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

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.

Compare the Candidates!

I'm asked this frequently: "Where can I find a good comparison of all the candidates on the issues?"

Good question! Here's the answer:

I generally use Vote Gopher for these purposes. You can compare candidates by issue, and they give you quotes to back it up. Issues 2000 (a.k.a. On The Issues) does the same (yes, it's updated to 2008) and is more extensive, but for the major issues, I find Vote Gopher more user-friendly.

My favorite site, though, is Open Secrets, which logs all monetary transactions made by the candidates (from the initial donation to where the money is spent). A great insight into the world of political fund raising, and where the money goes.

But if you want to compare the candidates side-by-side on one sheet of paper, I suggest getting a back issue of the New York Times from December 30. On pages 16-17 of the National Section (the A section, in this case), there is a full, broadsheet chart that includes the positions of all the major candidates from both parties (that means no Duncan Hunter, Dennis Kucinich, and certainly no Mike Gravel) on some of the main issues--Iraq, Health Care, Taxes, Detainees, Interrogation, Immigration, Energy and Climate Change. It's not perfect, but it's the easiest way to compare the candidates. And if you can't get a hold of that, the Times has a nice section with the candidates' biographies, web sites and relevant articles.

--Wyndam

Some Christmas Videos

Merry Christmas, everyone!

At The Richardson Campus, we are devoted to getting student views on Governor Richardson out to the public. I have scoured the web (all right, YouTube) to find a few videos of students in action, supporting the campaign with their creativity, intelligence and initiative. And, in the holiday spirit of giving, here are three of the best clips for your enjoyment.

Drake student Max Maher tells why he is going to caucus for Gov. Bill Richardson.



Students from Dartmouth College and Tufts University show their support for Gov. Bill Richardson.



I'm not sure if this student made, but I like the ingenuity of this video. It was originally created for the Genius Rocket primary, where movies are made in support of each candidate. This clip combines the two entries for Governor Richardson.

--Wyndam

Iraq on a Ski Lift

I've been skiing in Idaho for the past few days, and this afternoon sat next to a very talkative man on a chairlift. We had some idle chit-chat for a few minutes about different mountains, trails, and the like. Eventually, it came out that I attend Stanford, and he instantaneously began ranting about two high-level officials affiliated with my school: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (Stanford's former provost) and former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (a fellow at the Hoover Institution, a think tank on Stanford's campus).

He had some serious qualms about the War in Iraq. He said he couldn't reconcile the thought of sending thousands of Americans to their death for no purpose that he could see. He didn't understand the planning--how can you "shock and awe" an entire country with a relatively small contingency of troops, especially when the enemy is made up of cells that can disappear at a moment's notice. Iraq was beginning to remind him of Vietnam: it is becoming nothing more than a growing quagmire.

He went on, without interruption, for a few minutes (it was a long lift). I was surprised, since Idaho is about as red as a state can be, and he had indicated earlier that he was a resident, and wasn't just on vacation. He saw my look of surprise, which led to the following exchange:

Him: "I'm sorry, I'm making you uncomfortable, it's just a sore spot with me."
Me: "Oh no, it's no problem."
Him: "I just wish that we had a president who had the balls to admit his mistake and pull our troops out before anymore Americans die."
Me: "It's too late for Bush to do anything, and he wouldn't anyway. He believes in the war and our purpose there. And if he did pull out, it would be a defeat for him, even if it isn't for America. By admitting he made such a big mistake, he would doom himself, historically."
Him: "Yeah, guess you're right. I've given up hope that any action could possibly be taken toward with drawl before the next president is sworn in."
Me: "But the vast majority of candidates won't fully extract forces until 2013, at the least. And the leading Democrats seem to waver on the issue depending on the latest opinion poll. Very few candidates are committed to a nearly immediate with drawl."
Him: "Who is?"
Me: "Bill Richardson, among a few others. But of those few, he has the best chance at winning the presidency, and the best strategy for pulling our soldiers out. He would take the troops out within a year, and already has an extensive plan for how to do it. As a former negotiator, he would leave a strong diplomatic presence to help the Iraqi government adjust to being completely in power."

He nodded, but didn't say anything. He looked off into the distance, contemplating what I just presented. We stayed silent until the end of the lift when, as we prepared to disembark, he said, "Richardson. He's the governor, right?" I nodded. "I'll have to give him a closer look," he said. "If what you say is true, he might just have my vote."

With that, he skied off to the right, and I went left. I paused for a second. For the first time since I canvassed Pennsylvania for John Kerry all those years ago, I felt like I had directly influenced someone's vote. He may not end up pulling the lever for Governor Richardson, but at the least, he'll educate himself about him, perhaps tell a friend or two. When you're running a grassroots campaign, that's a definite sign of progress.

--Wyndam

Huff Post Readers Love BR

Check out Governor Richardson's post today in the Huffington Post. He outlines his plans for Iraq and for veterans (which we detailed here).

And most of all, check out the responses he gets! Yes, there are a few skeptics, but the vast majority of posters recognize that a) his ideas are great, b) he is the most experienced and qualified candidate and c) the media has shun him.

Whenever the governor gets a chance to speak/write beyond the 10-15 second sound bytes the mainstream media grants him, he is able to show why his plans are the best for America. It's unfortunate that he rarely gets a bigger stage, but on a grassroots level, he has an influence on the voting public.

--Wyndam

On the candidates' vision

We often question whether candidates have (or lack) vision. Are they ambitious and idealistic, or are they more pragmatic, and realize that they can only do so much? Which is better, then: a visionary, or a realist? The former would surely introduce revolutionary proposals in regards to foreign, domestic and economic affairs. But they would be prone to devastating failure. The latter would be a good steward of government: they would not push for far reaching changes in policy, and would instead work within the current system to help America at home and abroad. But this is also their downside: they aren't going to "change the world" or leave as much of a lasting legacy as their ambitious counterparts.


In this new video, Wyndam and Peter (a special guest host) discuss the historical and current implications of a visionary president, and where Bill Richardson falls on this spectrum.

Notes on the final Democratic debate before the Iowa caucus

I've read too much about "who won" each debate. Allow me to express my impressions of each candidate after what I watched the other night. Richardson was there, this time.

Biden: The guy has guts. He is pushing for a partition of Iraq, which may be our best policy option but is a tough sell. He's the only candidate who spoke honestly about how lost Iraq really is. He gets riled up when he sees injustice, and he speaks his mind when he disagrees with anyone. The man will not back down even from his friends. I worry that his passion may undermine his ability to work with a legislature.

Clinton: The line the press is making a big deal about really did hit me hard. She's all about the details – all about banging out policy after meeting with a bunch of people. But with her I still can't shake the feeling that she doesn't have a stronger conviction than simply wanting to do a good job at whichever job she does. That said, her push for healthcare back in the day showed plenty. In Clinton, I see a hard worker who's very willing to adapt to any political climate in order to be successful.

Dodd: His speech on his commitment to public service impressed me. His crisp explanations of the limitations on the President made good retorts to both Edwards' promises and Richardson's bragging. Also, Dodd is the only candidate who supports a carbon tax, which I find bold and admirable.

Edwards: All the Democrats were anti-trade, but Edwards took it to another level. He promised voters to fight all the bad guys, and this apparently has won him some support. I think his trade policies would undermine our economy's strength – for some reason, Edwards does not accept that we must lose some jobs in order to create new ones. But I do not doubt his conviction or his morals.

Obama: My favorite moment was the specificity with which he laid out his top priorities for the first year of his presidency. Right at the top of his list was reviewing, with his attorney general, every single executive order that W. Bush has made. The top is where that belongs. On foreign policy, he takes more flack than he deserves. Yet I was disappointed by his willingness to pander in regards to trade. Standing for change should mean more than standing with the Democratic Party's base on every issue.

Richardson: I usually laugh and hurt at how hard he has to try to smile, but this night was different. He's the only candidate, he finally showed, that's capable of not always taking himself seriously (and I'm not just talking about the weight joke). To me, his ability to subtly make fun of himself shows his confidence. His policy on Iraq is bold, clear, and unique among the candidates'. Energy (independence) and education (teacher pay) are his next highest priorities.

I wish with all my heart that Richardson hadn't pandered to all the anti-China guys, but no Democrat didn't. Richardson dwelled on human rights record longest, so of all things, I'll take that. I sure would have preferred he left out the currency "issue," but I can't have everything. We have real choices in front of us.

I think Joe Biden said it best: "This debate isn't about change or experience. It's about action."

You look at these guys and you tell me who's the most capable of taking meaningful positive action. I've made my choice, and I'm sticking with it. Bill Richardson for President.

--Alex

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

Salon.com had this to say about Governor Richardson's peformance:

Former Democratic Rep. Dave Nagle, who is neutral in the presidential race, offered an intriguing theater review of the debate. "The second tier beat the first tier," Nagle said, boosting Richardson, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd...Richardson did deserve plaudits for what may have been his best debate performance of the long theatrical season...