Politics can be cruel.  So many people work so hard for months and months on a campaign, and then it ends abruptly when the votes are counted.  I supported Bill Richardson and am proud to have done so.  The Governor helped redefine the debate on the US exiting Iraq and pushed many other key issues including education and veteran's care.  He also reached out to and helped bring many Latinos into the political process for the first time. I wish him and all of his campaign staff the best.  

I am comforted though by the huge turnout for the Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire.  Who could have predicted Hillary Clinton would have received almost twice the number of votes as John Kerry received in Iowa in 2004 yet would still soundly lose?  No matter whom our nominee is, the turnout is a great sign the Democrats will be successful in November.

On Bill Richardson's recent push to restore the war in Iraq to the most prominent issue among the Democrats running for President, Chris Bowers writes:

While I know that everyone in American politics is supposed to have some ulterior motive behind everything they do in public, everything in my experience has indicated to me that Richardson's position on Iraq is genuine. Richardson isn't alone, either. The latest CNN poll on Iraq showed public sentiment for total withdrawal sharply rising to 39%, a clear plurality nationwide. Further, residual forces wouldn't even be an issue in the campaign were it not for Richardson. No matter what happens when the voting starts, and no matter what you may think of Richardson otherwise, that is an important contribution to the campaign. And yes, it is one reason not to be cynical about American politics.

Through his campaign stops, press releases, TV ads and postings on blogs, Richardson has been relentless in raising the issue of Iraq and forcing the media and other candidates to not ignore it.

In Foreign Affairs, Bill Richardson writes:

The next president needs to send a clear signal to the world that America has turned the corner and will once again be a leader rather than a unilateralist loner. To do this, the new president must first end the Iraq war. We need to withdraw all our troops and embrace a decisive new political strategy that engages all the nations of the region, as well as the international donor community. Only when we have done this can we begin the hard work of rebuilding our military and our alliances and restoring our tarnished reputation -- so that we can move forward and lead the world in addressing urgent global problems.

What has Richardson received for his repeated calls during the campaign to bring home all troops from Iraq?  

The mainstream media seeks to marginalize Richardson, labeling him as a candidate for Vice President.  Candidates such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama that decline to pledge to bring our troops home even by 2013 are praised as acting responsible.  

This is part of the candidate series.

You have served magnificently. Now you are coming home.

Isn't that what we want to hear our next President say?  That's what Bill Richardson said yesterday in Iowa.

Have Obama, Clinton or Edwards ever said this?  They refuse to pledge to bring home all U.S. troops, even by 2013.  2013 is too late.  Why settle for a President that can't figure out today that the war is a disaster and unequivocally calls for the withdrawal of our troops?

Richardson criticized other candidates and the news media for shifting focus away from the war:

Perhaps they think that because fewer of our troops have died lately that Americans don't care anymore. Well, we do and I dare the media to tell the families of the 37 troops who were killed last month that this issue doesn't deserve front-page coverage.

Bill Richardson argues that a complete withdrawal of U.S. forces is the only way we will have leverage over the warring factions to compromise, while our presence fuels the insurgency.  In an Op Ed published in the Washington Post last September entitled "Why We Should Exit Iraq Now," Richardson wrote:

So long as American troops are in Iraq, reconciliation among Iraqi factions is postponed. Leaving forces there enables the Iraqis to delay taking the necessary steps to end the violence. And it prevents us from using diplomacy to bring in other nations to help stabilize and rebuild the country.

The presence of American forces in Iraq weakens us in the war against al-Qaeda. It endows the anti-American propaganda of those who portray us as occupiers plundering Iraq's oil and repressing Muslims. The day we leave, this myth collapses, and the Iraqis will drive foreign jihadists out of their country.

I have yet to read anything by Clinton, Obama or Edwards capturing this insight on the Iraqi conflict.  Throughout the campaign, when pressed, they refuse to commit to a withdrawal of all U.S. forces by any time frame, including 2010 or 2013:

Some have accused Richardson of pandering in his call for a prompt U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.  Of course, these were the same voices that supported our invasion.  As noted in the Des Moines Register, Richardson's plan is more than a withdrawal:

"We don't just wave goodbye," Richardson said, adding he would call a reconciliation conference in Iraq to implement accords to end the war. He would also establish an international donor conference and build a United Nations-sanctioned and predominantly Muslim peacekeeping force.

"The bottom line is this: Our presence in Iraq is blocking reconciliation by the parties and fueling hatred of the United States around the world. We are less safe staying in Iraq than leaving. We need to get our troops out in order to focus on our real security needs, and upon our needs at home."

But isn't the surge working?  Writing this month in the Huffington Post, Richardson's answer is:

It isn't. The conventional wisdom, that after just a few months of declining casualty rates, victory is around the corner is rosy-eyed nonsense. If you listen to Washington insiders, we've turned that corner again and again - so many times we may just be walking in circles.

Casualties have fallen three months in a row on nine previous occasions during the 5 years we've been in Iraq - nine times. Each time we've been fed the same lines: "Mission Accomplished," "Dead Ender," "Last Throes." On each of those nine occasions, however, casualties have risen back to newer more tragic levels.

. . . Only one thing will bring long-term stability in Iraq: political progress. The stated purpose of the surge was to give Iraqi politicians the breathing room to take the necessary steps towards real reconciliation. That has not happened - and those on the ground know it.

Yesterday in Iowa, Richardson emphasized that there is no U.S. military solution to the war in Iraq, and outlined a new vision for America at home and abroad.  Here is Richardson's speech:

I am traveling this week and am not able to write an in-depth entry concerning Bill Richardson's campaign.  I wish to summarize and pass on, however, links to a significant profile of Richardson and important commentary.

In "Bill Richardson: a negotiator's faith in fairness and finding the common good," Jane Lampman of the Christian Science Monitor lays out why Richardson is running for President and the unique qualities Richardson will bring to the White House.  It also speaks to Richardson's character, belief system and values.  Here is how the profile starts:

Send in Bill Richardson.

Starting in the 1990s, that became the way to win release of US citizens and others held captive in hostile countries. The energetic negotiator, a congressman back then, brought them home every time - from North Korea, Cuba, Sudan, and Iraq.

His secret weapon: "respect," he says, even for adversaries.

In some ways, Mr. Richardson proved to be particularly suited to the troubleshooting job abroad. Raised in both the United States and Mexico, he'd learned early how to bridge different cultures. And the teachings of his family and his church - to help one's fellow human beings - were a powerful motivator for those rescue missions.

"I have a big desire to resolve problems ... and to help people in need," says Richardson, now a Democratic candidate for president of the United States, during a recent interview on the stump in Iowa. "Coming from two cultures, I appreciate that people have different viewpoints but that everyone should be treated with respect."

One key reason he's running for president now, he says, is to try to bring Americans together to end the current era of intensely polarized politics in the US. Another taps his international credentials: to try to restore America's "moral authority" in the world community, which he sees as severely eroded as a result of the Bush administration's foreign policy.

It may well be Richardson's experience abroad that sets him apart from much of the presidential field. He's currently the popular governor of New Mexico, having won reelection in 2006 with 69 percent of the vote. But he's also served 18 months as United Nations ambassador during the Clinton presidency, run the US Department of Energy, and, before that, pulled off multiple negotiating coups with foreign leaders while a seven-term congressman.

"He really wants America to be a force for peace and democracy, and he understands the need today for interdependence," says long-time friend Mickey Ibarra, who served along with Richardson under Mr. Clinton.

Second, I encourage you to read the commentary by Paul Abrams on "British Show Bill Richardson to be Right on Iraq."  Abrams writes:

Living in the UK these past several weeks, there is a feeling of 'home-field advantage' in seeing, perhaps darkly, into the future. While we in the United States rely on what passes for dueling experts (mostly, those who have been consistently wrong about all the other aspects of the Iraq War, but c'mon, what's 3800 dead, 25,000 wounded and $1.2Trillion among friends?), concerning the wisdom and consequences of taking certain actions, the British have provided us a real-life experiment, as they have actually withdrawn about 90% of their troops.

A few weeks ago British troops left Basra, the second largest city in Iraq, to take up residence at the airport. Hardly a model of comity despite their Shia commonality, Basra boasts 100 or so militia groups vying for control. It might be worth noting that that area contains about 80% of Iraq's oil reserves, whereas the other 20% are in the north, controlled by the Kurds. The remaining troops were left for training, and for some other ill-defined missions should they be needed.

There is a chance that Shia militias sympathetic to Iran may take over the region with its huge oil reserves. Yet, not a peep from the British public, not an intonation of concern from Bush who nonetheless allows our soldiers to continue to lose their lives and limbs for a result that no one seems able to articulate or envision.

. . .

Bill Richardson is the only major candidate that answered that debate question definitively: 'remove all troops' , meaning zero US troops left by 2013, and indeed withdrawing them as rapidly as logistically and safely possible. He made it clear that he meant ALL US troops, the combat troops everyone talks about and the so-called non-combat troops that would number 50 or 60 or 75,000.

A quick perusal of Richardson's website shows he has been taking this position throughout the campaign. He came under blistering attack, even ridicule, and that position has cost him some votes, but he has stuck with it. Once-upon-a-time, that was called that leadership.

The British experience is about as close to a controlled experiment as there will ever be in foreign policy, and the evidence suggests that Richardson has been correct all along. Yes, the situation in the south is different from al-Anbar province, and yes, the situation in the south could deteriorate instantaneously, and the militias go after one another. But, isn't that the point: no matter how long we stay, when we leave there will be a snapshot in time of how it is working, and then the Iraqis will resolve their differences themselves.

This is part of the candidate series on MyDD.  I've signed up to volunteer after Christmas in Iowa for the Richardson campaign.

In 2004, Richard Gephardt went negative on front runner Howard Dean, and Dean counter attacked.  Voters in Iowa were turned off. Two candidates with positive messages, John Kerry and John Edwards, came from behind to win.  Six weeks before the election Kerry was polling in the mid teens and Edwards was still in the single digits.

Could we be soon witnessing a repeat of 2004?  Clinton, Obama and Edwards are locked in a tie for first place, and the race is starting to heat up.  As reported by Iowa political commentator David Yepsen:

The 2008 Edwards doesn't sound much like the 2004 Edwards Iowa Democrats came to admire. Now, he sounds increasingly sharp-edged in campaign stump speeches that often border on class-warfare politics. He's started flaying away at the Clinton years in the White House. He and Obama talk about Clinton's support from lobbyists. Clinton has started pushing back about Obama's lack of experience, recently pointing out that living for a few years in a foreign country as a child hardly makes you a foreign-policy expert.

Back and forth it goes. At one level, it's a good thing. Democratic caucus-goers are entitled to vet candidates and see them probe one another's weaknesses before the GOP does it in the November campaign.

But Democrats have to be careful about this stuff. Edwards' negativity mars the sunny, moderate image that served him well in 2004. Obama's attacks distract from the politics of hope he likes to preach. Clinton's attacks just undercut her efforts to change her image as a cold-hearted candidate.

Whom might benefit if it gets ugly at the top?  Yepsen highlights Richardson:

Richardson holds a firm grip on fourth place in the race. He's done that with a combination of hard work - he's been in 98 counties - a positive message and some genuinely humorous television advertising earlier in the campaign.

"I sense a lot of grass-roots momentum, especially in rural areas," Richardson said in an interview. He packed more than 200 people into the meeting room at the Saylor Township fire department on Saturday afternoon last week. They were mostly older and blue-collar union Democrats, the kind of folks who show up at caucuses.

"We're getting huge crowds," he said. "I sense this race is not over. Polls show 50 percent undecided. There's a lot of fluidity. Iowans are known for making up their minds at the last minute."

How is it going for Richardson in Iowa?  The Washington Post reported:

New Mexico Bill Richardson has barnstormed 95 of Iowa's 99 counties, wooing rural Democrats with his pro-gun record and urban caucus goers with his aggressive Iraq withdrawal plan. He has fielded questions on every imaginable subject, from term limits to the space station. The Richardson style is frank but casual. He leans forward in his cowboy boots, fists jammed in his suit pocket.

. . .His niche is the positive moderate, similar to Edwards circa 2004. Indeed, Richardson is trying to eat into Edwards' support among working class, small town caucus goers. "I think Edwards tends to attract the same people I need to attract," Richardson said. His events also draw large numbers of older women - part of Clinton's target audience. "I like her, but I think she's too polarizing," said Mary Kathryn Gepner, a librarian who attended a Richardson event in Mt. Ayr, and lists Edwards and Richardson as her first and second choices.

The following video will give you a sense of how Iowa voters are responding to Richardson:

What vision is Richardson articulating for America when he speaks to Iowa voters?  Richardson recently outlined his vision for our nation at the end of a speech on a new farm policy for America:

Unfortunately, in Washington today there's too much negativity. Negativity over health care. Negativity over immigration.

But when I travel around Iowa, I see something different. I am reminded again that we are a positive nation, founded on inspiring principles.

I see a place where character is more than the contents of your bank account. Where leadership means more than a list of things you plan to do.  Where your neighbor's word is more important than all the smooth talk in the world.  I see a people who reward those who work hard; but also recognize that even the hardest workers cannot do it alone.

I see a nation attached to our land, but rooted in our values. I have a vision of America in ascendancy. It's a vision that all our people, whether they are in blue, red our purple states can share.

This is America. We landed a man on the moon. We built the internet. We beat the Great depression. We defeated the Nazis. We routed the Soviet Union in a global battle over the future of the planet.

So my message for all those who are pessimists, those who are negative, those who are angry is this:  We can do it.

To those who said I couldn't get those hostages out of Sudan -- I said I can. And I did it.

To those who say we can't get a fair deal for our family farmers -- I say we can.

To those who say we can't we can't revitalize our rural economy -- I say we can.

To those who say we can't conserve our land and water -- I say we can.

To those who say we can't spark a new energy revolution -- I say we can.

To those who engage in the politics of personal attacks -- I say we can do better.

If we work together, we can solve our problems. We can. And we will.

Finally, in news away from Iowa, Richardson this week picked up a significant labor endorsement in Nevada.  Local 396 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) endorsed Richardson. Local 396 represents more than 2,400 electrical workers in the Las Vegas region.  It is one of the most well-organized and powerful unions in Nevada.

Congressman, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Secretary of Energy and in his second term as Governor of New Mexico after a landslide re-election victory in November 2006, Bill Richardson is goal-oriented, assertive and confident.  He has the ability to quickly evaluate a situation but is not afraid to admit he has made a mistake.  Richardson will modify his course of action when necessary.  He takes a practical approach to governing, focusing on solutions to problems rather than ideology.

What about Bill Richardson the person?  We can learn much from the person that has known him for forty three years of his life, Barbara Richardson.  They met when he was 17 and she was 16 and gave him a ride back to his school from the nearby town.  

Recently, the Concord Monitor profiled Barbara Richardson and her relationship with her husband.  The article started by mentioning a gift, a black velvet sombrero, that appeared on her parents' doorstep in Concord, Massachusetts, in 1966, from the boy who had fallen in love with her:

The hat - and the love note tucked inside - came from Bill Richardson, a student at the local prep school who'd been smitten with her since she'd offered him a ride a few months before. He picked up the sombrero on a visit home to his family in Mexico City and used it to launch a relationship that that would take the couple to Congress and the United Nations, to the New Mexico State House and, most recently, onto the presidential campaign trail.

. . . Barbara Richardson expected her husband to go to Washington, D.C., as a congressman. Sure enough, a few years after the couple married in 1972, they moved to New Mexico and launched a campaign.  "I worked very hard," she said. "I was the chief cook and bottle washer. He went out and campaigned while I ran everything else in the office."

. . . In the last five years, [Barbara Richardson has] taken taken on domestic violence, urging her husband to create a Domestic Violence Advisory Board and hire a "czar" to improve programs for victims throughout New Mexico. She also helped open a shelter for abused spouses in a corner of the state where such services had been nonexistent. At the same time, she led an effort to immunize more of the state's children. She also chairs the state's Read Across America program and runs an annual bowling fundraiser for the Big Brothers and Big Sisters.

. . . "This is the first time I've been . . . in a profile position, not only to effect change but to have the wherewithal to do it," [Barbara Richardson] said on a recent trip to Concord. "One person can make a difference, especially someone who has a profile and the means to affect lives in a positive way. Someone like me, who's pretty private, has to learn to balance those public and private personas. You can't do it all. I would rather be honest than try to please people."

What insight can Barbara Richardson offer us on her husband?  Watch the following video clip of her speaking to voters in Nevada on Bill Richardson's unique gifts:

Here is another clip of Barbara Richardson from New Hampshire speaking about why she believes in her husband:

If you'd like to learn more about Richardson the person and his life, I suggest you watch this profile by Charles Gibson:

I also recommend "High Ambition," a series on Richardson by The Albuquerque Journal earlier this year.  Here is the link to the first article in the five-part series.

This is part of the candidate series on MyDD. I'm not part of the Richardson campaign.

In terms of the debate in Las Vegas, I felt Richardson had one of his strongest performances to date in the race.  Under Bush the CIA has become global paramilitary force operating prisons in multiple countries.  Is this the image we want for America?  Richardson's answer is an emphatic "no."  Richardson stated America should be the conscience of the world, not the world's policeman.  Richardson showed his political courage.  He refused to join Edwards, Dodd, Biden and Clinton in embracing poll-driven politics on the issue drivers' licenses for illegal immigrants.  

Richardson did an excellent job distinguishing himself from Clinton, Obama and Edwards on the issues and style of the campaign:

You know, it seems that John wants to start a class war.  It seems that Barack wants to start a generational war. It seems that Senator Clinton, with all due respect on her plan on Iraq, does not have a plan to end the war. All I want to do is give peace a chance. I say that because these are the fundamental issues. Do our plans end the war? Do our plans make America energy independent? Do our plans give health care to every American? Are we creating jobs and economic growth? Are we resolving the real problems affecting this country? Let us stop this mudslinging. Let us stop going after one another on character and trust. Let us debate the issues that affect the American people, and let us be positive.

Richardson reiterated the centerpiece of his campaign - to promptly bring ALL American troops home from Iraq:

We should not be talking about body counts. One DaviAmerican death is too many. The surge is not working. There is now less of a possibility of a political solution. Three out of the 18 benchmarks of the General Accounting Office have been fulfilled. Even for Republican math, that is a failing grade. The Iraqi people now say that it is okay to shoot an American soldier. Our troops are dying. Unlike my colleagues, my plan does not leave any forces behind. We should not just wave goodbye; we need a U.S.-led political compromise. The Sunni, Shia, and Kurds should share power and oil revenues. The European Union and rich Arab states should contribute to the reconstruction of Iraq. We have spent $500 billion on this war. Instead, this money should be used in America for health care, education, and on kids.

My impressions of Edwards and Obama were that they stumbled badly at times.  Edwards seemed to disappear from the stage during the audience Q&A portion of the debate.  Obama with disturbing frequency talks like a hawk on foreign affairs and national security issues.  Clinton did well in fending off their attacks, but her criticism of Obama for suggesting an increase in social security payroll taxes would hurt the middle class was baseless.

Journalists have praised Richardson's performance, including David Yepsen of the Des Moines Register and Chuck Todd of NBC.  Yepsen observed that Richardson and Dodd "turned in articulate, presidential-style performances during the evening."

In other good news for Ricahardson's campaign, the latest poll in Iowa shows Richardson at 12%, less than 10% from Obama and Edwards.  It was a very good birthday for Richardson.

Finally, I'll leave you with a video of an interview on CNN from earlier this month on Richardson's new book: