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.