Bill Richardson & Iraq
I've been skeptical about the possibilities of Bill Richardson running for President, but this archived TV spot from his 2002 campaign for governor provides a glimpse of the foreign policy credentials and "real guy" credentials that the Governor of New Mexico would bring to a presidential run.
It's a rare thing - a governor with foreign policy cred. And he's a Western Democrat.
Kari Chisholm | February 22, 2005 | Comment on This Post (7 so far) |
Your Name: Your Personal Note: | Your Email: Friends' Emails*: |
Comments
Kari-
Why so skeptical about Richardson? Is it the Los Alamos stuff?
I was really pulling for Kerry to make Richardson his VP candidate last time.
Posted by: Duke Shepard | Feb 22, 2005 10:35:36 PM
And thank god he didn't. That might have squashed Richardson for good.
Why am I skeptical? He hasn't been particularly electrifying... there seem to be persistent rumors that there are rumors (of what, I don't know)... he's more chubby than Bill Clinton, which seems to matter to Americans...
I guess those aren't very good reasons. That said, I'm warming up to the idea.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Feb 24, 2005 12:47:10 AM
I can understand Kari's reluctance. He hasn't done a particularly good job of leading NM Democrats, even given the caveat that they are like herding cats.
Not delivering NM for Kerry was ugly.
Posted by: Ralph | Feb 24, 2005 4:43:08 PM
If you read RFK jr's Crimes against Nature; you will know why NM went red this time around. The Democrats and its partnerships had a very large mountian to scale.
Posted by: Aaron | Feb 25, 2005 7:10:14 AM
And Big Bill knows how to chat with North Korea, which will be a hot topic in 2008, provided Geo. W. Bush doesn't allow the present situation to degrade sooner.
Posted by: ROGNM | Feb 26, 2005 4:38:58 PM
I'm interested in learning more about Bill Richardson. I'm an east-coast Dem and I've heard more and more people talking about him as an intriguing 08 candidate. What pubs would you all recommend?
Thanks
Posted by: Jason | Jun 5, 2005 11:30:36 AM
I've been doing some research about Richardson's position on Iraq when he was UN Ambassador in the Clinton administration. My first impression is not good. His statements hardly differ from the Bush administration's on the threat of Iraqi WMD, which has now been proven not to have existed or posed any significant threat against America during the late 90's when Richardson was at the UN. Richardson basically argued the same kind of negative proof for WMD that Bush did: the fact that UNSCOM can't find any only means that Saddam is hiding it, when the truth was that Iraq really did not have any. Richardson seems to have been Clinton's official point man for making the case for air strikes and military action using the kind of "anthrax, biological and nukes" rhetoric which we now know was totally false. Richardson wasn't alone in this kind of thinking, but there were plenty of people at the UN at the time who were trying to the him that Iraq didn't have WMD. So I don't know... Anyone's an improvement over Bush, but I don't see how progressives could support Richardson given his history with the US's mistaken Iraq policy, which built up over many years into this indefensible war.
Posted by: dlsfjs | Oct 7, 2005 9:28:37 AM
Ads by Google
(and yes, we know that sometimes they're very, very wrong. Other times, they're right on.)
