Bill Richardson for Sec. of State

Obama is really working hard to change the way Washington works, and it looks like he's shooting for ever higher transparency in his dealing with the blogosphere.

So far, things have been pretty interesting.  Haven't they?

I want to dwell a moment on Obama's pick for Attorney General before this floor gets opened up for a discussion of how the Cabinet is coming along. Because Eric Holder as AG, is to my mind almost a stroke of genius.

The first thing Obama is planning to do is close Guantanamo Bay. In order to do so, he is planning on bringing the Al Qaeda there detained, to trial. This will be a tricky legal problem. Habeas Corpus requires the evidence to be presented, but forces to keep the classified material secure are going to work against public trial disclosure.

What makes Attorney General Eric Holder such a good appointment, apart from the fact that he held the deputy position for a long time - is that he is so well known to be competent, and completely results oriented. Obama is sending a new signal that good work is recognized. We didn't bring in someone who would do the bidding of a right or left leaning organization, we brought in someone who would simply do the job. The fact that the decision prompted quite a few really, really strong people who had left the Dept. of Justice for the more lucrative the private sector - to publicly state that they would return to serve under this new Attorney General, is a good example of the type of Leadership the new President is bringing. People want to be involved. And he's giving us that chance.

In Washington, under the Bush Republicans the lions share of power and money started going to fewer and fewer individuals and corporations. And the mechanism for doing that became secrecy, and collusion. The Office of the President Elect is already working to reverse that. And I think thats really cool. What we see in the Cabinet appointments will amount to setting the tone of the next four years. Eric Holders appointment blew me away.

I believe the open, progressive and defensibly similiar stroke of appointment insight would be the appointment in Bill Richardson for Secretary of State. The fact that Bill is results oriented; that he has the leverage and skill to bring countries to the table - and that he was nominated for the Nobel Peace prize four times ...

I don't know. Its hard to express. Everyone has a viewpoint about Sec. of State - our foreign policy is so damaged. Biden is likely advising Obama on this matter (Biden is very well versed in Foreign policy, he's another good pick lets not forget).

To me, the appointment of Bill Richardson for Sec. of State, would be akin to the accomplishment Obama marked in his career in the Illinois Senate, where he managed to help pass a bill that required videotaping of police interrogation (that helped cut down on some pretty strong issues relating to police brutality and also false testimony!)

Bill is the kind of person that can move between the different groups. He's negotiated with and won concessions from Saddam Hussein, North Korea, and served in the UN.

And think about this. What if we went from a Sec. of State that completely ignored dangerous countries, like the Bush Republican legacy - a Sec. of State that simply chooses military might over diplomacy... to one that wins the Nobel Peace Prize?

What are your thoughts about the Cabinet? Everything going ok?

Tags: Bill Richardson, cabinet, secretary of state (all tags)

Comments

109 Comments

Re: Bill Richardson for Sec. of State

Well Daschle was offered HHS..

I like the way its going but it seems a bit "conservative" in that these are all well known names... no surprised here..

by obama4presidente 2008-11-19 08:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Richardson for Sec. of State

Bill is pretty out there, really. At least in my view. He was the one who left the campaign to negotiate with North Korea. He's got a long track record of Ambitious maneuvers.  Thats probably why the Nobel commitee has him on radar all the time.

Hey. Al Gore won the thing! :-)

I heard Robert Kennedy is being considered for Head of the EPA.  

by Trey Rentz 2008-11-19 08:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Richardson for Sec. of State

Nobel nominations mean just about nothing. Stalin was nominated for the Nobel peace prize. Winning means more, but even then Kissinger won once. Should we make him SOS again?

by Mayor McCheese 2008-11-19 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Richardson for Sec. of State

Or be concerned by his endorsement of someone for the position?

by Shaun Appleby 2008-11-19 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Richardson for Sec. of State

UN Ambassador, former Sec. of Energy, Governor (with amazing track record), skilled diplomat.
AND four times  nominated for nobel peace prize.

Did kissinger say Bill would be a good SOS? Ok. Whatever.

by Trey Rentz 2008-11-19 11:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Richardson for Sec. of State

No.  He endorsed Hillary:


At the World Economic Forum's 24th India Economic Summit in New Delhi, India, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said of reports that President-elect Obama is considering Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, as Secretary of State, "I believe it would be an outstanding appointment. If it is true, it shows a number of things, including great courage on the part of the President-Elect. To appoint a very strong personality into a prominent cabinet position requires a great deal of courage."

Jake Tapper - Kissinger Backs Clinton at State ABC 16 Nov 08

He should know.  And he's not the only one, there has been a surprising number of positive responses among notoriously hawkish Republicans:


Sometimes the best way to test reality is to go see what they are saying on the other side of the ideological spectrum. On the neoconservative right, the gushing over Clinton as Secretary of State from Kissinger on down has been very revealing (and has led some of the right-wing wiseguys that are sometimes capable of seeing the political machinations - in this case John Fund, Rush Limbaugh and Kathryn Jean Lopez - to suggest that we are witnessing another classic Obama "head fake" simply because it seems too good to be true that the Obama that just kicked their asses at the ballot box would so immediately hand back to them that gift that keeps on giving).

The right wing loves the idea of a Secretary of State Clinton.

Al Giordano - The Importance of Having Eric Holder's Back The Field 19 Nov 08

Just sayin'.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-11-19 11:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Richardson for Sec. of State

I will not believe HRC as SoS until I see it.  I do not think that Obama wants a hawk in that position and much less one with her deep and wide ties to defense industry.  Have you seen the contributions to HRC from defense contrators?

Put that together with her record and she is a militarist not a diplomat.

Oh, but team of rivals, yada, yada, yada...

by Satya 2008-11-19 01:54PM | 0 recs
Bill Richardson is a great choice.

For those of us who saw how well they meshed when Bill R endorsed Obama here in Portland, the rapport they have was tangible.  

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-11-20 06:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Richardson for Sec. of State

I tend to agree with you about Richardson, his proven skill as a negotiator seems to me exactly the right fit for the challenges facing the Obama administration in foreign policy.  With Kerry as chair of the Foreign Relations Committee and Biden as VP it seems a trifecta for success.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-11-19 12:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Richardson for Sec. of State

And Richardson was one of the strongest voices in favor of immediate withdrawal from Iraq, the most pressing foreign policy issue before us.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-11-20 06:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Richardson for Sec. of State

He is the dumb shit that told his gay audience that being gay is a life style choice. He really stunned the people that invited him to speak during primaries.

by Joshuagen 2008-11-19 11:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Richardson for Sec. of State

exactly! if there's a choice between a pro-women and pro-gay rights candidate and Bill - please.....

as bad as GLBT rights are in the US, they're worse in many countries (same for women's rights). this is a very relevant concern to raise, if IF the mission is to inspire change worldwide.

by swissffun 2008-11-19 11:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Richardson for Sec. of State

I oppose Bill Richardson on the basis of his actions during the primary.

In politics loyalty is considered extremely important, the way Bill Richardson switch from Clinton to Obama obviously did not go down well in either camp.

He may have hurt his chances by actually endorsing Obama - Why? Because he led everyone to believe he supported Clinton by having pizza with Bill Clinton, only later to endorse Obama. His relations with the entire Clinton camp went from "hero" to "zero". This might go down as opportunistic and not based on conviction.

He also holds no keys in terms of the electorate, the latin support for Obama is already in the 60%+ and is unlikely to increase with a SOS.

by Jaz 2008-11-19 08:54AM | 0 recs
the significance of eating pizza

he led everyone to believe he supported Clinton by having pizza with Bill Clinton

Seriously?

And if a woman accepts a drink from me that's like agreeing to have sex, right?

OK. So Richardson should have blown off meeting with Bill Clinton if he hadn't already decided to endorse HRC?

Or maybe Richardson should have met Bill Clinton out of courtesy but refused to partake of the pizza saying, "Mr. President, while I'm hungry I don't want you to assume I am endorsing your wife because I am eating the pizza you have purchased"?

by Carl Nyberg 2008-11-19 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: the significance of eating pizza

This is politics, not "social-drinking". He's a governor and former diplomat. He knows better.

He is either a) naive or b) incompetent.

a) Because he thought that on the eve of some of the toughest primary fights, him sitting with Bill Clinton having pizza watching TV wouldn't be taken as endorsement or picked up by the MMS?

b) He thought leaning both ways would help him politically and then jumped on the winning bandwagon?

In terms of secretary of state, this kind of miscalculation and poor perception won't go down well.

by Jaz 2008-11-19 09:17AM | 0 recs
Re: the significance of eating pizza

Hmmm...

I think the naive person was Bill Clinton. Just because Bill Richardson agrees to have pizza with you and allow you to have your photo-op doesn't mean he is going to endorse you.

Bill of all people should have known better!

Realy, the things people say around here.. its that bitterness still left over from the primaries.

by obama4presidente 2008-11-19 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: the significance of eating pizza

wasn't it nachos? And anyway, Richardson really played the whole endoresement thing in a sleazy fashion. He can endorse whomever he wishses obviously, but he did say earlier that he would yiedl to his state's voter's wishes for president. Their wish was Clinton, albeit narrowly. Richarson called their vote a "Technicality." We can do better than this guy.

by Mayor McCheese 2008-11-19 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: the significance of eating pizza

I don't have a problem if Richardson isn't offered anything but I think some of the posts against him here are a bit over the top.

by obama4presidente 2008-11-19 09:58AM | 0 recs
that's because

it's a SLAP IN THE FACE TO HILLARY among a certain set.

by JJE 2008-11-19 10:34AM | 0 recs
The traitor Richardson will never be popular

on this board, home to many a starry-eyed Clinton fan.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-11-20 07:06AM | 0 recs
and that has what exactly

to do with his ability to be SoS?  I had thought the primary wars were over, but alas.

by JJE 2008-11-19 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: and that has what exactly

I dont think it does. I just dont think he'd be that good. He's one of those people who looks great on paper but always seems to underperform.

by Mayor McCheese 2008-11-19 10:44AM | 0 recs
He sucks on TV for sure

he comes off like an idiot.  But supposedly he's pretty good in a one-on-one setting.

by JJE 2008-11-19 11:03AM | 0 recs
Re: and that has what exactly

What isn't a "slap in the face" to some Clinton supporters here, these days

by venician 2008-11-19 03:30PM | 0 recs
Re: and that has what exactly

LOL!  good one, V.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-11-20 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re: the significance of eating pizza

Is it worse to jump on the winning bandwagon or the losing bandwagon?

In a choice between losing and winning, I have a hard time holding it against the guy who chooses winning... at least absent there being something immoral connect with choosing winning.

I guess that's where you and I differ. You see Richardson endorsing Obama as immoral b/c it involved disloyalty.

I see it that Richardson's duty to endorse Clinton to show appreciation for past appointments was a weak duty that was less important than other factors, like choosing the better candidate.

by Carl Nyberg 2008-11-19 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: the significance of eating pizza
I have problems with the way it was done.
First, Richardson wouldnt' even be where he is today without Bill Clinton. This doesn't mean he owes his wife an endorsement, but he does owe a little decency. He could have endorsed later, He could have done without the football and nachos charade. He could have done it quietly.
He also pissed all over his own constituents. He said he was backing the winner of his state's primary and when reminded of this, he called the results a technicality. It wasn't his finest hour or  hour and a half for that matter.
by Mayor McCheese 2008-11-19 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: the significance of eating pizza

Actually, I was, by far, the most proud of my governor when he came out and endorsed Obama. Given the obvious pressure he was under from the Clintons, I think he handled it as well as he could have.

If he had based his decision on pure loyalty like he lived in the world of the Sopranos, I would have lost respect for him. He knew, deep down, who the better candidate was and he picked him.

by desertjedi 2008-11-19 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: the significance of eating pizza

i had no problem with the endorsement, but the way he did it, he said more against Hillary than he said for Barack.   I though his endorsement really lowered the tone of the campaign.  I thought Barack was nice to him by putting him into that half-hour informercial, where he made his endorsement without taking the cheap shots at Hillary, it was like a do-over.

Barack's sure not me, I'd never have let Lieberman have my moral support for keeping his chair.  But, he's not a vengeful guy, turns out.  Good thing, for all of us. Means i wont' like everything he does, and some won't like Hillary as SOS, but, we'll all know he's picking people for excellence.  In that manner I think Bill hasn't a real chance at SOS.  

by anna shane 2008-11-19 02:49PM | 0 recs
It annoyed me, too...

But honestly, it's water under the bridge now. I'm over it. Besides, there are better reasons for us to support someone else for SoS. Hillary's a good pick. And while Richardson isn't necessarily a bad pick, his baggage from Santa Fe could make the confirmation hearings VERY MESSY.

by atdleft 2008-11-19 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: It annoyed me, too...

I'm tired of your casting unfounded aspersions on Richardson. Its really unseemly and in other days you'd be liable for libel. I mean do you have any supporting evidence whatsoever???? We always hear about these supposed skeletons but nothing has ever come out so unless you have some evidence I would suggest you do the right thing and shut the fuck up.

Again, I don't care if Richardson doesn't get in but to be permanently alluding to things that have  not been substantiated once and about a former cabinet secretary and current governor seems really poor form. I mean he was Secretary of State before and nothing ever came out? He's now Governor and nothing that I can find has been written bout him doing anything compromising so what are you talking about?

by obama4presidente 2008-11-19 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: It annoyed me, too...

that should have read he was Secretary of Energy before

by obama4presidente 2008-11-19 11:04AM | 0 recs
Actually

it's more a symptom of the Clinton camp thinking that everyone owes them something and making a mountain out of a molehill.

by JJE 2008-11-19 10:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Actually

That one deserves triple-mojo!

by desertjedi 2008-11-19 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Richardson for Sec. of State

This is ridiculous. Latinos are expecting to be rewarded for their support by nabbing at least two cabinet positions. Richardson's qualifications are impeccable. He's far less of a loyalty issue than Clinton would be, not that I think loyalty is going to be much of a criteria.

by X Stryker 2008-11-19 09:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Richardson for Sec. of State

Why would Richardson be more loyal? He did waver and waffle about endorsing. And he didn't endorse the person that he had stronglyl implied he would (I.e. the winner of his state). He's also a defeated former rival.

by Mayor McCheese 2008-11-19 09:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Richardson for Sec. of State

I have been wondering about where Federico Pena stands...Sec. of Interior? Appropos of your comment on recognizing one's supporters: I recall that @53% of voters are women, and a majority supported Pres-elect Obama. A number of my friends are looking at the overall appointment picture--does is represent America? One of the comments on Stephanopoulis This Week noted the yardstick of previous high-level Presidential appointments and the breakout by gender, etc. At some point, that will be important too.  Of course, the biggies are/were VP, State, AG, and Chief of Staff.  Even without the gender aspect, Sen. Clinton has top credentials and international acceptance.  Just sayin'.

by christinep 2008-11-19 11:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Richardson for Sec. of State

Hillary may be an effective Sec. of State, however, that does sort of put the office into a position where the person who is advising our president on Foreign policy, overtly supported Bush's war in Iraq and refused to back down from that position in the primary.

by Trey Rentz 2008-11-19 11:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Richardson for Sec. of State

Talk about ridiculous.  So, Latinos are expecting to be rewarded for their support, but women should not be?  If you are going with a quota argument here, don't you think that the Obama cabinet would benefit from a female appointment in one of the upper-level cabinet appointments?  

by devilrays 2008-11-19 11:08AM | 0 recs
it's always all about quotas

in a Dem cabinet, sadly.  Where have you been the last 16 years?

by JJE 2008-11-19 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: it's always all about quotas

A further note: Maybe it is "quota-esque" OR maybe it is just significant/legitimate representation to expect at women to be in several of the real power positions. Qualifications, first, of course. But, there are a lot of qualified women as well. What about Tyson or Bair at Treasury? I see Carol Browner's name a lot now--Energy or Interior? The point: I'm sure we (as Democrats) would not want to see a cabinet picture that had less diversity (including gender) than the present Bush picture. Its more than quotas; its about confident leadership.

by christinep 2008-11-19 11:37AM | 0 recs
I think we agree

there are enough qualified women/latinos/whatever that we should expect relatively significant representation, and should be suspicious if there is not.  What I object to is the more extreme version of this, which I have seen around here, that demands strict proportional representation.

by JJE 2008-11-19 12:57PM | 0 recs
Re: I think we agree

Yes, we agree.

by christinep 2008-11-19 01:05PM | 0 recs
Re: it's always all about quotas

Sure is, it just seemed a weak argument to state that Hispanics should get their due when not a single woman has been selected as of yet.  

by devilrays 2008-11-19 01:38PM | 0 recs
when the former president shows up for superbowl

sunday unannounced, you still open the door for him.
sorry, man.

That was clinton playing hardball, and it doesn't mean support.

by RisingTide 2008-11-19 12:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Richardson for Sec. of State

In other words he's bad because he's an independent thinker who thinks about the country before personal loyalties.

Man, I was plugging for Hillary.  But you've convinced me.  Richardson for SOS!

by Drummond 2008-11-19 08:42PM | 0 recs
Hmmm... Rush Limbaugh was

nominated for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize - one among the reported 181 nominees that year...

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/storie s.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-01 -2007/0004518421&EDATE=

Just sayin -

I personally am not tied up in knots over who might become SoS but I am becoming fed up with HillHate that's been ginned up, yet again, over this topic.

by aggieric 2008-11-19 08:56AM | 0 recs
Richardson

Actually hasn't accomplished very much for all these "concessionas". He's also a one man gaffe fest. We can do better.

by Mayor McCheese 2008-11-19 09:02AM | 0 recs
And worse yet...

I can assure you that there's a sh*tload of skeletons in Richardson's closet! For all the folks here concerned about "Clinton Drama", that concern looks awfully disingenous when they push someone for SoS who's known in New Mexico for having wandering hands... If you know what I mean. Hillary Clinton is really a safe pick compared to Richardson!

by atdleft 2008-11-19 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: And worse yet...

This is just despicable really.. the tone of your post with the "..if you know what I mean.." wink wink.

Really. You offer no evidence of course.

by obama4presidente 2008-11-19 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: And worse yet...

IF anyone cares to look it up , the so called "Gaffe" that occured in the primary was a small town newspaper off-comment about whether or not being homesexual was learned behavior or intrinsic behavior. He made one other minor comment about a judge.

That was a hit job. Bill gave the warm up speech at the Democratic National Convention and he did it like a champ.

No. Sorry. That was just politics. He was a strong third, the activists that wanted Edwards to run 3rd , ended up going after him.

And oh by the way? Obama and Clinton split 76 percent of the vote between them, during the primary. So, once that fact was learned - did you notice how the "gaffes" disappeared?

No. You do not become the US Ambassador to the United Nations, by being gaffe-prone.
Bill's ok.

by Trey Rentz 2008-11-19 11:59AM | 0 recs
ummm... there is reason to believe this

I say this because I have gotten this information from someone who knew about Edwards' affair WAY WAY before it came out to the press.

by RisingTide 2008-11-19 12:39PM | 0 recs
Re: ummm... there is reason to believe this

John Edwards is your source??!? I don't trust that guy as far as I can bowl him...

by obama4presidente 2008-11-19 05:52PM | 0 recs
nope. but i've got a source

who is well-connected enough to know about things that are pretty well-buried.

the circumstantial evidence was Richardson being passed over for VEEP -- multiple times, at least once with a full vetting.

You wouldn't know my source, so why should I bother telling you the name? either you believe me, you think i'm talking trash, or you put what I have to say in the realm of 'questionably right'.

I don't care what you do.

by RisingTide 2008-11-20 05:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Richardson for Sec. of State

a synonym for GAFFE. He may have been a diplomat and likeable but HRC still has the name, prestige, leadership, smarts and political connections. HRC should be it. The rest- speculations, conspiracy,schemes driven by Hillary-hatred syndrome are just that--POLITICS.

by cxfornier 2008-11-19 09:38AM | 0 recs
Yeah...

What is it about Hillary Clinton that gets so many (mostly men) in the blogosphere worked up crazy over her? Why isn't she a good pick for Secretary of State? She knows the world leaders. She's handled foreign policy as First Lady and as Senator. So what's the problem?

by atdleft 2008-11-19 09:52AM | 0 recs
She couldn't manage her campaign

and SoS is a big bureaucracy.  That's one problem.  She's not a bad pick, but she's not obviously better than Richardson.

What is it about Hillary Clinton that gets so many into a state of crazed defensiveness at the slightest suggestion that someone else might be better at a particular job?

by JJE 2008-11-19 10:31AM | 0 recs
Re: She couldn't manage her campaign

Richards didn't exaclty do a bang up job at the DOE. Wen Ho Lee?

by Mayor McCheese 2008-11-19 10:42AM | 0 recs
Re: She couldn't manage her campaign

Wen Ho Lee was a Los Alamos Labs problem, not a Bill Richardson problem. And you're forgetting the second data problem they had after Bill left. Guy went home with a hard disk.

Both of those were not DOE issues.

by Trey Rentz 2008-11-19 12:00PM | 0 recs
Re: She couldn't manage her campaign

And Richardson COULD Manage a campaign?

by Mayor McCheese 2008-11-19 10:48AM | 0 recs
the question was

what is the problem with Hillary?  I pointed one out.  Richardson's campaign wasn't filled with leaks and infighting, as far as I know.  Of course that may be because it never got off the ground.

Hillary may be the best pick, but it's certainly not the no-brainer that everyone seems to think it is, and the knee-jerk accusations of Hillary-hate toward the mere suggestion that Richardson might be better are tiresome.

by JJE 2008-11-19 11:07AM | 0 recs
Re: the question was
Fair enough.
Personally, I dont think there's much correlation between running a campaign with one specific goal and a finite deadline and a permanent agency with mulitipe agendas. That it is a letigimate thing to look at. At least Clinton recognized some failures and did improve things (ie. bouncing back in NH after the Iowa disaster, stopping her free fall in the polls, winning some major states, bring back Maggie Williams and dumping Solis Doyle and sideling Penn). Richardson's didn't do anything correctly that I can see. Heck, he didn't even pay attention to some debate questions. I don't think that speaks well of him.
by Mayor McCheese 2008-11-19 11:16AM | 0 recs
I don't find Richardson all that impressive

My sole basis for even thinking he might be ok is that he does have experience and success in international diplomacy.  Clinton, on the other hand, seems to be less experienced in that arena, but seems to possess personal qualities as far as intelligence and attention to detail and quick thinking that Richardson lacks.  I think either one is a good pick but neither is a slam dunk.

by JJE 2008-11-19 11:23AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't find Richardson all that impressive

Ok. That sounds reasonsable. As I have said, Richardson looks great on paper, but to me, he seems to be one of those people who chronically underperforms. I dont think he'd be a disaster, and if he were nominated, I would support him

by Mayor McCheese 2008-11-19 11:26AM | 0 recs
i'd support him too.

richardson's problems are edwards' problems.
except richardson can't campaign to save his life (we're talking thompson levels).

hillary's campaign never wanted for drive and determination on her part. just competency in an executive job.

by RisingTide 2008-11-19 12:42PM | 0 recs
Re: i'd support him too.

More unfounded smearing.. either you have the evidence and you put it out or you should STFU.

by obama4presidente 2008-11-19 05:53PM | 0 recs
Re: did bill richardson write this blog?

will bill richardson really stand up to joe biden's attempts to run the sos from vp's office?  no pienso.  

we need a tough-as-nails sos...only one fits the bill.

by latina 2008-11-19 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: did bill richardson write this blog?

Has Richardson ever stood up to anyone?

by Mayor McCheese 2008-11-19 10:47AM | 0 recs
Yeah, the Clintons

Whether or not you think it was honorable or right, he told them "no."  Even if he didn't do it face to face, the fact that he endorsed someone who wasn't named Clinton is pretty remarkable.

I don't know of anybody they lobbied or pressured harder than him.  Is he a Judas?  That's a subjective question.  But he didn't give them what they wanted in the face of considerable cajoling and pressure (Madeleine Albright, for example).

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-11-19 06:25PM | 0 recs
That's Obama's job

Neither Richardson nor Clinton could stand up to a rampaging Biden.  It's Obama's duty to keep him on a leash.

by JJE 2008-11-19 11:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Richardson for Sec. of State
Diarist, I didn't read your diary past the title, although I did look for the word "snark".
You could be a pedophile, an ADHD medicator, a brilliant illegal immegrant; based on what I've observed of Bill Richardson, any of the above would be preferrable to Richardson's appointment to SoS!
by ChitownDenny 2008-11-19 10:12AM | 0 recs
Actually, Richardson

is considered a very good negotiator.

by JJE 2008-11-19 10:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Richardson for Sec. of State

Don't feed the trolls.

by Trey Rentz 2008-11-19 12:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Richardson for Sec. of State

Hah, pot.  

by ChitownDenny 2008-11-19 01:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Richardson for Sec. of State

Troll.

by Jess81 2008-11-19 04:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Richardson for Sec. of State

Honestly, if you are not prepared to read a diarist's argument what is the point of commenting in their diary?

by Shaun Appleby 2008-11-19 12:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Richardson for Sec. of State

Why?  To address CDS.  You and this diarist certainly know what that means....

by ChitownDenny 2008-11-19 01:31PM | 0 recs
oh grow up n/t

by Koan 2008-11-19 03:52PM | 0 recs
Re: oh grow up n/t

If you think Richardson would be a good SoS, you're DERANGED OMG DONCHA KNOW

by Jess81 2008-11-19 04:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Richardson for Sec. of State

by whom?

by Mayor McCheese 2008-11-19 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Richardson for Sec. of State

I think you're replying to the above line stating that he's a good negotiator. Actually, he's considered a phenomenal negotiator. If you don't know about that do some research on him.

by desertjedi 2008-11-19 11:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Richardson for Sec. of State

I've done plenty. I've never seen any evidence of this though.

by Mayor McCheese 2008-11-19 12:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Richardson for Sec. of State

Bill goes to North Korea 4.28.2007
and ..

North Korea backs down, releases political prisoners, comes back to the table.

This was the Lehrer news hour, so ... maybe it was hard to find?

by Trey Rentz 2008-11-19 12:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Richardson for Sec. of State

Woops - sorry correction -
Correct link to results from North Korea talks, that other link was from when he did it once before, and then again seven years later and then .. again (you are not forgotten)  in 2007 and finally - the results of the talks finally end up (after a series of failed attempts by the bush republicans) ... that north korea doesn't want to build nuclear weapons and backs down from their aggressive stance.

Soo. there you go. sorry for the link error above, there are so many examples of richardson being a good negotiator, when I googled them I got one that was 12 years old by mistake.

by Trey Rentz 2008-11-19 12:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Richardson for Sec. of State

Well, name a trouble spot for US interests in the world and he's probably been there negotiating on our behalf:


Clinton in turn sent Richardson on various foreign policy missions, including a trip in 1996 in which Richardson traveled to Baghdad with Peter Bourne and engaged in lengthy one-on-one negotiations with Saddam Hussein to secure the release of two American aerospace workers who had been captured by the Iraqis after wandering over the Kuwaiti border. Richardson also visited Nicaragua, Guatemala, Cuba, Peru, India, North Korea, Bangladesh, Nigeria, and Sudan to represent U.S. interests and met with Slobodan Milosevic. Due to these missions, Richardson was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize three times.

Wikipedia - Bill Richardson

As I recall he was in North Korea as recently as during the primary campaign on a similar mission.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-11-19 12:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Richardson for Sec. of State

Thats right and that actually marked the turning point for the negotiations. I actually met him once, and quite honestly - I have to say he has a disarming charm about him. :-) lol

by Trey Rentz 2008-11-19 12:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Richardson for Sec. of State

World class.  I sometimes wonder that the Stateside 'worldview' doesn't take into account the qualities necessary to represent the US fairly and equitably in a global context.  It is a trait perhaps made more difficult by establishing a persuasive domestic political persona and may explain why Richardson's apparently lacklustre performance during the primary is not reflected in his obvious success on our behalf overseas.  He is a capable American advocate and a respected 'world citizen.'

by Shaun Appleby 2008-11-19 12:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Richardson for Sec. of State

Fact is that Bill Richardson was sized up by Obama for the job just a day after Obama met with Clinton, and was apparently found wanting.  There is a reason Hillary Clinton is the clear frontrunner for the job, and it is hers to accept or turn down.  

by devilrays 2008-11-19 10:56AM | 0 recs
And what is that reason?

It seems like politics to me.

by JJE 2008-11-19 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: And what is that reason?

No,  in fact, all we really know about Bill Richardson is that he's been on the list the entire time.

Its really a test of his own negotiating skills.
We'll see how it comes out.

by Trey Rentz 2008-11-19 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: And what is that reason?

I have to agree. I think there are variables in play here other than the simple "who would be a better SOS". But if Obama picks her based on some of these other variables, I won't blame him.

Honestly, I think either of them would make a fine choice. Who will it be? Definitely HRC...her star is rising. Though I would want her involved in any legislation to improve our healthcare system.

And yeah, the mudslinging at Bill Richardson is getting old. He's made an very good governor for our state. We could do A LOT worse.

by desertjedi 2008-11-19 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: And what is that reason?

Bill did a better job for NM than Clinton ever did for NY

by Trey Rentz 2008-11-19 12:04PM | 0 recs
Re: And what is that reason?

I would disagree here. Clinton's done a phenomenal job and NY has had a lot tougher issues to deal with (I.e. 9/11) .

by Mayor McCheese 2008-11-19 12:07PM | 0 recs
Re: And what is that reason?

You're comparing what Richardson did for NM as a Governor to what Clinton did for NY as a Senator? Nevermind the economy of New York (did I mention it is 14 times larger than New Mexico) and the issues of New York are vastly different that NM.

by RJEvans 2008-11-19 09:57PM | 0 recs
Umm.. we're up to sixty comments

Anyone care to recommend this diary?

by Trey Rentz 2008-11-19 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Umm.. we're up to sixty comments

No.

by Mayor McCheese 2008-11-19 12:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Richardson for Sec. of State

Big recommendation. The Hillary thing has been going on too long. Why Richardson wasn't offered the job right off the bat, beats me.

Hillary is not a team player, and she even admits an inability to subordinate her own views to Obama's. She was called a "war hawk" before the election and there is no reason to believe that her thinking is any different today. She may just not be the diplomatic type.

by MainStreet 2008-11-19 12:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Richardson for Sec. of State

ty ty ! 71 comments. woot

by Trey Rentz 2008-11-19 12:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Richardson for Sec. of State

Not a team player? Excuse me, but you HAVE to be a team player in the Senate. She IS a team player in the New York delegation, she WAS a team player from June to November for Barack Obama. Give me a break.

by RJEvans 2008-11-19 09:58PM | 0 recs
Richardson is who I am hoping for;

Clinton is who I am betting on.

by teknofyl 2008-11-19 12:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Richardson for Sec. of State

He's definitely my number two choice. Number three is far behind.

I agree with you about Holder but I think that "stroke of genius" is broader than you think.

by JimR 2008-11-19 01:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Richardson for Sec. of State

my first instinct was to vote for Richardson, so not a hater. but, since then, my opinion of him has really shifted. this is all "i know a guy who knows a guy stuff..." so take it for what it's worth, but I do know two people who have worked with him and each report very negatively that, in short, he's a grandstander, lightweight, has zipper problems, and is hated by his staff. his gay gaffe didn't help on that front, nor do reports that he openly admitted backstage to his colleagues that his promise of immediate withdrawal was B.S..

is all that true, I don't know. but I trust them enough that I switched off of him before I voted in the primary.

I'm okay with Hilllary as SoS, but I really don't want Hegel, Lugar, Richardson, and certainly not Kerry. Why not go to the guys who really know their business like Holbrooke or Talbott? I'd rather that than either republicans or Dem lightweights like Kerry or Richardson. Hillary I can see in that she does have the gravitas that flows out of being so well known, and she's obviously a policy wonk and shared 99% of Obama's views. But, if not her, please go with a foreign policy pro.

by CalDem 2008-11-19 03:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Richardson for Sec. of State

Put him back at Energy. Unlike every admin since Carter, energy is going to be a top priority, second only to the economy (and related to it as part of the stimulus packages). someone who knows the department and is a top person who can institute big reforms integrating the new policies is needed.

by oyo 2008-11-19 03:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Richardson for Sec. of State

honestly, I find Bill Richardson to be so uninspiring. It is in my opinion, again OPINION, that he lacks the persona for the job. He's lukewarm to me, of course he does have experience but experience can only get you so far if you lack the ability to command the job. [does that make sense?]

anyways, I think it'll be just fine with whoever Obama picks. Honestly, the criticism I see leveled against Clinton for SoS is both justified and equally silly. Ppl are kicking and screaming that she's anything but 'change' and she's the politics of the past. But hey look at his cabinet so far, all ex-Clintonites. So I think that arguement is really just plain silly.

The only justifiable thing that disqualifies her is Bill and the conflicts of interest that he brings. That is an absolutely real and rational con against her.

As for the arguement that she is too different in style from Obama, I thought he like that sort of thing; differing opinions and what not.

'She's not a team player' well my counter argument would be that she worked for team Obama quite well when the GE came along so..er.. yeah...

[this is an incredibly long post.]

Im sure Obama has thought out his choice fully.

by alyssa chaos 2008-11-19 05:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Richardson for Sec. of State

Eh, maybe.  I guess I prefer him to Kerry, but I'm not sure that I would prefer him to Clinton, who seems tougher than Richardson.  I don't really get too jazzed about cabinet picks unless the choice is completely unqualified.

I do wonder how a Clinton pick would affect our policy in the Middle East as compared to a Richardson pick.  Obama and Clinton were fairly gung ho about using force against Iran, if necessary, during the primaries.  Perhaps due to his spectacular lack of electoral success, Richardson never really had to weigh in on that topic, to my knowledge.  How that would affect foreign perceptions, I'm not sure.

by rfahey22 2008-11-19 06:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Richardson for Sec. of State

You've all convinced me. I don't want either Richardson or Clinton as SoS.

by nathanp 2008-11-19 07:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Richardson for Sec. of State

Kerry it is then.

by Drummond 2008-11-19 08:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Richardson for Sec. of State

NO. Not Kerry, he would bore our friends and adversaries before he could negotiate anything.

by RJEvans 2008-11-19 09:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Richardson for Sec. of State

Bill Clinton, at the start of his presidency, showed that there's a real cost that comes with picking a "green" (inexperienced) cabinet.

I think bringing lots of new people into the cabinet would be a great idea under normal circumstances.  But these aren't normal circumstances.  America is in big trouble, and Obama and his team will have no time to learn.  That's why you're seeing so many "conservative" cabinet picks.

by baghdadjoe 2008-11-20 08:55AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads