But does he like long walks on the beach?

There's no "lust in my heart" moment, but Bill Richardson lays himself bare, so to speak, in the December issue of Playboy -- a bit of exposure that isn't likely to help him lure many female voters away from Hillary Clinton.

Since the site carries a fee to read the interview, conducted by Jeff Greenfield, we thought we'd give you a few highlights from the press release:

“The first week I’m president I would take on three issues, and we would have to come up with solutions -- bipartisan solutions. One is Iraq. We’ve got to get out. The second is our $9 trillion deficit. Third is Social Security and Medicare.”

“I don’t try to imitate [Bill Clinton]. This has always been my style. But yes, there’s a little bit of Bill Clinton in me. One of the things that used to drive me nuts about him, though, was how he would try to convince his enemies he was a good guy. He’d sometimes spend more time talking to his enemies than to his friends. I don’t believe I’m like that, but I do believe you try to seek common ground in order to convince somebody."

“I like sports. I’m a regular person. I don’t make any pretenses. I like the arts -- I like modern art -- but I’d rather spend time watching a football game or a baseball game. I go to the opera and leave at intermission. I like to smoke a cigar.”

There's more but you get the idea. In the interview Richardson comes across much as he does in one-on-one encounters, sounding a little brash at times, but engaging.

For those of you who like to see candidates' words with fewer pictures, Richardson also has joined the parade of published political authors with the release of "Leading by Example" -- his take on how to fix the nation's problems.

The debates, a book and now a Playboy interview -- fortunately, politicians never fear over-exposure.

-- Scott Martelle

Comments

[Stephen Cassidy]

It is time for the media to stop touting the prowess of the Clinton political machine and focus on the defining issue of the 2008 Presidential campaign: the path out of Iraq for the U.S. Otherwise, Iraq may be the defining issue of the 2012 campaign.

Whom should the public trust to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq? Candidate A or B.

Candidate A pledges to end the war but has no plan to do so. Instead, Candidate A intends to ask military and diplomatic advisers to study the issue and develop a plan after taking office.

For advice on presently, Candidate A relies upon persons that believe the war has gone wrong because of poor leadership by the Bush Administration but that the decision to invade was correct. Many of these same advisers have supported the surge and see the U.S. intervention in Iraq continuing for at least another decade. When directly questioned, Candidate A refuses to commit to bringing all U.S. troops home by 2013.

Candidate B says as long as U.S. troops are stationed in Iraq the hard work of reconciliation among Iraqi factions is postponed. Candidate B has called for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq now, pledges to bring all U.S. troops (both combat and non-combat) home promptly upon taking office and has offered a plan to achieve this.

Candidate B is being advised by military and diplomatic experts that have been highly critical of the U.S. intervention in the Iraq and strongly advocate an immediate exit from Iraq.

Candidate A is Hillary Clinton; candidate B is Bill Richardson.

What is Clinton's actual plan for leaving Iraq? In the time honored tradition of politicians that recognize an issue must be addressed but lack any understanding to how to do so, Clinton calls for a study. As explained on her campaign website:

"As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration."

Clinton doesn't say the U.S. will begin withdrawing from Iraq in 60 days. Instead, Clinton simply asks the military and other advisers to give her a plan within two months.

This begs the question: what if Clinton's advisers repeat the mantra of the D.C. political and military establishment that Iraq is too unstable and a withdrawal of our forces will threaten U.S. interests in the region?

What is clear is that Clinton lacks confidence in her own judgment. Instead, Clinton relies upon the architects of the Iraq morass and those that have deemed the surge successful to advise her of the course of action to take in Iraq. We can expect her advisers plan for Iraq will be a hawkish plan.

How can I make this charge? Look at whom is advising Clinton today on Iraq and military affairs. Among her military advisers, as reported earlier this year in the Washington Post, are Gen. John ("Jack") Keane, a former Army vice chief of staff; Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy, former deputy chief of staff for intelligence; retired Lt. Gen. Donald Kerrick, who served as President Clinton's deputy national security adviser; retired Col. Andrew Krepinevich, president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments; and Michael O'Hanlon, Brookings senior fellow.

These are the persons that will form her inner circle of advisers should she become President. Let's examine each of these persons.

Jack Keane was "Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army during Iraq war planning" and at one time an outspoken in supporter of Rumsfeld. In July 2003, Keane praised Tommy Franks' war plan for the Iraq campaign as "bold and brilliant."

There never was a comprehensive plan in place to secure and rebuild the country. Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who commanded our forces in Iraq, recently stated that our war plan was "catastrophically flawed [and] unrealistically optimistic."

In July 2004, Keane admitted in testimony that: "We did not see it (the insurgency) coming. And we were not properly prepared and organized to deal with it . . . . Many of us got seduced by the Iraqi exiles in terms of what the outcome would be."

Fast forward to December 2006, whom is meeting with President Bush and advocating an escalation of the war in what became known as the "surge"? Yes, the answer is Keane. He along with Frederick Kagan developed the strategy of the surge.

Recently Bill Sammon, a Washington Examiner correspondent and author of a new book titled "The Evangelical President," reported that President Bush has been sending messages to Clinton to urge her to "maintain some political wiggle room in your campaign rhetoric about Iraq." One wonders if Keane is the person serving as Bush's liaison to Clinton on Iraq.

Claudia Kennedy, another supporter of the war, was "absolutely" certain Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. In April 2003, when asked why no WMD had been discovered, she responded:

"If absolutely nothing was found after months of thorough searching, my question would be -- where was it shipped? If such weapons are not in the country, they must have been shipped out because we absolutely know they were there."

Kennedy believes that it is not our invasion of Iraq that has caused so much difficulty for the U.S. Rather, the war has been botched by President Bush. Kennedy recently made national headlines when she stated:

"I don't oppose the war. I think it's being very badly led by the civilian leadership. I have not ever heard (Clinton) say, 'I oppose the war.'"

Donald Kerrick wrote an essay last year entitled "Iraq Not Lost Yet". While calling for a review of our strategy in Iraq, Kerrick opposed those he labeled as advocating the U.S. cut and run. Such a course would lose Iraq to the extremists.

Andrew Krepinevich believes a sustained U.S. presence is crucial to the future of Iraq. The U.S. has no choice in Iraq because if we leave Iraq will descend into civil war.

In October 2005, Krepinevich published an essay criticizing the U.S. intervention in Iraq as lacking a coherent strategy which resulted in the failure of U.S. forces to defeat the insurgency or improve security.

Krepinevich believed a winning strategy for Iraq could still be developed, one that focused on providing security to Iraqis rather than hunting down insurgents. However, "victory" in Iraq will come at a steep price according to Krepinevich:

"Even if successful, this strategy will require at least a decade of commitment and hundreds of billions of dollars and will result in longer U.S. casualty rolls. But this is the price that the United States must pay if it is to achieve its worthy goals in Iraq."

This year, Krepinevich sees the surge, if successful, resulting in American forces staying "in Iraq for decades -- much as we have in Korea, for example, to ensure the security of that part of the world, we will have to have 30,000, 40,000 soldiers in Iraq, I think indefinitely."

Michael O'Hanlon is another supporter of President Bush's surge. In an Op Ed entitled "A War We Just Might Win" published in the New York Times in July 2007, O'Hanlon argued, "We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms."

After the debate at Dartmouth College where Clinton, Edwards and Obama each refused to commit to withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq by 2013, O'Hanlon praised them for their "flexibility" on Iraq. "I think the Democratic position allows all three of the top people to move in the Republican direction if things move around in the next twelve months," O'Hanlon stated.

It is time for reporters media to stop touting the prowess of the Clinton political machine and return their focus to the defining issue of the 2008 Presidential campaign: the path out of Iraq for the U.S. Otherwise, Iraq may be the defining issue in 2012.

Clinton is not demonstrating the qualities of leadership we need in our next President to end the war in Iraq. She talks like a dove in Iowa and votes as a hawk in Washington, D.C. We should expect U.S. troops fighting and dying in Iraq for years to come under a Clinton Presidency.

With Richardson, we have a candidate that will end the U.S. intervention in Iraq and set U.S. foreign policy on a new path that embraces the world and addresses the pressing issues of climate change, global poverty and energy use facing our planet.