Bill Richardson's report card

We would imagine Bill Richardson's campaign is feeling pretty good about itself these days. And we're more than willing to take note of positive developments for the New Mexico governor.

But allow us to chime in with a little unpaid advice: as the campaign intensifies after the summer, and lots of voters start paying much more attention to the various forums and debates, Richardson would be well-advised to better prepare for obvious questions and better articulate his answers.

First, the good news for the Democratic presidential contender:

          * The $7-plus million he reported raising in the year's second quarter --- while dwarfed by the figures Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton posted --- was a solid number for Richardson, given his place in the race.

 

          * In Washington last week, he gave a serious, thoughtful speech on dealing with Iran that played to his strengths --- his background as a diplomat and negotiator.

          * Pollster.com, a clearing-house for surveys of every stripe in the presidential contest, took note of what it termed "his substantial movement in Iowa" and improved showing in New Hampshire. "While Richardson is still in fourth place in both states ... his is the only trajectory that is clearly moving up," the site said.

          * Richardson apparently stole the show over the weekend in Florida as the Democratic White House hopefuls strutted their stuff to a gathering of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials. According to one account, he was easily the crowd favorite, winning "several rounds of applause and three standing ovations."

Still, we can't shake from our memories his response at the recent candidate forum at Washington's Howard University, when asked how he would lessen the scourge of AIDS among young African Americans.

That's the question Clinton hit out of the park, sparking a huge response when she told the largely black audience that if AIDS "was the leading cause of death of white women between the age of 25 and 34, there would be an outraged outcry in this country."

But Richardson actually had first crack at the question. To his credit, he quickly tried to get into specifics for confronting the health crisis. But as he did so, he handled it ineptly.

"First, we've got to have -- we have to use needles," he said. And then he moved on to another thought.

Now, presumably Richardson was referring to needle exchange programs. Those are the controversial efforts in many communities to reduce the sharing of contaminated syringes --- an easy way to pass on the HIV virus --- by supplying clean needles to drug users. And presumably many in the crowd, and the national television audience, understood his reference. But it's a good bet some didn't, or at best had only a vague clue what Richardson was talking about.

On he pressed, again short-handing his message. To combat AIDS, he said as he neared the time limit for his answer, Richardson called for "finding ways to increase needles... ."

Frankly, we don't think Richardson really wanted to be on the record calling for more needles out there. And if this had been an uncharacteristic stumble, we could cut him some slack. But it wasn't. For the most part --- his performance at the Latino event being the exception --- he's been an underachiever at the candidate debates and forums, struggling to effectively communicate. Eventually, that could stall whatever momentum he claims in other aspects of the campaign.

-- Don Frederick 

Comments

[Stephen Cassidy]

Yes, Richardson needs to improve his debate skills but it's early and there are plenty of debates in the coming months. He is at a disadvantage - he didn't go to law school and doesn't think like a lawyer - which is excellent training for debate. Clinton, Obama, Biden and Dodd are all lawyers. Richardson went to graduate school in diplomacy and international relations, an area that he has excelled in all his life. But performing well in debates is part of getting elected President and he needs to do better in his style and presentation.

With the exception of the AIDS answer, however, the substance of Richardson's responses has been strong. Look at what Richardson said in response to the question of economic growth and tax unfairness. He advocated repealing the Bush tax cuts at the very top of the income bracket, which other candidates did as well. But Richardson would go much further by replacing the Bush tax cuts with tax cuts for the middle class and to promote job growth, including in the inner cities and rural areas. Richardson stated: "We need to rebuild this economy by being pro-growth Democrats. We should be the party of innovation, of entrepreneurship, of building capital, getting capital for African American small businesses. We need to find a way in this country that we say that globalization must work for the middle class."

Richardson's voice on this issue is important. He is the only Democratic candidate in the race with executive branch experience and success in working with local communities, private corporations and public entities in creating thousands of new, quality jobs.

Contrast Richardson's answer with Clinton's answer where she called for lifting the cap on payroll taxes - which got no press coverage. Somehow I don't think parents in LA in their 40's and early 50's with kids in college and elderly parents to take care feel rich even if they are earning $100,000 a year. Clinton's proposal will hit them hard and hurt the economy. Richardson's vision for economic prosperity in America is the best of all Democrats.

Finally, for those that think Richardson has no chance, he's doing better in Iowa now than Kerry was in November 2003. It's a long way to January 2008. As Iowans meet him and learn of his record of accomplishment, he'll continue to move up in the polls. Of all the Democrats running, if Richardson gets the nomination, he'll carry the Democrats to victory in November 2008 in a landslide.

[RJB]

Your comment makes little sense. It seems more like a cheap shot. Since you know so much, why don't you run for president?