You say that Richardson doesnt have a chance of winning the nomination. I ask, in 2003, did you say the same thing about John Kerry? Did anyone (and I mean ANYONE) predict that Kerry would be the nominee? Ill go out on a limb and say, not only do I think Richardson can win it, I think he WILL win it. Mark my words, and in six months, be sure to come back to this same page and post congratulations on my amazing powers as a political seer.

Ron Paul/Bill Richardson Unity '08!

HRC before the VFW: "We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar Province, it's working. We're just years too late changing our tactics. We can't ever let that happen again. We can't be fighting the last war; we have to be preparing to fight the new war."

Is this the voice of someone that is going to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq?

Clinton, Biden, Obama and Edwards aren't confident enough in their judgment to stand up to the military and political establishment on Iraq or lack the foreign policy expertise to order a complete withdrawal should they get elected. We saw this at the recent debate in Iowa. They'll keep forces in Iraq for years to come.

What difference then will there be on the most important issue of the campaign between the Democratic and Republican Presidential nominees?

The path out of Iraq for the Senators will be a long march spread over years. That will be true as well with any Republican Presidential nominee.

With Richardson, our forces will be out - completely - by the end of 2009.

Amen, Bill. This is realism not the Hillary brand. Our way to bring the Middle East and Persian gulf into the 21st century and force them to reform their religion and be functional in a global manner is with a strong energy conservation policy,a hands off attitude and disarmament, nuclear and nonnuclear and press other nations to follow. As far as bloodshed in the Middle East, let the Islamic factions kill each other for a couple of decades or how long it takes to move toward secular, non-religious policies. It will not affect us greatly if we are free from the oil addiction. Let us use the $700 billion we are spending in
Iraq to, fund a real immigration reform that educates our new citizens and a new Alliance for Progress in Latin America, including Mexico, which will keep most immigrants home with their better jobs, earnings and their families. We can stand the current immigration flow as long as it becomes two-way. Lets also end this war on terror and show the world we are a democracy. Lead by example, not slogans or a high-tech military.

W.C.

Unfortunately, Congress Kucinich is about 30 years too late. If he were out there stomping during the days of the 'Great Society', he would probably be President of the United States of America.

Today, he is being treated, unfortunately, like a caricature.

P.S. Look at ABC's own poll results for the debate.

I just wanted to try to take an informal poll of smart people like washington post readers.

Did ABC censor Congressman Kucinich in the debate today? If so, what do you think was the motive? If not, why do you think he only got one question in the first 40 minutes of the debate?

My question, based on the last quote there, is how, exactly, does Fred Thompson differentiate a regional crisis from a civil war? Judging by the actions of the Bush Administration, Thompson doesn't seem to be able to, and that is troubling. I would ask him how a relatively minor WMD rumor in post Cold-War Middle East constituted a "regional crisis" worthy of (continued) military action while a similar conflict in Africa (Dufar) did not. Surely he understands that Central Africa is a far less stable place than pre-invasion Iraq was. Sadly it sounds as if Thompson is still clinging to the Bush ideal of the US as some sort of Global Hall Monitor, not realizing that such a naive position leads us ultimately to using US military resources in essentially over-hyped, under-planned babysitting missions. This ridiculous, half-cocked type of empire building has not succeeded in bringing any new, functioning democracies into the world; only corrupt, failing, or failed "states" have resulted. At least Hilary is smart enough to pretend she doesn't believe in this rubbish anymore.

Trust always in Reason

Archimedes Jr.

Posted by: Archimedes
My question, based on the last quote there, is how, exactly, does Gov. Richardson differentiate a regional crisis from a civil war? Judging by the actions of the Clinton Administration, which the Governor worked for, he doesn't seem to be able to, and that is troubling. I would ask him how a relatively minor civil conflict in post Cold-War Eastern Europe constituted a "regional crisis" worthy of (continued) military action while a similar conflict in Africa (Rwanda) did not. Surely he understands that Central Africa is a far less stable place than Europe. Sadly it sounds as if Richardson is still clinging to the Clintonian ideal of the US as some sort of Global Hall Monitor, not realizing that such a naieve position leads us ultimately to using US military resources in essentailly over-hyped, under-planned babysitting missions. This ridiculous, half-cocked type of empire building has not succeeded in bringing any new, functioning democracies into the world; only corrupt, failing, or failed "states" have resulted. At least Hilary is smart enough to pretend she doesn't believe in this rubbish anymore.
Trust always in Reason
Archimedes

I too like Richardson. How sad we live in a country where so many think the best qualified candidate doesn't have a chance to become elected! I can only wonder where our country would be today if we'd had television and imagine makers back in early years of the republic!

Ironically, Bill Richardson forgets that one factor that may lead states to seek nuclear weapons is the overwhelming conventional and economic dominance of the US. For many weak states (Iran, Russia, Pakistan etc.) nuclear weapons are a short cut to global importance. Reducing US nuclear arsenals will not actually lead to these states doing anything as they will simply cheat on agreements. Like it or not those who have nuclear weapons are generally stuck with them!

i've thought richardson was the democratic candidate for the presidency since the beginning - and i think he can win.

i'm 30 years old and i live in a very RED state. richardson is the ONLY candidate that has real foreign policy experience, aside from joe biden, who also isn't having much success in the debates but is pretty good 1x1. but for me, my vote is for richardson.

as far as i'm concerned, he is the only candidate with the combination of deep foreign policy experience, a proven commitment to alternative energy, and has a real plan to end the iraq war.

i care about other issues as well - but if i have to list my top three concerns when electing a new president - richardson will deal head on with my most pressing issues - as well as know what to do and how to do it internationally.

bill richardson will also do strikingly well in red states like mine. he's got the easy way of being that people liked in bush. he looks visually like a "good dad". he smiles easily. he's balanced budgets.

the only republican that even has a shot in my state is romney - and richardson vs. romney in the general election would do nothing but solidify richardson's experience against a man who insanely wants to double Guantanamo, mirror our healthcare on hezbola and is connected with treating his dog badly . . .

richardson will win.

Richardson was my choice from the start.But after watching him in the debates I saw that he just didn't come across as well as others and I reluctantly decided he probably would not make it. He needs to be in the new administration. He's done alot of good for people in NM.Not to mention a terrific diplomat.
So its Hillary.

Bill Richardson is clearly the best choice for President in 2008. I hope Americans realize this in time to make it happen.

Having read this, I'm now getting more interested in Richardson as a candidate. My problem as a voter is how to determine just how much clout he would have in office. Assuming that we do not want another royal presidency, a lot would depend on his choice of advisors.

Hi-
Bill Richardson's comments about Iraq begs the question of the real bugaboo in American foreign policy, the tendency to think we are and act as if we are alone on an increasingly interdependent planet. American withdrawel from the mess we made in Iraq without a realistic clean-up plan would be as welcome to our neighbors as someone tearing up your lawn all night and just walking away. I am surprised that he doesn't apply the wisdom he showed for nukes (in terms of negotiations with other nations to Iraq. Part of the problem is that he really knows something about nukes (he was an Energy Secretary), and so the obvious is easier to accept there. The other is some candidates have been hammered for suggesting that we talk to some of Iraq's neighbors about the problem. It should be obvious that no realistic solution is possible without the involvement of Iraq's neighbors, as well as other entities such as the EU. That's a lot of what Bosnia was about, a determination by the neighbors of Bosnia that genocide was now unacceptable in Europe and stability was important enough to risk intervention. Different determinations are now playing in Iraq. Turkey is concerned about Kurdish autonomy, the Sunni monarchies about Shi'a autonomy, and Iran about homocidal religionists fighting a war for purity, and Israel about keeping their restive Arab underclass under control - all survival issues. Richardson will have to propose a regional/UN plan, coupled with the equivalent of a Marshall plan to rebuild the shattered nations left in the wake of our actions to address these interests to make American withdrawal feasible. Otherwise, he is just as realistic, but probably less downright cynical than Cheney's stay the course until we leave the White House. 2009out.

Clinging to a "Clintonian ideal" [Archimedes, above] may serve Richardson well. At least Bill Clinton didn't lose a man in Bosnia and sent Milosevic to history's ash heap. And he didn't let the neocons suck him into an Iraq debacle, unlike Bush, whose "ridiculous, half-cocked empire building" [Archimedes] has resulted in the worst American geopolitical blunder in modern times. And made Bush the worst American president in American history. The more the "loyal Bushies" try to pin the blame on Clinton for their own mistakes, the more popular Clinton seems to get and the more favorable, in retrospect, he compares to the "Great Decider" we're stuck with now.

My question, based on the last quote there, is how, exactly, does Gov. Richardson differentiate a regional crisis from a civil war? Judging by the actions of the Clinton Administration, which the Governor worked for, he doesn't seem to be able to, and that is troubling. I would ask him how a relatively minor civil conflict in post Cold-War Eastern Europe constituted a "regional crisis" worthy of (continued) military action while a similar conflict in Africa (Rwanda) did not. Surely he understands that Central Africa is a far less stable place than Europe. Sadly it sounds as if Richardson is still clinging to the Clintonian ideal of the US as some sort of Global Hall Monitor, not realizing that such a naieve position leads us ultimately to using US military resources in essentailly over-hyped, under-planned babysitting missions. This ridiculous, half-cocked type of empire building has not succeeded in bringing any new, functioning democracies into the world; only corrupt, failing, or failed "states" have resulted. At least Hilary is smart enough to pretend she doesn't believe in this rubbish anymore.

Trust always in Reason

Archimedes

Richardson might yet have a chance if he would separate himself from the other Democratic candidates. How? By attacking the Republican candidates for blindly supporting Bush on the war, which is the issue Democratic voters care most about. By talking about health care--the second-most important issue--in terms of the Democratic Party's history of enacting Social Security and Medicare over fierce Republican opposition.
Hillary is winning by default because none of the others has shown a willingness to go bare-knuckle with the Party of Rove. It is by savaging the Republicans--Bush, Cheney, their Congress and the slow-learning presidential candidates--that Richardson could attract support from Democrats who are disgusted with the timidity of, e.g., the recent House Democrat cave-in on the wiretap law.
What has he got to lose?

The fault lies with the American voters...

unfortunately, the way that the American political election process works (especially during the general election cycle), candidates say what they have to and spend a lot of money, then along with the help of the Supreme Court they get elected President.

Being principled alone, regrettably, will not result in a candidate being elected to the highest office in the land in the United States of America - we know that.

And given the border problem and the matter of Bill Richardson's ethnic background, he will never be taken seriously as a candidate by the majority, even with his vast political background, his experience and his abilities.

Bill will have to get down and get dirty if he is to have a shot at all!

After hearing what the others have to offer by exit strategy in Iraq, Bill Richardson was the only one who got my attention.

All Richardson offers is experience, experience, experience.

"We can leverage our own proposed reductions to get the other nuclear powers to do the same -- and simultaneously get the non-nuclear powers to forego both weapons and nuclear fuel enrichment, and to agree to rigorous global safeguards and verification procedures."

Why would anyone be dumb enough to think that India or Pakistan would be motivated to reduce their nuclear arsenals because we pledged to reduce our own? Pakistan's nuclear program is primarily targeted at India, and vis versa. Logic dictates that neither state will reduce its arsenal as long as the state of rivalry continues. And, given that India and China are not always on the best terms, probably even a rapprochement between India and Pakistan would fail to change India's nuclear posture. Although other nuclear states have motivations that are different from those of India or Pakistan, I don't see why any would care that much about whether the U.S. was maintaining its arsenal at 75, 750 or 7500 weapons - Does Richardson really think that allied nuclear states like Israel, Britain or France are worried about the size of our arsenal? As for Iran and North Korea, they have pursued their programs precisely because they believe we aren't ruthless enough to use our nuclear arsenal preemptively, so why give them even further proof of this view?

"A regional crisis is worthy of military intervention. A true threat to our country's security is worthy of war. But a struggle between a country's warring factions, where both sides hate the United States, is not worthy of one more lost American life."

If Richardson wants to see what a real regional crisis looks like, then he could do no better than to withdraw our troops from Iraq precipitously.

Unless he is much dumber than he appears, Richardson's statements are best viewed as a cynical and desperate ploy to impress the gullible peaceniks that flock to Democratic primaries and, as such, it is hardly surprising that Arkin is foolish enough to fall for such a tactic.

Richardson has a very good chance.

Just as I have trouble finding those 26% who think Iraq is going just fine, I also have trouble finding those huge percentages of Democratic voters who supposedly have already pledged support to Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. My sense is the "likely voters" who put the troika ahead in straw polls probably just recognize the names better, but real enthusiasm for any of those three is lukewarm at best on the Democratic street.

Richardson is also the ONLY Democratic candidate with a clear history of 2nd Amendment support, something that would matter more in the general election perhaps than the Democratic nomination race. He'd certainly trounce Romney & Giuliani on the 2nd Amendment alone, not mentioning his solid foreign affairs credentials.

Bill Richardson might make a very good Secretary of State. I'm not so sure about President.