the supermarket, but they are not, without more, dinner. Every campaign needs a message that unifies the issue positions of the candidate into a coherent package that voters can “get” at a gut level. This helps them contrast the candidate with other candidates and also helps them remember the issue stances. Messages are generally phrased in terms of dynamics; the classic example is Clinton in 1992. Change vs. More of the Same.
I have written before that I think the obvious message for the Richardson folks is proven leadership vs. inexperience. In the primaries, you have to be more positive, so Richardson needs to emphasize the good part of that dynamic rather than call out the other candidates as inexperienced. This ad does this, subtly; at the very end, Richardson makes a strong statement: George Bush won’t do that. But I will. The implicit image is of leadership.
It could be more explicit. Mentioning Richardson’s Iraq experience (the hostage negotiations, etc.) might have been better than calling on Congress to do something. But I’m nitpicking at details. It’s a great ad; watch it right now.
Clearly, our good friends at Western Democrat are trying to overload us with great analysis that demands comment. Their most recent post, A Southwestern Strategy, is especially good, because it refines an idea I’ve suggested to Andrea a number of times: ticket reinforcement would work very well for Bill Richardson.
Some background.
Usually, Presidential candidates are encouraged to pick their running mates for one of a few reasons: they need their subject-matter expertise (Cheney is a great example of this), or the ticket needs to win their home state (sup, LBJ). In the modern day, you hear a lot about “ticket balance.” A Northeastern liberal like John Kerry runs for President? Well, pick yourself a Southern moderate! Something for everyone!
By contrast, ticket reinforcement is premised on the theory “if one is good, two is better!” Clinton-Gore in 1992 is the archetype. Clinton, a young Southern moderate, chose Gore, another… young Southern moderate! The effect was to reinforce and amplify their message: we are the future of the party (young), we are going to win moderate votes, and we have charming accents. There is no confusion of the message, no disparate records to reconcile, no disagreements to paper over. You pick someone like yourself.
The post at Western Dems suggests a Richardson-Napolitano ticket. (Napolitano is the Democratic governor of Arizona.) My suggestion to Andrea, when I get worked up about this stuff, is usually Sen. Ken Salazar, from Colorado. (Sometimes when I get really crazy, I suggest Rep. John Salazar, of the Colorado 3rd–Ken’s brother.) In both cases, it’s a Southwestern Strategy: the idea being to take one of the most reliably Republican areas of the country and split it wide open, destroying any chance the GOP has to win a Presidential election for the next 12-16 years.
Of course, Richardson/Salazar puts two Latinos on the ticket, and Richardson/Napolitano puts a woman on the ticket. Either one would be a radical break from tradition, and I’m not sure the country is ready for either; then again, we’re never going to know if we’re ready until we go out there and do it. Plus, either one would be awesome, and you never win the big victories unless you go for the gold.
I also relish the thought of watching the GOP squirm as Gov. Richardson and Gov. Napolitano hammer them on immigration, an issue they wield with dominance and authority.
Richardson/Napolitano also has another interesting fact about it: John McCain is from Arizona and enjoys immense popularity there. Napolitano’s presence on the ticket, however, would force him to campaign in his home state, and probably to campaign a lot in his home state. She has nearly 60% approval in Arizona, and Republicans like her more than they like Bush. She simply could not be ignored. (Here’s the Google cache of that poll, which has since expired from AZCentral.)
I’m eager to hear everyone’s thoughts on this. It is completely clear to me that a Southwestern Strategy is the way to go; I just don’t know which one. There are so many great Western Democrats, it’s hard to choose! (Meanwhile, everyone else can bore themselves to tears with thoughts of Clinton/Clark, or something.)
Via CNN’s Political Ticker, is word of a new poll that puts Richardson ahead (within the margin of error) of Edwards in New Hampshire. Third place, in other words.
This is being reported, predictably, as part of a slip by Edwards. And it is; Edwards’ campaign has had some weird problems, even though he’s obviously a capable, thoughtful candidate. But Edwards’ slipping is also coming at a time when the Governor is rising in New Hampshire. He now regularly polls in the double digits; he was the only candidate to spend the Fourth of July in New Hampshire; and his upward-sloping polling position is no doubt very encouraging to the campaign.
He’s building momentum, in short. The Richardson who promised to “out-work anyone” at the start of the campaign has demonstrated he’s serious about it. I don’t know about you, but I’m getting fatigued with endless stories about Clinton and Obama’s fundraising numbers (which are duly impressive); like, apparently, more and more New Hampshire voters, I’m looking for the candidate with the vision and experience to run the country on Day One. Can you imagine–after six more months of the Governor making his case for competence and six more months of media pie-fights about fundraising–how many more New Hampshirites, and how many more Iowans, and how many more Nevadans and South Carolinians and Americans all across the country, will be ready to make the same choice you and I have?
Per the AP, Richardson will employ a simple litmus test for Supreme Court nominees. Maybe it’s more real to say: Richardson will openly employ a litmus test. Because if you think Bush or Clinton or Reagan or Taft were unconcerned with the results of their nominees, then you are a fool.
What will be interesting to watch is the pressure this places on the other candidates. NARAL and other pro-choice groups will, no doubt, try to extract similar pledges. If they get it, that’s good; it moves the center of the party firmly to where the country is (this is a pro-choice nation, after all). Even more interesting is whether the GOP field will have to answer similar questions, with the opposite pledge, of course. That would be even more helpful, since the “mainstream” GOP position (criminalizing virtually all abortions) is so far to the extreme right of America that whenever they debate abortion amongst themselves, we win.
Here’s a short YouTube video of Gov. Richardson explaining the North Korean results. Hearing him talk about foreign policy really calms me down sometimes. He’s got a quiet sort of gravitas. Anyway, cool video, enjoy your weekend.
From the mouth of Markos himself:
Richardson, in just the last couple of months, has brokered landmark deals in Darfur and North Korea — efforts that had stymied the Bush Administration through two terms. There is no one in American politics today more respected and accomplished on foreign policy than Bill Richardson.
Compare this to Hillary Clinton, who talks about “ending the war”, yet the fine print of her plan shows she’d keep up to 75,000 American troops in Iraq.
Richardson’s clear plan (to get out of Iraq by the end of calendar year, without leaving behind a “residual force” to continue a failed war on a smaller scale) is a sharp contrast to his primary opponents. No one can accuse the man of having an unsophisticated mind when it comes to foreign policy, and no one can accuse him of being insufficiently “serious.” While one- and two-term Senators play hawk in D.C., Richardson is pushing us back from nuclear catastrophe and demanding we get out of Iraq.
Perhaps Clinton wants to leave tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq because she doesn’t want to look “weak” on foreign policy; maybe, as I tend to think, she really believes it. Who knows? The brightest minds in our party and our nation’s most accomplished super-diplomat, though, are all on the same page: Out of Iraq. Now.