Last night was not an example of the Bradley Effect!

The talk of the day is how Barack Obama was a victim of the Bradley Effect last night, meaning that his poll numbers were inflated because he was black (people tend to say they'll vote for a black candidate because they feel guilty otherwise, but then when they actually vote, they go with the white candidate).

Here's the thing: his poll numbers were not inflated. He got 37% of the vote in New Hampshire. He was projected to get 38.3% of the vote, based on the RCP average. A 1.3% decrease isn't indicative of the Bradley Effect: if anything, the discrepancy is due to the massive--and frankly, unrealistic--surge he got after Iowa.

Hillary Clinton led in the state up until Iowa. This isn't a major upset, and this isn't indicative of the Bradley Effect. This is the country righting itself after fueling Obama's hype for the past week. Clinton was expected to win New Hampshire.

Ponder this, though: Maybe Iowa was the reverse of the Bradley Effect. Undecided voters supporters of second-tier candidates had to publicly choose who they'd caucus with. Did white guilt play a role? If Iowa was a normal primary, would Obama have won by such a wide margin?

Food for thought.

--Wyndam

Bill Clinton rips Barack Obama

At a townhall meeting of sorts, President Clinton goes after Barack Obama.

His major point is this: Obama claims he is the only candidate who opposed the War in Iraq from the get-go, but this is factually incorrect. Hillary Clinton and many others voted for a resolution granting President Bush the power to go to war if and only if Iraq didn't cooperate with weapons inspectors. Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican who has been a vocal opponent of the war from the start, authored the resolution and was assured by the president and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the U.S. would not do to war if Iraq cooperated. Iraq, in the end, did cooperate with weapons inspectors... but we went to war anyway. So Hillary Clinton's support of the resolution, Bill claims, is not the same as her supporting the war.

But the Obama campaign spun it so that it seemed like Hillary supported the war at its start, and thus Obama was the only candidate who was opposed from the beginning. Bill takes exception not only with that, but with the media giving Obama a so-called free pass during the debates: Bill claims that no moderator of any debate asked Obama about, for example, the time in 2004 when he said he was unsure about whether or not he would have voted for the resolution; the other time in 2004 Obama said there was no difference between him and President Bush on the war; and that no one has pointed out that since his time in the senate, he and Hillary have nearly identical voting records.

Bill goes onto lay into the questioner for attacking Mark Penn, Hillary's top campaign strategist, in light of Obama's attacks on the Clintons.

He finishes with this: People criticize the Clintons for running a negative campaign and applaud Obama for running a positive one, when in fact it's the opposite.

Say what you want about the former president, but he remains one of the best public speakers in this country.

--Wyndam

Hillary Clinton wins New Hampshire

In what seemed like an impossibility a few days ago, when Barack Obama had a double digit lead in the state, Hillary Clinton has won a very close race in New Hampshire. The media will bill this as a massive upset, although they shouldn't: until Iowa, Clinton led in the state.

Seems she had the strong backing of women, and the independents decided to vote in the Republican primary as opposed to the Democratic one; independents helped Obama in Iowa.

--Wyndam

Mitt Romney and his staff need to grow up

Mitt Romney has run perhaps the most negative presidential campaign of my lifetime, and we're not even to New Hampshire yet. He has attacked his Republican foes, from Mike Huckabee. to John McCain. Those are just a few of many ads--he also trashes his opponents every chance he gets. He even went after Barack Obama here, here and here--taunting of candidates in other parties is usually served for the general election, unless they are an incumbent for which the primary is nearly meaningless.

This is all fine. I don't approve of it because I think negative advertising brings down the country's political debate, but to each his own. But if you insist on defaming your opponents, you can't cry and claim the victim when they throw it back to you.

Apparently, there was a confrontation between John McCain and Mitt Romney's staffs after yesterday's debate.

...members of the Romney and McCain camps said the things their bosses might have been thinking but did not dare utter onstage.

McCain delivered “cheap shots,” said one Romney adviser. Another called McCain’s criticisms of Romney “snide remarks” and “name calling.” Yet another said they were “unbecoming.”

Again: this from the staff of the guy running the most negative campaign of the year. The hypocrisy is through the roof. This isn't terrible scientific, but look at Romney's YouTube page: he prominently features his latest attack ad, and the others permeate the rest of his videos. Anyway, at least someone called him out on his double standard:

All of which caused Mark Salter, McCain’s closest aide, to go off.

“Come on, Mitt, tighten up your chin strap,” Salter, standing just a few feet away from the Romney team, told reporters. “Of all the ludicrous suggestions – Mitt Romney whining about being attacked, when he has predicated an entire campaign plan on whoever serially looks like the biggest challenger gets, whatever, $20 million dropped on his head and gets his positions distorted. Give me a break. It’s nothing more than a guy who dishes it out from 30,000 feet altitude and then gets down in the arena and somebody says, O.K. Mitt, gives him a little pop back, and he starts whining. That’s unbecoming.”

And what, you might ask, was the reason for the staffs' confrontation? Negative campaigning...by Mitt Romney!

What had McCain aides particularly heated was Romney’s exchange with McCain on the issue of McCain’s immigration proposals and the question of amnesty. “The fact is, it’s not amnesty,” McCain said during the debate. “And for you to describe it as you do in the attack ads, my friend, you can spend your whole fortune on these attack ads, but it still won’t be true.”

“I don’t describe your plan as amnesty in my ad,” Romney answered. “I don’t call it amnesty.”

With that, the issue became not whether McCain’s plan was or was not amnesty but whether Romney had or had not called it amnesty. And jaws dropped at McCain headquarters.

“What got us all going was when Governor Romney said, ‘We never called what you did amnesty,’“ said McCain confidante Sen. Lindsey Graham said. “Look on TV. Look in your mailbox in New Hampshire. John’s been pounded by Governor Romney with that charge. I was just dumbstruck.”

Indeed, after the debate, McCain aides produced a Romney mailing which said “John McCain: Supports Amnesty.” An e-mail from the Romney campaign earlier in the day referred to McCain’s “amnesty plan.” And a new Romney TV ad featured Romney supporters saying McCain “supported amnesty for illegal immigrants” and “wrote the amnesty bill.” In light of that, it is hard to see how Romney was being straight when he said he didn’t “describe [McCain’s] plan as amnesty.” After the debate, Romney’s spokesman, Kevin Madden, choosing his words carefully, said McCain favored “an amnesty-like approach.”

Add "liar" to "hypocrite." There's a reason you're dropping in the polls, Mitt.

--Wyndam

Thoughts on the ABC New Hampshire debate

Just some random points from the Democratic debate tonight. For some reason, my bullet-points aren't working, so here they are in paragraph form:

John Edwards is becoming a single issue candidate--lobbyists are bad, lobbyists are bad! He also can't go five minutes without an anecdote about the middle class. Most come back to his father. It makes me sick. He may be from a middle class family, but he's worth millions now. Doesn't mean he can't be the champion of the average American, but stop acting like you're some impoverished kid working 18 hours at a mill.

Hillary Clinton is trying to become a candidate of change because of the Iowa results, but her entire campaign is based on her being the experience candidate. Now that it's known that people want change over experience, she's trying to alter her image. She's actually been very articulate tonight, but I don't think anyone is blinded by this new persona she's taken on.

Bill Richardson looks very tired. The campaign is taking its toll. And while he's making fine points, he's not as inspiring as he has been in the past. I like that he's staying on message, but he's described as an emotional and charismatic guy--and in most cases, he is--but on the biggest stage yet, I'm afraid that he's squandering his chance to make a real change in the voters' minds. He's subdued and while his points are substantive, he is, frankly, quite boring right now.

Barack Obama doesn't seem as slick as he was a few days ago. He's avoiding questions left and right. The questions, for once, are tough, and he's not responding well.

I liked the final question ("You've done a number of debates. What do you wish you could take back?"). But I'm surprised that anyone answered it--why bring a dead issue back to the forefront? Richardson talked about Byron White being his favorite justice, and Edwards said how sorry he was that he mentioned Clinton's attire. Obama and Clinton avoided the question.

There are two ways to judge the debate: substance and style. In terms of what was actually said, I think Richardson won. He stayed on point and raised a number of issues (energy dependence, budget balancing, education) that will take center stage over the next four years and beyond. No one else said...anything. Obama side-stepped every question to talk about change, hope and bipartisanship. Clinton spend the entire debate remodeling herself as the candidate of change, and Edwards spoke more about his father than he did American politics.

However, Richardson seemed close to sleep for most of the debate. Obama, who seemed to be playing defense for much of the contest, was good, but nowhere near the inspiring figure he was Thursday night, when he gave one of the most impassioned political speeches of the decade. Clinton and Edwards were what they were: politicians who speak well and look good. They were fine.

All the candidates disappointed me, though. This was their biggest debate yet, and some of the questions were pretty good. But they either avoided them or answered them with responses that put you to sleep.

Let's hope for more positive showings in the future.

--Wyndam

Richardson on Pakistan

Governor Richardson spoke at length with the Pakistani opposition leader today, after writing a piece for yesterday's Boston Globe calling for Pervez Musharraf's resignation.

The article is an excellent read, but it will certainly get him into trouble, as Musharraf is ostensibly an ally of the United States. But as both Governor Richardson and Barack Obama have repeated, we can no longer support dictators just because they act within our interests. We must dispose of them.

--Wyndam

Final Iowa results

With 100% of precincts reporting...

Democrats
Barack Obama 38%
John Edwards 30%
Hillary Clinton 29%
Bill Richardson 2%
Joe Biden 1%

Republicans
Mike Huckabee 34%
Mitt Romney 25%
Fred Thompson 13%
John McCain 13%
Ron Paul 10%
Rudy Giuliani 4%
Duncan Hunter 1%

Barack Obama wins Iowa

...according to CNN and MSNBC.

72% of precincts reporting, and he has a 4% lead over Clinton and Edwards.

Seems very close, but I'll trust the experts.

--Wyndam

_____________________________________________________________________
Edit: 91% of precincts reporting, and Obama has a 7% lead over Clinton and Edwards. I have to believe he was the "second-choice" of many Biden, Richardson and Dodd supporters.

With 17% of precincts reporting...

Edwards 34%
Clinton 32%
Obama 31%
Richardson 2%

Still very early, we have a lot more to go.

Also, the Obama camp is predicting a turnout of 207,000 people. Most were predicting a turnout of 160,000-180,000. This is very good for Clinton and Obama, and not so good for Edwards, because most of his support is in rural counties, which are less populated than the urban areas where Clinton and Obama are popular.

So expect Edwards to drop off as the night goes on.

--Wyndam

Interesting strategy notes from inside the caucuses

Two quick tidbits from CNN:

1. In one precinct, the Edwards camp has set up next to Joe Biden's supporters. The Edwards people are counting on Biden not reaching the 15% threshold, which would mean his supporters would need to re-vote. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's people are on the other side of the room, which is a long walk through the Edwards supporters, who will undoubtedly be trying to swing them their way. If for no other reason than Biden's people get fed up with the walk, and thus stay close and caucus with Edwards, then Edwards benefits. It seems so basic and, to a point, primitive, but a candidate can use all the help he can get, no matter how he gets it.

2. Some precinct captains for the second-tier candidates who receive 10-15% of the vote are urging the captains of the winners of the first vote of their precinct to send them voters to reach the 15% benchmark. The front runner would still win the precinct, but the second-tier candidate would be able to have their votes counted. If the winner of the precinct does not give them their extra people, then the second-tier candidate's captain will send his people to another front runner, which would almost ensure that the winner of the first vote would lose on the re-vote.

--Wyndam

Entrance Polls

CNN is reporting that the earliest entrance polls (tallied as people walk into their precincts to caucus) have Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama neck-and-neck in the Democratic primary, with John Edwards a bit behind. No mention of Bill Richardson's status. In the Republican field, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney are leading the pack.

--Wyndam

Richardson denies that he will direct supporters to Obama

The governor was just on CNN's "The Situation Room," and declared that "people can make up their own minds" about who to support if he doesn't reach the 15% viability mark in a precinct. He does not have any arrangements with other campaigns, and will not tell his supporters who to re-vote for. Previous reports said that he had reached a deal with Barack Obama's campaign to send supporters his way.

--Wyndam

Sometimes, I lose faith in humanity

You can disagree with Governor Richardson on a number of issues. But his political experience is unparalleled. Hell, you can even believe that experience is a non-issue in the election. But the fact remains: Richardson has the most, and few others come close.That's why I was stunned when I saw the results of this CNN opinion poll from early December.

When asked who has the right experience to be president, respondents said:

Clinton 55%

Obama 13%

Edwards 11%

Biden 6%

Richardson 5%

Dodd 2%

I will generally refrain from cursing on this site, but are you fucking kidding me?

Let's go to the tape:

Clinton: First Lady of the United States (8 years), junior Senator from New York (6 years)
Obama: Illinois State Senator (a part-time job for 8 years), junior Senator from Illinois (3 years)
Edwards: Senator from North Carolina (6 years)
Biden: Senior Senator from Delaware (33 years, current chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee)
Dodd: Congressman from Connecticut (6 years), Senator from Connecticut (26 years)

And finally...

Richardson: State Department aide (2 years), Congressman from New Mexico (14 years), U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (1 year), U.S. Secretary of Energy (2 years), Governor of New Mexico (5 years).

Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson have the more experience than any of the other candidates yet the public believes that, combined, their experience matches that of Obama, who four years ago, was a professor!

This is infuriating.

--Wyndam

Richardson to send supporters to Obama?

The Huffington Post and New York Times are reporting that, in the event that he doesn't receive 15% of the vote in a precinct, Governor Richardson will direct his people to re-vote for Barack Obama. A candidate must reach the 15% mark in order to have their votes counted. Iowa has 1,784 precincts up for grabs. According to the Times, "In return, the Obama adviser said, Obama forces will lend support to Mr. Richardson at caucuses where Mr. Obama turns out more backers than he needs to win any additional delegates."

Both campaigns have denied the reports. The story originated from a leak in the Obama camp.

Why would Richardson choose Obama? Strategy for the long-run. While Richardson is a long-time political ally of the Clintons, and support for Hillary Clinton would go a long way toward ensuring a nomination for Vice President (he is rumored to be Clinton's top choice), Richardson and the senator have opposite views on Iraq, which is the governor's main issue. John Edwards aligns most closely with Richardson on Iraq, but it's possible that the governor does not see Edwards as a viable long-term candidate--Edwards is far behind Obama and Clinton in most other state polls. By supporting Obama, whose views on Iraq resemble Richardson's, the governor could be establishing some good will for the future, if Obama is indeed the nominee. It's unlikely that he'd be Obama's VP choice (two minorities on one ticket could not fly), but he could ensure a high level cabinet position: State, Defense, etc.

Dennis Kucinich has already directed his voters to the Obama camp. In 2004, Kucinich's support of Edwards went a long way toward ensuring the senator's second place finish. With two candidates backing--and possibly a third's, depending on which way Joe Biden swings--and a lead in the poll, Obama has a very good chance of winning Iowa and gaining serious momentum for the later states.

--Wyndam

Thankfully, the media has already cast your vote for you

The supporters of second-tier candidates (God, do I hate that phrase. Can we get the ball moving on a new way to say "non-front runner"? Thanks) have long claimed that they are ignored by the mainstream media, and as a result, their campaigns suffer--we did so just a few days ago. Whether we like it or not (we don't), the media plays an enormous role in getting candidates' messages, platforms and ideas out to the public. Without coverage for all, there is no level playing field--all the people hear are the names of a few front runners. And the media goes a long way toward making your decision for you, as the only names you recognize on the ballot are the ones they have circulated.

Proving this point with substantial evidence, though, would take months of research into all coverage of the election--right now, we go with what we know to be true. But the media has now gone and proved our point for us: in the debates immediately preceding the New Hampshire caucus, only candidates who are polling at 5% or higher in the Granite State, or placed fourth or higher in the Iowa caucus will be allowed to participate.

Bill Richardson will be allowed to debate: not only is he polling at above 5% in New Hampshire, but he is widely expected to place fourth (or, hopefully, higher) in Iowa. He will join Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards. However, the rest of the Democratic field is left on the outside looking in. Joe Biden, despite his recent small surge in the poll, has no guarantee that he'll be invited. Neither do Chris Dodd or Dennis Kucinich. Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson have all be invited to the Republican debate, but Ron Paul (whose supporters are making a big stink out of this, and rightfully so, especially because Paul leads Thompson in many polls) and Duncan Hunter will likely be left out.

To their credit, Clinton and Obama have spoken out against this policy, saying that the people of New Hampshire/U.S.A. should be allowed to hear all views, and not just those of a select group. Edwards has decided to effectively not comment on the matter, which has drawn the ire of some.

This directive is of course troublesome. By constricting the number of people allowed to debate, ABC and Fox News (the debates' sponsors) are ostensibly censoring the lesser known candidates and, in the process, infringing upon and limiting the national debate. This is especially troublesome when these media companies, which are "unbiased," may be making these decisions for their own political reasons.

Fortunately, some are fighting back, and for once, the ferocity of Paul's supporters is an asset to all: supporters are engineering a sell-off of NewsCorp's (Fox News's parent company) stock.

Good for them--hopefully, this is resolved so that all can speak in this forum. All candidates should be allowed to participate. It shouldn't be a debate.

--Wyndam

Mike made calls for Richardson. Will you?

Michael Lipkin here again with a piece on rallying support for Richardson via phone banking.

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

I hope you all had a fun New Year’s. But now we’re officially in 2008, which means it’s finally an election year. Iowans are just itching to vote with their primary only two days away. All the articles I’ve read recently stress how on edge everyone is, the flurry if emails being sent this way and that and the last minute campaign ploys.

Bill Richardson is no exception. I’ve gotten no less than three messages in the past two days about how much my money is needed more than ever. But the ever-strapped-for-cash student I am, I honestly don’t have the $50, 100 or 200 they constantly ask for. But what I do have is time.

Bored just rattling around this break, I decided to take the Richardson campaign up on an offer they proposed a week ago. I called voters. Anyone can go to the Richardson website, register and be provided with a list of 30 or so registered voters in Iowa and convenient summaries of the governor’s stances on important issues.

At first I was a little nervous. I generally dislike people calling with a pitch, regardless of the “product” as a rule of thumb, and I’m pretty sure I’m not alone. So the prospect of me calling people of the blue made me a little uneasy.

But once I sucked it up, it wasn’t that bad. Well, after the first couple rejections at least—the mid-West politeness helped. For every six people that hung up almost immediately, there were two who patiently listened and one who actually responded with questions and comments.

Some people were already pro-Richardson, in which case I suggested they might want to call some people. Others were die-hard Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama supporters, who quickly thanked me for my time and hung up. But there were one or two that were genuinely undecided. These were the guys who listened without interruption to my short spiel and asked something at the end, like why I supported Richardson in particular, or what the details of his Iraq policy are. Not to sound cliché, but for a those calls, I actually felt like I had in some small way helped the governor’s campaign. I sincerely thank all those that accepted my brief commentary on my candidate and hope they spread the word.

So I encourage anyone with a few minutes to spare to go to the campaign website and call a few people up. It could make all the difference.

Oh and by the way, the New York Times had an article today about the impact bloggers make on campaigns. Here’s to the Richardson Campus!

The role of Bill Richardson in Iowa

Believe it: Bill Richardson can, and probably will, decide who wins Iowa.

It is unlikely, at this stage, that Richardson will win the state--while that's obviously his goal, I think the campaign would be ecstatic with a third or second place finish. There may be just a candidate or two too many to leap to claim victory.

However, that doesn't mean he can't have a profound impact on who wins the state. Iowa has an unusual caucus system: in order to have their votes counted in one of Iowa's 1784 districts, a candidate must receive 15% or more of the vote. If a candidate does not get 15% of the vote, then his supporters are free to vote again for someone who does reach the 15% threshold.

This where the second-tier candidates can decide who wins each district--they can direct their voters to some other candidate. Voters, of course, are not obligated to follow such orders, but in the past, they have generally complied with their candidate's wishes. And, all of a sudden, a district can swing from one front runner to another.

Hypothetical example: Hillary Clinton received 31% of the vote in District A. Barack Obama got 35%. John Edwards has 18%. Obama has seemingly eeked out a close victory, but wait! Joe Biden, who received 11% of the vote, instructs his supporters to vote for Clinton. Some do, and Clinton ends up edging Obama by a few points.

Bill Richardson will receive 15% + of the vote in many districts, but certainly not all of them. As the leading second-tier candidate, he'll likely have the most voters to give in the districts where he doesn't reach the 15% margin. So, who will he direct his people to vote for?

Dennis Kucinich has already told his supporters to support Obama in the districts where Kucinich doesn't qualify. But Kucinich is a third-tier candidate, and unless the race is exceptionally tight, he doesn't figure to make much of a difference. The people who can change the tide of the election are Biden, Richardson and maybe Chris Dodd. Of that group, Richardson will have the most to give.

So what does he do? He's been a long political ally of the Clintons, despite his recent negative comments on Hillary, so does he send his people her way? It's also been rumored that Richardson is Clinton's top choice for Vice-President--would he give her his people as an act of good will to secure that nomination? Or, will he concentrate on becoming president, and thus send his voters toward Obama/Edwards in attempt to stop Clinton from winning Iowa and thus halt her momentum going into New Hampshire, Michigan and Nevada, where she is leading? By doing the latter, he can create more parity at the top of the Democratic race, which leaves the door open to more high-finishes for Richardson.

No matter what he chooses, the Markos Zuniga, the founder of the Daily Kos, feels that "Richardson will get to play kingmaker."

Iraq is Richardson's main issue, and Edwards's views on the conflict come closest to matching Richardson's--Clinton's are far off. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

--Wyndam

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT: The Daily Kos (different writer this time) agrees again re: Richardson's "kingmaker" status.

Richardson Picks up Key New Hampshire Endorsement

Bill Richardson received a belated Christmas present today: the endorsement of the Conway Daily Sun, a newspaper in the Mount Washington Valley area of New Hampshire.The full editorial is below--overall, it touches on his foreign affairs experience and political clout at home and abroad.

--Wyndam

Bill Richardson, the only heavy-weight in bout for Democratic nomination

Sen. Joe Biden, a contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, said in a recent interview that if it weren't for Iowa and New Hampshire, the candidate with the most money would always win.

Retail politics works. And it's not overstating it to say that because N.H. voters see, hear and meet the candidates in person, we are better informed than voters in the rest of country, who rely primarily on electronic media.

The result: N.H. voters often pick winners, and if not winners, candidates who, in hindsight, should have won. How much better off would the Republican Party-and the United States-be today if the rest of the country had followed New Hampshire eight years ago and elected

Sen. John McCain?

In 2000, the Sun was the only newspaper in New Hampshire to endorse McCain in the Republican primary. In 2004, we supported Gen. Wesley Clark over Sen. John Kerry in the Democratic primary. Granted, neither won, but we feel as good about those selections today as we did then.

We live in a world where Russia's leader may rewrite his country's constitution to maintain power, and where violence is often the political tool of choice, as in much of the Middle East. It is remarkable, and a testament to the strength of this country, that the next leader of the free world understands the real power of this country is in its people, and the path to the White House includes running the gauntlet at little N.H. newspapers like the Sun.

The editorial staff of the Sun is extraordinarily fortunate to have had exclusive access to the candidates. Without handlers at their sides or the national media butting in, most of the candidates have given our eight writers and editors an hour to engage in freewheeling question-and-answer exchanges.

Our staff takes seriously its bit part in selecting the next president. It is impossible to completely discount the "electability" factor and screen out mainstream media, but each of us weighs heavily what we observe in these editorial board interviews.

In our opinion, this year's Democrats are stronger than we've ever seen, and out of three that we believe could be good presidents, we endorse N.M. Gov. Bill Richardson.

It boils down to this: Sen. Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards are clearly highly principled people of integrity, and in another race the Sun would have supported one of them.

While Obama and Edwards have the big media budgets, neither has the experience of Richardson. And as for Hillary Clinton, this is what fringe candidate and straight-talking former Sen. Mike Gravel says.

"The Clintons should read the Constitution, eight years is all they get."

A handful of years as senator for each of them simply does not stack up to Richardson's powerful resume as a former congressman, energy secretary, U.N. ambassador, and now, governor of New Mexico.

Like our own Gov. John Lynch, Richardson is a big hit in his home state, where he is considered one of the nation's most environmentally-conscious governors. In New Mexico, he has raised the minimum wage, given all children under 5 access to health insurance, cut taxes and is pro-business.

On the national level, his experience negotiating with bad boys like Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro and the North Koreans is world-renowned. Richardson gained the reputation as Pres. Bill Clinton's top international troubleshooter, and during the '90s humorously referred to himself as the "undersecretary of thugs." His success as a negotiator also earned him four nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Richardson has heavyweight credentials for a heavyweight job; Obama, Edwards and Clinton, by comparison, have barely found their way into the ring.

The knock against Richardson is that he doesn't have the dynamic personality of Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton, although in person he's funny and engaging. Asked about this rap and to compare himself to Bill Clinton, Richardson says, "Yes, Clinton can electrify a room, but I can get it done." We're convinced he can, and we ask you to join us in voting for him.

Richardson is shafted by the media; America pays the price

In most of my discussions with Alex, Mike and other Richardson supporters, the media coverage of the governor's campaign is inevitably mentioned. We feel that it is paltry, and that the mainstream media has made a point of shining the spotlight solely on the front runners and practically never on the so-called second-tier candidates. And when they do shed the rare light on these candidates, they treat it as a novelty piece--look at me, I'm writing about an unknown politician! (Example: Mark Steyn of the National Review recently wrote a piece on Richardson's Pakistan plan. He introduces Richardson as: "Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who is apparently running for the Democratic presidential nomination...").

In the debates, Richardson and others of his ilk (Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, etc.) are shunned, as the key policy questions are aimed at Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards. Funny, since Richardson, Biden and Dodd are seasoned political veterans who have more experience in most fields individually than the "Big 3" have combined.

The media plays such a major role in elections and candidate visibility that anything less than ostensibly balanced coverage does a massive disservice to the American people--they are kept in the dark as the most qualified candidates go uncovered. Without decent attention, the race is essentially narrowed down to three candidates before the primaries even begin, since in the court of public opinion, only the three front runners, and a few "other" candidates exist. Richardson who?

But don't take my word for it: read this article by Brent Budowsky for the Huffington Post. He explains our displeasure.

--Wyndam

Richardson only ten points behind Obama in Iowa

A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll is out. Here are the results, and keep in mind that Richardson's numbers had been lagging as of late, despite his insistence that his popularity was steadily growing. Apparently, the governor was right. Let's see if this trend continues.

John Edwards: 24%
Hillary Clinton: 23%
Barack Obama: 22%
Bill Richardson: 12%

--Wyndam