David Brooks: Richardson "the candidate most likely to rise. "

Well, finally: A member of the Eastern Media Machine has recognized BR as a worthwhile candidate! David Brooks, columnist for the mother of all Eastern Media, the NY Times, devoted a full column to BR Sunday!

Unfortunately, it's part of their "Times Select" coverage not available to those who don't pay (and I don't), so I can't repost it here. But, suffice to say that he thinks Richardson does so well in small groups and seems so "human," that he can succeed without the Rock Star Power of the other candidates. Here are some choice quotes:

"He seemed recognizably human, unlike some of his overpolished peers. He gave the best presentation, by far.

"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.

"he's perfectly positioned — not by accident — to carry liberals and independents

"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.

"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.

"He is garrulous, amusing, touchy-feely (to a fault), a little rough-edged and comfortably mass-market. He's Budweiser, not microbrew.

"this campaign will at some point leave the "American Idol"/"Celebrity Deathmatch" phase. The Clinton-Obama psychodrama may cease to fascinate..."

Interestingly, as of today (Monday, 6:05am New Mexico time, the David Brooks column is the #3 most-emailed column on the Times web site!

I also find it interesting that BR appears to be getting more press now than Edwards, perhaps because he's "new" and Edwards is old news. (Of course, that's all the press really cares about: who's the new, fresh face to feature this week.) - MC

AP: Richardson: First 4 states will pick nominee

Glad to see BR finally hit Iowa. Here, he discusses his strategy of "workaholism" to counter the MegaBucksism of Obama and Clinton. I wonder if he can point to another example of such a strategy working? - MC

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry C. "Scoop" Jackson | The Associated Press
March 5, 2007

DES MOINES, Iowa -- New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson thinks the race for the Democratic Party's nomination will be all but over by the end of next January after the first four contests.

The Democrats' tentative nominating schedule begins in January, with caucuses in Iowa and then in Nevada, followed by the New Hampshire primary and then South Carolina's on Jan. 29.

"I believe the first four states, with Iowa and New Hampshire being the top ones, will determine who the president is. I always felt that way," Richardson said Sunday as he wrapped up a two-day visit to Iowa.

Richardson defended his push to move up Western states in the election calendar, saying the new schedule would not diminish the role that Iowa and New Hampshire play in picking a nominee.

Richardson spoke over breakfast in downtown Des Moines at the end of a packed weekend that included a half-dozen house parties, meetings with party leaders and time with Iowa bloggers.

He said the small-group events are indicative of the type of campaign he will run.

"I have my own plan to convince the voters I'm the best candidate," he said. "It's called grass-roots campaigning. You know, debates, issues and discussions."

In a crowded field, the candidates with the most name recognition and fundraising are Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, along with 2004 vice-presidential nominee John Edwards.

"What the pundits say about who's in, who's out, who's got the most money doesn't matter," Richardson said. "I have a sustained plan to introduce myself to the voters ... and so far, I feel very satisfied. I feel I can do very well."

This was Richardson's first trip to Iowa since announcing he would run for president. Richardson said his conversations with Iowans have convinced him that voters are hungry for a candidate with executive experience.

"I am emphasizing that I'm a governor who actually gets things done," he said.

Richardson acknowledged other candidates had an earlier start in Iowa, but he said his campaign had hired full-time staffers in the state, and he interviewed more during this trip.

He expressed confidence that he could catch up.

"The main message I got was, 'Iowans are open.' " he said. "They resent that the media has created a myth that two candidates are the only serious ones. My impression is that Iowans take their role as the first caucus very seriously, and they're going to scrutinize all candidates."

The Winnability Formula...challenge it and risk another beating

Question: What do these presidential candidates have in common? Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush II?

Answer: They were all moderate or conservative governors or vice-presidents and all were all from of states west of the Mississippi and/or south of the Mason-Dixon line...and they all won presidential elections.

Question: What do these presidential candidates have in common? Humphrey, McGovern, and Dukakis?

Answer: All were liberals, northerners, none were governors, and all lost. Mondale had been a VP, but he was also a liberal northerner who lost against a conservative western governor (Reagan) in 1984. (If he'd been a moderate governor from the south or west, we probably wouldn't have had to endure another 4 years of Reagan.)

[The outlier was Gore vs Bush II in 2000...Gore was a moderate from a southern state (albeit east of the Missisippi) and was an ex-VP. And Gore did win the popular vote.]

Since 1964, Democrats have not won with candidates who are either northerners OR senators. Doesn't this mean ANYTHING to Democrats and The Big Eastern Media? Why on earth would Dems want to risk another loss by gambling on a northerner OR a senator? It just doesn't make sense. It sure looks like the public prefers candidates who are moderates, who've balanced budgets and have executive experience at the state level.

Get over it, Easterners...the rest of the country doesn't want the same candidates you do. Please don't burden us with another senator...our country just can't survive another 4-8 years of Republican rule.

Obama: Peaking too early?

Remember: who the media endorses this early is almost NEVER the candidate who gets the nomination.

Vilsack withdraws...leaving BR as only gov left in race

Personally, I never thought he had a chance because of his funny name that rhymes with the slang for a certain male body part. :) I know that's crass, but it's what went across the minds of men all over the country when they heard his name.

So, now we have one governor left: Richardson. And, as I never tire of saying, only ex-governors and ex-vice-presidents have won since 1964. This is too important of an election to literally waste on another northern senator.

Now Richardson needs to get Vilsack's endorsement...he knows him well from the governor's assn., of which BR is chair. Having Vilsack's endorsement would really help in Iowa. I'd say the chances are very good that BR has already spoken with him about it.

Richardson's OpEd in today's Washington Post

Ah, the lost art of diplomacy. Is Richardson the only 2008 candidate who "gets it?" Seriously. He is a master negotiator, with a proven track record. We cannot afford (physically, mentally, financially) another war in the Mideast. That leaves two choices: Diplomacy (either directly, as Richardson advocates, or through the UN), or let Israel be our proxy military power which attacks the nuclear sites in Iran. Of the two, only the former will win long-term. I am a strong believer that Iran will respond favorably to recognition by the USA and negotiation. - MC

----------------------

Diplomacy, Not War, With Iran

By Bill Richardson
The Washington Post
Saturday, February 24, 2007; Page A19

The recent tentative agreement with North Korea over its nuclear program illustrates how diplomacy can work even with the most unsavory of regimes. Unfortunately, it took the Bush administration more than six years to commit to diplomacy. During that needless delay North Korea developed and tested nuclear weapons — weapons its leaders still have not agreed to dismantle. Had we engaged the North Koreans earlier, instead of calling them “evil” and talking about “regime change,” we might have prevented them from going nuclear. We could have, and should have, negotiated a better agreement, and sooner.

As the International Atomic Energy Agency just confirmed, Iran has once again defied the international community and is moving forward with its nuclear program, yet the Bush administration seems committed to repeating the mistakes it made with North Korea. Rather than directly engaging the Iranians about their nuclear program, President Bush refuses to talk, except to make threats. He has moved ships to the Persian Gulf region and claims, with scant evidence, that Iran is helping Iraqi insurgents kill Americans. This is not a strategy for peace. It is a strategy for war — a war that Congress has not authorized. Most of our allies, and most Americans, don’t believe this president, who has repeatedly cried wolf.

Saber-rattling is not a good way to get the Iranians to cooperate. But it is a good way to start a new war — a war that would be a disaster for the Middle East, for the United States and for the world. A war that, furthermore, would destroy what little remains of U.S. credibility in the community of nations.

A better approach would be for the United States to engage directly with the Iranians and to lead a global diplomatic offensive to prevent them from building nuclear weapons. We need tough, direct negotiations, not just with Iran but also with our allies, especially Russia, to get them to support us in presenting Iran with credible carrots and sticks.

No nation has ever been forced to renounce nuclear weapons, but many have chosen to do so. The Iranians will not end their nuclear program because we threaten them and call them names. They will renounce nukes because we convince them that they will be safer and more prosperous if they do that than if they don’t. This feat will take more than threats and insults. It will take skillful American diplomatic leadership.

Diplomacy is more than just talking to people. It requires speaking credibly from a position of strength. As the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, as energy secretary, as a member of Congress and as a diplomatic envoy, I have always believed in and worked to achieve tough, credible and direct negotiations with adversaries. To be tough, you need strong alliances and a strong military. And to be credible, you need a record of meaning what you say. By alienating our allies, overextending our military, making idle threats and antagonizing just about everyone, the Bush administration has undermined our diplomatic leverage.

We need to change course. Iran’s nuclear program is a threat to peace, but it also presents an opportunity to start rebuilding America’s credibility and leadership, which have been weakened by six years of incompetence.

This is no time for chest-beating and dangerous brinkmanship. It is time for alliance-building, direct engagement and tough face-to-face negotiations. For the United States to attack Iran without exhausting all diplomatic options would be a terrible mistake.

Finally, some attention from the Big Press

The New York Times has natually focused much of its coverage of the Democratic presidential campaign on Hillary Clinton...she is a senator from NY, after all. But, finally, today, Richardson got a little taste of "All The News That's Fit To Print." I'm pretty proud! The article is pretty focused on his term as governor, but you gotta love the headline, "Running on a Résumé Both Local and National".

All in all, it's a pretty fair and balanced review of the Gov. The NYT carries a lot of weight andis probably read by more Dems than any other paper. We'll take it!

Of course, it helps when one of the reporters used to work at the Santa Fe Reporter, the town's indy weekly.- MC

-----------------------------------------------------

February 23, 2007

By RALPH BLUMENTHAL
and DAN FROSCH
Staff Reporters of The New York Times

SANTA FE, N.M. — When a governor runs for president, local issues can suddenly loom large. Take cockfighting. Gov. Bill Richardson has come out against it after ignoring the question for years.

Concerned that New Mexico suffers for being the sole state other than Louisiana to permit wagering contests pitting weaponed birds in fights to the death, Mr. Richardson has taken sides in the emotional debate, speaking out for a ban, to be debated on Saturday in the Legislature.

“I believe the people of the state want to abolish it,” the governor, a Democrat, said in his art-bedecked office. “It’s a bad image nationally. I’m putting my weight on it. It’s going to make it pass, and it’s the right thing to do.”

With portfolios as a congressman, global troubleshooter and energy czar, Mr. Richardson, 59, may rightly claim the broadest résumé of the declared presidential candidates.

He served seven terms in the House until... [continued here and in the comments to this post]

Richardson: "I would have a cabinet department for Native American affairs"

Man, the news out of the Richardson campaign is just flying...hard to keep up here with it all. Today, Indian Country Today published an interview with BR in which he said he'd elevate Native affairs to the level of a full department (equal to Energy, Education, Interior, Defense, Treasury, etc.) "because I believe within the Department of the Interior it does not get the attention it deserves". Richardson's history with Native issues, as Congressman and governor, is long shows not just respect, but actual activism. He doesn't appear to just play politics with it; he really seems to care about Native issues. How refreshing.

Read the full interview here.

I tell you, I am more impressed with him every day! -MC

Richardson "deserves better look than he's getting"

By John L. Smith
Las Vegas Review-Journal
Feb. 21, 2007

He's the dynamic son of parents from different ethnic backgrounds. If successful, his long-shot campaign for president would be historic by placing the first minority in the nation's highest office.

So why aren't more people buzzing about the candidacy of New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson?

While the press continues to gush and enthuse at Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign, recently sinking to the laughable low of pondering whether he was "black enough" to win black voters, Richardson's candidacy bumps along in comparative obscurity. On the upside, to date I know of no sober political pundit who has wondered aloud whether Richardson is "Hispanic enough."

For the record, he is the son of a Mexican mother and Anglo father. (His just-published autobiography is titled "Between Worlds: The Making of an American Life.") Not that the major media are penning journalistic sonnets about him.

Although the Nevada Today Web site's recent small-sample survey has Richardson ahead of the competition with slightly less than a year to go before the Nevada Democratic Caucus, it doesn't take a Gallup Poll to figure Richardson's name isn't well-recognized. His political celebrity is eclipsed by Obama, Hillary Clinton and even John Edwards. With the first Democratic presidential forum scheduled today in Carson City, many eyes will be on presumed front-runner Clinton.

Obama, who will miss the forum, is a dynamic speaker and a remarkable American success story. But you don't need all day to read his resume.

Richardson, meanwhile, has served as a governor, congressman, secretary of Energy and ambassador to the United Nations. He's taken part in successful hostage negotiations involving Iraq, North Korea and Cuba. He's been on the ground to seek a cease-fire in Darfur, Sudan.

This isn't meant as a criticism of Obama. The fact is no declared Democrat can match Richardson's work experience.

Of course, that experience cuts both ways. Although he has a keen understanding of Nevada's longtime battle against the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, Richardson can be faulted for not accomplishing more as Energy secretary. Although he's logged plenty of face time with foreign ministers and volatile heads of rogue nations, Richardson can be thumped for his tenure as U.N. ambassador. Although he was re-elected as governor with 69 percent of the vote, he has his critics in New Mexico.

Voters might not like his stance on immigration -- a guest-worker program, path to citizenship, increased physical border security and U.S.-Mexico political fence-mending, not fence-building -- they can't say he lacks an intimate understanding of the issue.

In short, Richardson gives his critics and voters a track record to chew on.

Not that Americans have always cared about experience. When it comes to the presidency, voters have often been moved more by dynamic characters than by capable journeymen.

One more thing: Richardson is the only Democratic candidate who gets his mail in the West.

His candidacy could conceivably put the real West, which excludes California, Oregon and Washington, in play for the Democrats for the first time in many years. Real West voters, a generally conservative lot, have greeted recent Democratic presidential nominees about as warmly as extras from the set of "Brokeback Mountain."

With only $2 million banked, Richardson is a political pauper. He may not have the financial steam or party support to win nationwide, but Richardson on a presidential ticket would give the Democrats a chance to compete in the West.

In Nevada, Richardson's senior contact is Reynaldo Martinez, who served 16 years as Harry Reid's House and Senate chief of staff before leaving Washington in 1998. When Richardson contemplated running for the presidency, he sought the counsel of Martinez, his friend of 35 years.

"Others can talk about what they'll do," Martinez says. "He can talk about what he's done. He can talk all day about Nevada. The other folks have a learning curve."

And then there's the potential impact of invigorated Latino voters, who might find inspiration in Richardson.

"I think Bill Richardson is a guy who will give Latinos a reason to register and go to the caucus," Martinez says.

We'll see. For Richardson, the Westerner, success in Nevada is imperative.

Bill Richardson may be a long shot to make presidential history in 2008, but it's hard to doubt he has the experience to do the job.

Bill Richardson: "I've got to do well (in Nevada)"

By Steve Terrell | The New Mexican
February 22, 2007

CARSON CITY, Nev. -- He didn't seem to get as much applause as two of the frontrunners for the Democratic presidential nomination, U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York and former U.S. Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina. And he didn't get as many laughs as former U.S. Sen. Mike Gravel of Alaska.

But New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson got a good reaction from a union audience Wednesday at the first presidential candidate forum of the early starting 2008 election cycle.

Richardson, who is working to break out of the second tier of Democratic candidates, perhaps was under more pressure to connect with Nevada Democrats than the other candidates. As a governor of a nearby Western state, he has to make a strong showing in next January's Nevada caucus to be considered a serious contender.

"I've got to do well (in Nevada)," Richardson told a room full of reporters immediately after his appearance at the forum, which was shown live on cable television's C-SPAN network. When asked if that means he has to win the fast-growing state, which... [continued here]