Neither Clinton, Nor Obama

By DAVID BROOKS

Published: March 4, 2007

So there I was, sitting in my office, quietly contemplating suicide. I was watching a cattle call of Democratic presidential candidates on C-Span. In their five-minute speeches, they were laying it on thick with poll-tested, consultant-driven clichés of the Our Children Are Our Future variety. The thought of having to spend the next two years listening to this drivel set me wondering if it was literally possible to be bored to death.

Then Bill Richardson walked onstage. He was dressed differently — in slacks and a sports jacket. He told jokes that didn’t seem repeated for the 5,000th time. He seemed recognizably human, unlike some of his overpolished peers. He gave the best presentation, by far.

Then a heretical question entered my head: What if Richardson does this well at forums for the next 10 months? Is it possible to imagine him as a leading candidate for the nomination?

When you think that way, it becomes absurdly easy to picture him rising toward the top. He is, after all, the most experienced person running for president. He served in Congress for 14 years. He was the energy secretary (energy’s kind of vital).

He’s a successful two-term governor who was re-elected with 69 percent of the vote in New Mexico, a red state. Moreover, he’s a governor with foreign policy experience. He was U.N. ambassador. He worked in the State Department. He’s made a second career of negotiating on special assignments with dictators like Saddam, Castro and Kim Jong Il. He negotiated a truce in Sudan.

Most of all, he’s not a senator. Since 1961, 40 senators have run for president and their record is 0-40. A senator may win this year, but you’d be foolish to assume it.

When it comes to policy positions, he’s perfectly positioned — not by accident — to carry liberals and independents. As governor, he’s covered the normal Democratic bases: he raised teacher pay, he expanded children’s health insurance, he began programs to stall global warming, he built a light rail line.

But he also cut New Mexico’s top income tax rate from 8.2 percent to 4.9 percent. He handed out tax credits to stimulate economic growth. (He’s the only Democrat completely invulnerable on the tax cut issue.) He supports free trade, with reservations. And he not only balanced the budget — he also ran a surplus.

On cultural issues, Richardson has the distinct advantage of not setting off any culture war vibes. He was in college in the late 1960s, but he was listening to the Beach Boys, not Janis Joplin. He was playing baseball in the Cape Cod League, not going to Woodstock. He idolized Humphrey, not McCarthy.

Richardson is actually something of a throwback pol — a Daley or La Guardia who doesn’t treat politics as a moral crusade. That might appeal this year.

On the nuts and bolts of the campaign, he has some advantages as well. He won’t have the $150 million war chests that Clinton and Obama will have. On the other hand, he won’t have the gigantic apparatuses that fund-raising on that scale requires. While those campaigns may be bloated, overmanaged and remote, Richardson has the potential to be small and nimble.

Furthermore, he could generate waves of free media the way John McCain did in 2000. He’s a reporters’ favorite — candid, accessible and fun to be around. “I’m a real person, not canned. I don’t have a whole bunch of advisers. I’m a little overweight, though I’m trying to dress better,” he told me last week. So far, rumors of personal peccadilloes are unfounded.

Finally, there is the matter of his personal style. This is his biggest drawback. He’s baggy-faced, sloppy (we like our leaders well groomed), shamelessly ambitious and inelegant. On the other hand, once a century or so the Democratic Party actually nominates somebody the average person would like to have a beer with. Bill Richardson is that kind of guy.

He is garrulous, amusing, touchy-feely (to a fault), a little rough-edged and comfortably mass-market. He’s Budweiser, not microbrew. It doesn’t hurt that he’s Hispanic and Western.

In short, when you try to think forward to next winter, you see that this campaign will at some point leave the “American Idol”/“Celebrity Deathmatch” phase. The Clinton-Obama psychodrama may cease to fascinate while the sheer intensity of coverage will create a topsy-turvy series of revolutions.

I wouldn’t bet a paycheck on Richardson. But I wouldn’t count him out. At the moment, he’s the candidate most likely to rise.

Read full post and comments:
"Neither Clinton, Nor Obama" >>

N.M. governor enters White House race

Jan 21, 9:33 AM EST
The Eugene (OR) Register-Guard

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Gov. Bill Richardson, D-N.M., said Sunday he is taking the first step toward an expected White House run in 2008, offering extensive experience in Washington and the world stage as he seeks to become the first Hispanic president.

"I am taking this step because we have to repair the damage that's been done to our country over the last six years," said Richardson, a former congressman, U.N. ambassador and Energy Department secretary.

"Our reputation in the world is diminished, our economy has languished, and civility and common decency in government has perished," he said in a statement.

He said he had set up an exploratory committee that will allow him to begin raising money and assembling his campaign organization.

"The governor is in it to run for president," spokesman Pahl Shipley said. The formal announcement will come in March after the end of New Mexico's legislative session, he said.

© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.

Read full post and comments:
"N.M. governor enters White House race" >>

Where they stand on Iraq

The Des Moines Register
January 21, 2007


Here are brief synopses of the latest actions and statements by 2008 presidential prospects on the U.S. military in Iraq, and on President Bush's tactics.

DEMOCRATS

Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware

Is co-sponsor of a Senate resolution objecting to Bush's plan to increase the number of troops in Iraq by roughly 21,500, calling the president's strategy "not in the national interest."

Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York

Wants to cap the number of U.S. troops in Iraq at this month's level, require Bush to seek authorization from Congress for further deployments and set conditions for continued funding of Iraqi security forces. "We need to change course."

Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut

Has introduced a bill that would prohibit the number of U.S. combat forces being increased beyond current levels without congressional approval. "The time for blank checks is over."

Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina

Has called for immediate withdrawal of 40,000 U.S. troops and has accused Congress of failing to act more swiftly to stop the Bush plan. "You have the power to prohibit the president from spending any money to escalate the war."

Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts

Supported a short-term increase in U.S. troop levels in Iraq in 2004, but now says conditions have deteriorated. Now supports a Senate resolution condemning the Bush plan. "The lesson is simply that we need to change course rapidly."

Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio

Supports cutting off funding for the U.S. military in Iraq altogether to force an immediate withdrawal of troops.

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois

Supports capping troop numbers at current levels but does not support cutting funding for troops in the field. "Congress has to respond as a coequal branch of government trying to constrain the president's approach and modify it."

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico

Says U.S. should begin pulling troops out of Iraq this year, and opposes the proposal by Bush for a short-term troop surge to secure Baghdad and other areas. "It will only add to the sectarian violence."

Former Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa

Asks Congress to prevent Bush from sending extra troops by refusing to authorize funding for it. Has also called on Congress for stricter oversight of reconstruction. "Are they just going to blindly approve another $100 million?"

REPUBLICANS

Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas

Opposes Bush's plan to send 21,500 extra troops to help secure Baghdad and quell sectarian violence. "The United States should not increase its involvement until Sunnis and Shia are more willing to cooperate with each other instead of shooting at each other."

Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani of New York City

Supports Bush's troop increase, but less than he supports the Bush plan's political and economic aspects. Advocates a more rigorous system of measuring results from the Iraqi government and setting a stepped-up time frame for achieving those results.

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas

Characterizes Bush's plan as "gutsy," although he declines to say whether he favors the extra troop deployment. Instead, he praises the aspect that emphasizes getting neighboring Middle Eastern countries to push for peace. "That's something I think that's been missing a long time."

Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia

Has been highly critical of Bush's handling of the war but gives measured support to a plan to increase the number of troops. Says the number of troops is less important than the speed and force they use. "It's about the relentlessness of being able to support our military. And we don't have it today."

Sen. John McCain of Arizona

Has been critical of Bush administration's handling of the war and three years ago called for increasing troop levels beyond what Bush has proposed. "It's going to be difficult and it's going to be hard, and I'm not positive - I can't guarantee it will succeed."

Former Gov. George Pataki of New York

Has not stated a clear position on whether he supports Bush's plan but says that a best-case scenario will include troops beginning to come home in about a year.

Former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts

Agrees generally that more troops are required to restore peace to the population centers of Iraq before a political settlement can be reached by warring Shiite and Sunni factions. "It is impossible to defeat the insurgency without first providing security for the Iraqi people."

Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado

Is skeptical that a troop increase will lead to victory in the U.S. war against worldwide terrorists. "Whether an increased American military presence in Iraq will aid us in winning the global war against radical Islam ... I am not convinced that it will."

Former Gov. Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin

Calls Bush's plan "bold" but doubts that the troop increase will lead to a U.S. military victory in Iraq. "I don't think that sending in 21,500 more troops will resolve the conflict on its own."

Read full post and comments:
"Where they stand on Iraq" >>

Strategy, Not Drama, in ‘I Intend to Run in ’08’

By ADAM NAGOURNEY
Published: December 27, 2006
The New York Times

WASHINGTON, Dec. 25 — On Thursday, John Edwards is planning to announce what has been clear to much of the world since the end of the last presidential election: He is running for president in 2008. A similar declaration is expected shortly from Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, followed, in all probability, by Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain.

For all the very orchestrated hoopla about to be heaped on American voters over the next few weeks, presidential announcements have become, more often than not, vestigial remnants of the way presidential politics were once conducted (or at least the way they are remembered).
Rather than being big moments in which candidates lay down ideological markers and discuss what they would do as president, announcements are more of a pro forma exercise of the obvious. Campaigns grab at a political opportunity for attention with events that, ultimately, are of relatively small consequence.

For Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Romney, Mr. Edwards and Mr. McCain, it would be noteworthy, after all they have done, if they were to announce that they were not running. Mr. Edwards’s 2008 campaign arguably began on Election Day 2004, when he lost as his party’s vice-presidential candidate.

But if formal announcements hold little drama, they are hardly meaningless. Their timing and staging reflect how presidential politics are changing in the United States in 2008, and offer a glimpse at problems each candidate faces one year before the Iowa caucus. The announcements are an insight into how campaigns are adapting to the pressures of the Internet, the demands of fund-raising, the broad range of avenues for reaching voters and mobilizing supporters, and the particular dynamics of the ’08 campaign, crowded with candidates, many of them celebrities.
Most strikingly, the announcements are being made extraordinarily early. In the 1992 cycle, Bill Clinton did not formally announce his candidacy until October 1991, three months before the Iowa caucus. When Mr. Edwards announces, with a round of morning talk show interviews and a press conference in the Lower Ninth Ward in New Orleans, he will become the third Democrat to enter the race formally.

As of now, about a half-dozen candidates have formed presidential exploratory committees, a step that allows them to raise money as they take soundings about a race. And Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware, told reporters Tuesday that he planned to set up his exploratory committee next month.

In this crowded field, few candidates in either the Democratic or Republican Party can afford to wait and risk watching a rival pick off big-name elected officials, campaign consultants and contributors. And since aides to many of the candidates say they are likely to bow out of the public campaign finance system and raise money on their own, there is pressure to start raising money now.

“Timing is becoming much more of an issue,” said Joe Trippi, who managed the 2004 presidential campaign of Howard Dean. “You’re seeing it now in the urgency of these people to get out and announce.”

Understandably, candidates are going to do what it takes to get publicity. Mr. Edwards’s aides said they chose this slow-news time of year, and the backdrop of New Orleans neighborhoods ravaged by Hurricane Katrina, in part to command the maximum amount of attention. Camera crews will be permitted to film Mr. Edwards as he helps with the cleanup efforts.

But there are less obvious advantages as well. Mr. Trippi said that when Mr. Dean declared for president in June 2004, they timed his announcement for a week before the deadline for the release of campaign finance reports. The idea was that the excitement built by the announcement in Vermont would result in a surge of contributions that would allow Mr. Dean to surprise the political world with a display of his grass-roots financial support. Mr. Dean’s big fund-raising report that month proved to be one of the biggest boosts of his campaign.
Mr. Edwards, who is arguably the most Web-savvy candidate in the ’08 race to date, is using Thursday’s event to try to gin up his supporters via the Internet. He sent out an e-mail message earlier this week, saying he was on the verge of making a decision that his aides say has, in fact, already been made.

The decision of how to time the announcements also reflects the particular needs of the candidates.


For Mr. Edwards, there is clearly interest in trying to win attention after two months in which Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama dominated the coverage of the Democratic contest.
For Mr. Romney, it is a chance to try to reset his bearings after a month in which he has struggled to reconcile his effort to be the most socially conservative candidate in the race with a more liberal record, as Massachusetts governor, on such issues as abortion and gay rights.
The motivation for the announcement of Gov. Tom Vilsack, the Democratic governor of Iowa, was in many ways more typical: a fairly unknown politician trying to get his name on the board with a thematic speech delivered in early primary states.

There may still be a few stop-the-presses surprises lurking out there. There is still a smidgen of doubt about the candidacy of Mr. Obama, who is spending this week in Hawaii with his family discussing his future, and even a smaller smidgen of doubt about Mrs. Clinton.

Although Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts has said he is likely to make a second effort at running, some Democrats say they would not be shocked to see him bow out. And it will be interesting to see if Al Gore succumbs to pleading by Democrats to run.

Mr. Edwards has been preparing for this moment since the second in 2004 when he knew he and Mr. Kerry had been defeated. His relatively high standing in some early polls in Iowa is testimony, in part, to how much time he has spent there in the last two years.

Mr. Romney’s intentions are also no mystery: he spent 212 days out of state last year, The Boston Globe reported last week, and has methodically moved over the past year to the right side of the Republican ocean.

And if Mrs. Clinton or Mr. McCain end up not running, that will come as sobering news to the stable of high-powered political talent they have recruited in recent months. Both even have putative campaign managers in place: Terry Nelson for Mr. McCain and Patti Solis Doyle for Mrs. Clinton.

Read full post and comments:
"Strategy, Not Drama, in ‘I Intend to Run in ’08’" >>