Iowa newspaper touts Richardson's ABC News debate performance

Barack Obama is getting high marks for his strong showing during the debate on Sunday morning.  The media seems to have reached a consensus that the Illinois Senator won.  Also, an ABC News poll of debate viewers shows Obama had the strongest performance of any other competitor.  Hillary Clinton finished second.

The Des Moines Register, Iowa's most well-known newspaper, does not leave out Bill Richardson, who during the segment on Iraq got into a heated crossfire with Senator Biden about when to leave:

Bill Richardson also had a good morning, turning in his best debate of the campaign.  So did Joe Biden.

Those two engaged in a lively exchange over the question of how fast to get outof Iraq. All the Democratic candidates want to leave, the question ishow and it was elucidating to see Richardson, a former UN ambassador,and Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,argue the matter.

Most Democrats are emotionally with Richardson -- let's get the heck out now -- but many also understand Biden's point that getting out quickly may be impossible and could lead to bigger problems.

Neithercandidate really "won" that exchange. Instead, viewers got to see thedifficulty the nation will have in extricating itself from the conflict.

Richardson gets high marks for his performance because for the first time in the campaign he was able to press his campaign's essential point:  He represents both change -- because he'd be the first Latino president -- and experience, because he's a governor, former congressman, diplomat and Energy Secretary.  Richardson's been moving up in polls in Iowa and today's performance should help.

In theory: Change Experience = equals higher poll numbers for Richardson.  But there are also key traits that the New Mexico Governor must show, like charisma and electability.  Once he is recognized by voters as carrying all four traits -- experience, change, charisma and electability -- then he will have a shot at the nomination.  He still has a long way to do.

Comments

[Stephen Cassidy]

I am concerned that Clinton, Obama and Edwards ultimately aren't confident enough in their judgment and lack the foreign policy expertise to order a complete withdrawal should they get elected. We saw this today again at the 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? No Republican will be advocating an endless commitment to Iraq. Everyone will be critical to a degree of how Bush has prosecuted the war.

The path out of Iraq for Clinton, Obama and Edwards will be long march spread over years. That will be true as well with any Republican Presidential nominee.

William M. Arkin who writes on National and Homeland Security for the Washington Post recently commented:

It is on Iraq though, that Richardson really shines. "I believe that we need to withdraw all of our troops within six months," he writes. "Other than the customary Marine contingent at the embassy, I would not leave anyone behind. And if the embassy isn't safe, they're coming home too. No airbases. No troops in the Green Zone. No embedded soldiers training Iraqi forces, because we know what that means. It means our troops would still be out on patrol -- with targets on their backs."

We are spending $10 billion a month on Iraq, Richardson says. "Of the many ways in which Mr. Bush's ill-conceived war has distracted us from our real national security needs, this is the most dangerous," he concludes. "There is not a single sign that Iraq is improving. To the contrary, every indication is that it's getting worse, and a smaller force will do nothing to change that."

And so Bill Richardson says something that the other candidates evidently can't or won't: "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."

Source: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/08/bill_richardson_the_man_who_wo.html?nav=rss_blog

[Chief Editor: Todd]

That was a very well-thought-out comment, Stephen. I am much more confident that Obama or Edwards would remove all troops than I am confident Clinton would do the same. I think Richardson really does understand, from a political standpoint, what an American occupational face does to Iraq. You need a regional summit, getting all the leaders together -- even putting the Saudis and Iranians in one room. They are the key players.

Do those two countries desire to spend an endless sum of treasury financing a war that only brings about Middle East instability? Of course not. The Iranian economy is in shambles. The only thing keeping Ahmadinejad with a positive approval rating is the fact that US forces are on their doorstep -- so there's a nationalist reaction amongst the Iranian citizenry. Take US forces out of the equation, and suddenly Ahmadinejad has to start focusing a lot more on his country's economy, or face the potential of a growing liberal movement within the younger demographic. Richardson really understands this complexity.....and he would be an excellent foreign policy president.

[M. Sheridan]

NOne of the other three said forces will stay in Iraq for years. A year maybe, but not multiple years.

You may have been listening to another debate washington post. Yes, on Richardson - good parlay on getting the saudi's and others together, in that it would take a regional approach. And that he believes in getting out once and for all.

of the three leaders, i'm inclined to think that Edwards would have the smartest drawdown, adn do it in relatively quick time.

Of course, Richardson would also - though i think he has no chance of being elected. To that point, i wouldn't mind seeing either an Obama/richardson ticket or Edwards/Richardson. Adding richardson to one of these, gives these guys more international policy strength and more of the Southwest and Western states

[C. McLindsay]

Sorry, but I simply don't see the draw of the present leaders or Richardson at this point. None have the understanding of Biden on Iraq and none of them give me the confidence they can and will lead in a forthright and competent way that Sen. Biden does.

Wanting something new will never trump wanting something capable, at least in my way of thinking

[Chief Editor: Todd]

Specifically, what does Biden understand about Iraq that Richardson doesn't?