About
A progressive online community for the Granite State. More...
Getting Started
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


The Masthead
Managing Editors

Contributing Writers
elwood
Mike Hoefer

ActBlue Hampshire

The Roll, Etc.
NH Progressive Blogs
Betsy Devine
Citizen Keene
Democracy for NH
Equality Press
The Political Climate
Granite State Progress
Chaz Proulx
Susan the Bruce

NH Political Links
Graniteprof
Granite Status
Kevin Landrigan
NH Political Capital
Political Chowder (TV)
Political Chowder (AM)
PolitickerNH
Pollster (NH-Sen)
Portside with Burt Cohen
Bill Siroty
Swing State 2008

Campaigns, Et Alia.
Carol Shea-Porter
Paul Hodes
Jeanne Shaheen
Barack Obama (NH)

ActBlue Hampshire
Stop Sununu
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Bob Geiger
DailyKos
Digby
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talk Left
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

RSS Feed

Blue Hampshire RSS


My Road Trip with Bill Richardson

by: Mike Caulfield

Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 21:31:05 PM EST


Last Saturday, Governor Richardson granted Blue Hampshire an exclusive interview. I rode along with the Governor from Manchester to Concord, and was able to talk to him one-on-one for 20 minutes.

The audio is here.

My thoughts on Richardson are below.

My Road Trip With Bill Richardson

When Joaquin Guerra invited me to interview Bill Richardson during a car ride from Manchester to Concord, I jumped at the chance. He asked me to send a short explanation of who I was to brief the Governor.

So I did. I said I was an ex-dotcommer, that I was a relatively recent political blogger, that I'd helped assist in the outing of IndyNH as Charlie's policy director, and that Blue Hampshire was the most trafficked Democratic Community blog in the state.

What I didn't say was I think that half the things that Richardson believes in are bullcrap. People here know that I despise the drug war, and that I think redistribution of wealth is a valid goal of tax policy. You may also know that it was an Indian company that put the "ex" in my ex-dotcommer, ably assisted by big name venture capital firms, the supposed heroes of the New Economy. If you've read me for more than a couple of days, you know that I think far too much burden has been shifted onto the American worker; we live in a society now where corporations reap rewards, while their workers take the risks.

I mention all this because I am going to say two things that might look strange under my byline. Big breath...here we go:

1) In terms of the general election, Bill Richardson is the most electable candidate the Dems have seen in some time, and

2) That might not be such a bad thing.

I'm going to put point #2 aside for the moment, and deal with that later this week. For right now, let's talk about some of the reasons why Richardson is the most electable candidate.

He does retail politics like the second coming of Bill Clinton. I met Richardson at a small coffee shop in Manchester, where a bunch of Young Dems had come to see him. The place was small, but packed. Richardson walks in, smiling broadly.

"You want me to make a speech?" he says, "or should we shake some hands?"

A general leaning to the handshaking is murmured.

"Yeah," he says, with a self mocking grin, "I thought so."

He then jumps into a display of classic retail. He knows the names, he knows who everyone is.

"Hey, Phil" he says to one guy, "How are you doing?"

Turning to another guy, he points to Phil. "I went to Mass with this guy. He went to confessional. He wasn't out for 40 minutes."

I can imagine groaning at that joke if it came from any other politician. With Richardson, it's different. You laugh, or shake your head in mock disgust. You can't help it. There's something about him, you can't simply observe him, the way you can Hillary or Edwards.

You can't be within ten feet of Bill Richardson without wanting to be on his side.

The man is made of Teflon. Bill is a much less polished speaker than any of the other candidates. And he can get a little lost sometimes in answering questions. But he's got an important attribute the other candidates don't have: he is made of Teflon.

I find it hard to explain. Bill committed one of the worst sins one can while I was talking him: he argued against a straw man Democrat. That stuff generally sends me into seizures. I braced for the seizure.

It never came. "Aww," I said to myself, "he's just got some rough edges. He doesn't mean that."

Bill can be taught to stop invoking Democrat stereotypes. I'm hoping he learns that lesson soon. What can't be taught is the Art of Being Teflon. Richardson has got that. In spades.

The campaign called us. OK, this may be arrogant to say. But the fact that the campaign set something up with us impressed me. The Edwards campaign was good to us, but even with their fabled net-savvy, we got 20 minutes with 14 or more bloggers there.

And of course the Edwards campaign had to do it that way. It was a HUGE event, and they gave us a little piece of it to show us respect and get the word out.

The fundamental realization of the Richardson campaign is people like me would rather have a large piece of a small event than a small piece of a large event. I don't have to cover the launch. I'm not on deadline, or competing against CNN.

They took a car ride that was useless to anybody else and gave it to me to use. A one-way car ride at that. I actually had to call my parents up for a ride back to my car. (How embarassing is that?)

But it was perfect.

Because it's not about ego, or status, or deadlines. Blogging is about the fundamental truth that if I have some questions that are interesting to me personally, they are probably interesting to other people as well. Give me a chance to ask those questions, and to react as a voter, not as a reporter, and then you've started to unlock the power of the thing.

I don't know if it's Richardson or not, but someone on that campaign gets that. And in 2007, that's an ace in the hole.

He's done it. The narrative as it stands now:

Hillary/Obama: We can do it.
Edwards: I'm doing it now.
Richardson: I've already done it.

Unfair? Perhaps. But from a general election perspective it's a huge strength. Whether it's Romney or McCain that comes up the pike, Huckabee or Guiliani, Richardson will be able to say he has one half of the experience that the other candidate doesn't.

I've gone on too long here. If this post seems a little more incoherent than my posts on other candidates, it's probably because my thoughts on Richardson are still unformed, and somewhat conflicted.

But listen to the tape and let us know what you think.

Some quotes pulled from the audio after the flip...

Mike Caulfield :: My Road Trip with Bill Richardson
On "Why are you a Democrat?"

I'm a traditional Democrat. I believe that the function of government is to help people. To invest in education, in health care, in human needs. I call myself a New Progressive. I'm a progressive in that I believe in investing in people, in education and health care, in workforce training. But I believe there has to be two factors accompanying that: discipline and accountability. And I also don't believe that the answer to every economic issue and human needs issue is additional taxes. I just believe there are other ways we can achieve similar goals

To what extent do you want to demonstrate a willingness to attack while negotiating with a country like Iran?

It's counterproductive. You know, the president saying Iran is responsible for all the ills of Iraq -- it's not true. Iran is responsible for messing around and helping terrorist elements...The worry I have is I can see the same game plan four years ago in Iraq, preparing the American people for a hostile act. I think it would be ludicrous to do it...I think we should be bargaining hard with them. Diplomacy. Talk with them directly. Instead we do it through the Europeans and we attack each other in the press. It's a policy that makes no sense.

On what he learned from watching the last election:

If you're attacked, you have to respond right away. And I think that didn't happen last time.

On what differentiates him from other candidates:

Foreign policy, Energy, and the fact that as Governor I actually created jobs...all the other candidates have maybe voted to do that. I've actually done it.
Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
I know what you mean... (0.00 / 0)
...about the teflon thing.  I also know what you mean about his style of outreach.  I"m still digesting it too.

Your mentioning his "I'm not a tax and spend Democrat" thing marks the third time in this visit to NH that he's said that.  I'll have to keep that in mind.

I wanted to take a moment, however, to talk about something else I remembered from the Richardson Event I attended that I don't quite understand yet.

One of the Questioners asked a question about Peak Oil: What did Richardson think of it?  Are we at Peak Oil Now? ect.

Richardson, very effectivly, said he 'wasn't familiar' with it.  Asked the quesioner some questions about it, and told a campaign staffer to make a note of it for more research.

Shouldn't Bill Richardson, as the former secretary of Energy, be at least familiar with the concept of peak oil? 


I struck the quote (0.00 / 0)
Because I think he said it earlier with the Democrat language, and later one on one not that way.




[ Parent ]
He also said it (0.00 / 0)
in the Arnie Interview.

This is a talking point he's using frequently, apparently.


[ Parent ]
Yeah, agreed (0.00 / 0)
But without being able to place when he said the "Democrat" part, I felt better striking it.

I think reading this blog they'll get the point.

It's just as easy to say "I'm that breed of Democrat that believes you have to show restraint with taxation" -- make it positive, not negative. I think he'll get it.



[ Parent ]
That's not a good formulation (4.00 / 2)
It's still implying that there are all these other Dems who want to spend like drunken sailors.

How about something like, "One of the things we progressives learned in the 1990s is that we can do a lot of good without breaking the budget and raising taxes. We all know that, but as Governor I've done it."


[ Parent ]
That's better (0.00 / 0)
Actually that's really good.

Because the problem here is he's running against Walter Mondale. And Walter Mondale doesn't exist anymore.

Yeah -- actually the more I look at that quote, the more it seems to hit it on the head. It's honest, but it still allows you to distance yourself from the stereotype.



[ Parent ]
I hate it (0.00 / 0)
when I hear anyone- but especially democrats- do the Big Spender Big Taxes Big Government thing- it is probably the most recognized link in  American politics though untrue.

It has a life of its own.

I want to know, who does he think the big tax and spenders are (in the democratic party)?

Drives me nuts...


[ Parent ]
bingo (0.00 / 0)
drives me nuts too

Next time, there may be no next time.

[ Parent ]
I wouldn't call him (0.00 / 0)
a progressive.


NH Kucinich Campaign

[ Parent ]
Peak Oil (4.00 / 1)
I would like to point out that at the time Richardson was Energy Secretary, he was dealing with the problem of oil prices being too low

It's time we steer by the stars, and not the lights of every passing ship

[ Parent ]
*and (0.00 / 0)
increasing demand as well.

It's time we steer by the stars, and not the lights of every passing ship

[ Parent ]
To elaborate (4.00 / 1)
There was an article in The Economist in March 1999 that began:
OIL is cheaper today, in real terms, than it was in 1973. After two OPEC-induced decades of expensive oil, oil producers and the oil industry as a whole have more or less given up hope that prices might rebound soon. The chairman of Royal Dutch/Shell, Mark Moody-Stuart, three months ago unveiled a five-year plan that assumed a price of $14 a barrel. He has since publicly mused about oil at $11. Sir John Browne, chief executive of BP-Amoco, is now working on a similar assumption.

Consumers everywhere will rejoice at the prospect of cheap, plentiful oil for the foreseeable future. Policymakers who remember the pain of responding to oil shocks in 1973 and in 1979-80 will also be pleased. But the oilmen's musings will not be popular with their fellows. For if oil prices remain around $10, every oil firm will have to slash its exploration budget. Few investments outside the Middle East will any longer make sense.

Cheap oil will also mean that most oil-producing countries, many of them run by benighted governments that are already flirting with financial collapse, are likely to see their economies deteriorate further. And it might also encourage more emissions of carbon dioxide at just the moment when the world is trying to do something about global warming.

I don't know whether or not you need an account to read the rest of it, but if you're inclined to do so, it's available here: http://economist.com...

I always think of it when I read articles predicting the future.


[ Parent ]
I should also say my leanings (0.00 / 0)
Are still towards Edwards, but still only leanings.




Intangible stuff vs. Positions on the Issues (0.00 / 0)
I have still been playing around in my mind about the idea of what makes a voter vote for a candidate along an analysis of intangible personality traits versus positions on the issues. Mike, reading your diary, makes me think about it again.

Governor Richardson is a proud Southwestern Democrat, as he should be. That means that he has taken positions that might be contrary to the typical belief of a Northeastern Liberal. Among other things, he was the chief legislative whip for the passage of NAFTA, and he is anti gun-control. Maybe that makes him electable to the rest of the nation, but we should recognize those facts and beliefs.

I have not listened to the audio, but your diary does not even mention his stance on Iraq.  I believe that his position on Iraq and his past comments about Iraq parallel track Senator Clinton's position.

Bill Clinton had this intangible gift of making someone like him the minute they met him. Maybe Bill Richardson has this same gift. Personally, in my brief one to one meeting with him last year, he totally turned me off with his attitude. However, I am willing to concede that his personality may have appeal to others.

What strikes me is the willingness of people to set aside differences in policy positions and vote for someone that appeals to them personally.  Many people did that with Bill Clinton; the same with George Bush.  It is that intangible quality of personality that apparently makes a difference.


[ Parent ]
I think you're very right (0.00 / 0)
But the Bush appeal gives us pause.

The one reassuring thing to me is NH saw through Bush in 2000. We saw underneath that veneer was a petulant petty man.

The campaign has a good way to go...if there's issues with Richardson, they'll come to light. For now, I find him surprisingly likeable. There's something in the style of talking that is Republicanesque, but that could be a strength. We'll see.

Did you see him at the Molly Kelly event?



[ Parent ]
Iraq (4.00 / 1)
Richardson did not, of course, have to vote for the AUMF for Iraq, so it's not a close comparison. He had some reservations about going into Iraq (I've seen some quotes around the time of invasion saying he thought the diplomacy was a failure and would be a big problem), but I don't think you could call him a Dean-style, vocal critic at the time. However, I don't think you could say his position parallels Clinton in any major way since then. He has been significantly more critical of the war and the basic ideology behind it than has Senator Clinton. Of course, everyone on the Democratic side wants the war to be over, but Richardson has been more forceful and specific in calling for troops to be out now than has Clinton. He is also, to my knowledge, the only major candidate to make the explicit point that the invasion of Iraq is merely a symptom of some deeper, more fundamental problems with the establishment thinking on foreign policy. "Iraq is a symptom," he said at the DNC. "The disease is arrogance."

Senator Clinton reflects too much the establishment in DC which sort of says that the main problem with Iraq was in the implementation by Bush ("the mistakes were President Bush's" is her explicit message). This is a major, major difference between Senator Clinton and Richardson (and Obama and Edwards, for that matter, although Edwards's comments on Iran make me wonder about him a bit). And is, I think, the most important consideration when thinking of the candidates' positions on it.


[ Parent ]
Great line: (4.00 / 1)
"Iraq is a symptom," he said at the DNC. "The disease is arrogance."




[ Parent ]
Yet (0.00 / 0)
Yet, Governor Richardson has indicated support for Senator Clinton's position on Iraq, at least in September 2005 before he announced his campaign. The link for the interview is here.

AMY GOODMAN: Cindy Sheehan has been going around the country speaking out. She lost her son, Casey, in the war. You are the first governor to have your state, New Mexico, provide life insurance for national guardsmen on active duty. But I didn't want to ask about that.
I wanted to ask: as she travels leading up to the big anti-war protest that'll take place in Washington, D.C. on Saturday, on the 24th, she came through New York. And there she was fiercely critical of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and her authorization of war, standing with the President to authorize the invasion. What are your thoughts about that. She is saying Democrats enabled this as well as Republicans. It was not just President Bush.
GOVERNOR RICHARDSON: Well, look, I believe that Senator Clinton has a sound policy on Iraq. I believe that her-- she is calling for an exit strategy, for a sensible policy. You know, I want to tell you that in those days when there was information about weapons of mass destruction, when there was information about Saddam Hussein and his very torturous activities with his own people, I could have seen a senator taking the vote that he or she did.


[ Parent ]
September 2005? (0.00 / 0)
That's quite a bit "before he announced his campaign." That was 18 months ago ... not exactly relevant to their positions today.

More importantly, that is clearly a loyal guy giving cover to another prominent Democrat. "I could have seen a senator taking the vote that he or she did" is hardly a ringing endorsement. The only explicit endorsement he gives is that she is calling for an exit strategy.

But, of more relevance, Richardson has been calling for withdrawal for a while now, wants all troops out this calendar year, and is calling for a repeal of the original authorization. Clinton is essentially looking to cap the current troop number and says she'll remove troops as President. Their policies are not the same at all.

Worse still, when asked about the war in South Carolina yesterday, she said:

To underscore a point, some people may be running who tell you we don't face a real threat from terrorism," she said. "I'm not one of them. We have serious enemies who want to do us serious harm

That's the worst thing I've seen any Democrat say since Lieberman got the boot from the party, I think. I was actually one of the rare people who didn't have strong feelings about Clinton, but statements like that are making me pretty negative toward her (note: relative to other Democrats ... I'd still enthusiastically vote for her over McCain/Giuliani/etc)


[ Parent ]
Same Article (0.00 / 0)
In that same interview he said very clearly that he was against withdrawal of troops and setting a deadline.

AMY GOODMAN: Let me ask you about Iraq, your feeling about the war right now and what should happen. Should the U.S. withdraw immediately?
GOVERNOR RICHARDSON: No. I believe setting a deadline and withdrawing immediately is not sensible policy. I think we need to have an exit strategy. We don't have that. I think we need to find a way to send a message to the international community that this is not just America, that we need international support. I believe that we've mishandled our relationship with our allies, with the United Nations.
I believe that it's important that we have an Iraq policy that we're either going to finish the job or we're going to exit. And, right now, we're muddling through. What I believe we need to do is have a sensible military, economic, political, foreign policy assessment of what our goals and objectives are. Our objective, I believe, should be to start pursuing as rapidly as we can an exit strategy. Do we have a deadline? Do we pull out immediately? No.

Does that mean he has changed his mind on the issue?


[ Parent ]
Again, September 2005 (4.00 / 1)
He was against withdrawing troops immediately in September 2005. That doesn't mean he has to be against withdrawing troops for the rest of his life. The situation is different. Expecting someone to have the same position on withdrawing troops is not very logical.

"It's important that we have an Iraq policy that we're either going to finish the job or we're going to exit." That's what he said. It's entirely consistent to have the thought in 2005 that there was still some chance of "finishing the job" with the US military having a role while having the thought in 2007 that troops now can not help us move forward in Iraq in any way and should be withdrawn as soon as practical.

Most importantly, though, looking at what he believed in 2005 compared to what Clinton believed in 2005 isn't really the point. You said his policy in Iraq is basically the same as Clinton now (has closely paralleled, I think you said), and that's just not true and hasn't been for some time.


[ Parent ]
But is he in favor of removing (0.00 / 0)
the hundred thousand manning the bases and the twenty thousand that will be needed later?  Is he in favor of redeploying the U.S. missile defense from Western Europe to the Middle East? 
If he's not aware of "peak oil" is it because he knows the future is nuclear and that for nuclear to be "economically competitive" the price of other fuels has to increase?

[ Parent ]
Alternative Energy (0.00 / 0)
for nuclear to be "economically competitive" the price of other fuels has to increase

This could about the development of any alternative energy program.


[ Parent ]
Yes, dunno, dunno (0.00 / 0)
He's in favor of removing all US troops from Iraq. I have no idea about his stance on missile defense batteries (do you mean Patriots?), but considering that moving them is mostly a provocation toward Iran, I'd guess that he's not in favor of it.

I know he's not a big fan of nuclear power, fwiw, but I'm not sure I understand your last question.


[ Parent ]
He's said that nuclear energy has to be part of the mix (0.00 / 0)
But seems to shy away from focussing development efforts in that area.

He gave a figure of how much electricity in the U.S. was from nuclear. It was suprisingly high to me, I'd thought it was insignificant.



[ Parent ]
Iraq (4.00 / 1)
I think one reasn this diary doesn't talk about Richardson's stand on Iraq could be that there have been two other diaries in the last few days that have.

[ Parent ]
Good story (4.00 / 1)
I think there's one other point to make. In my research about Richardson, I've noticed one very noticeable characteristic: the guy's tireless, just a machine. Other campaigns might have the idea of giving a blogger a ride, but they'd decide that the candidate needed a break in that time to rest and decompress a bit. Richardson, otoh, seems to fill every moment with work.

Of course, it also indicates that they think having you along is worth the loss of quiet time and more important than making a few cell phone calls to donors, which is a good thing ... Joaquin Guerra (and/or Richardson) must understand the importance of the local and secondary blogs.


I forgot about cell calls (0.00 / 0)
That time was more valuable than I probably represented it as.




[ Parent ]
It was Manchester to Concord? (0.00 / 0)
I guess cell coverage along there is probably good.  A lot of NH, car rides really are wasted time because the signal is so spotty you couldn't call anyone where it would matter if the call got dropped.

[ Parent ]
retail politics? (0.00 / 0)
could you do me a favor and define what you mean by the term "retail politics."  I have an idea of what you mean, but just so I'm not making any assumptions...

Thanks. 


Paula M. DiNardo

Dover NH



[ Parent ]
commonly (0.00 / 0)
Hand-shaking and baby-kissing.

More theoretically, dealing with voters in small groups, in unstaged settings, where access is pretty direct and unfiltered.

It's an old idea, but relatively new term (past 8 years or less). The analogy is retail versus wholesale: wholesale is big in volume, impersonal, corporate, faceless, etc. Retail puts the consumer in power.



[ Parent ]
Most Basic Problem (0.00 / 0)
The difficult chalenge for Gov.Bill Richardson is to draw financial support from the same Clintonista base as Hillary, I don't see how he does that or reaches the threshold of at least $150 million by Sept. 1... this is necessary assuming that Cali moves up to Feb.5 ...he'll need to be on TV there while running in Nevada, Iowa, NH and So. Carolina...Thank you DNC !

Next time, there may be no next time.

I think there's one slot (4.00 / 1)
for somebody to emerge from Iowa and NH the "old fashioned" way.

The candidates who have $50-$100 million can come in third in NH and keep on keepin' on. But there should be room for one candidate who does surprisingly well and is able to leverage that into quick fundraising.


[ Parent ]
I agree, with a caveat (4.00 / 1)
Even someone who threads the needle on the first few states (especially NH, I say with no NH bias ... well, maybe a little) will need to have $20-$30 million raised, I think, to avoid being swamped. They won't be able to go on the air strong in all the states, but they'll need to do the minimum of organization-building and buy basic paid media in the big markets. That would create a situation where they'd be able to combine their paid media with the massive earned media they'd get with a victory to be at parity with the Obama/Clinton machines, but with momentum and a "fresh face" image and a greater chunk of their message in earned media (which is way better than paid media).

It's a tough row to hoe, but I think of all the second-tier and third-tier guys, Richardson's the only one with a realistic shot to do it. A better-than-expected Iowa, a win in NV, and a first or second in NH could put him on the road ... whether he can achieve those results or not is another question. But at least he has a base of support outside his state to tap into quickly (Hispanic voters).


[ Parent ]
I think he'll surprise us with the money (0.00 / 0)
I admit -- i don't see how that money is possible in that time-frame. But of all the second tier candidates, he's the one that could raise it. (I count Edwards as first tier).



[ Parent ]
Powered by: SoapBlox