Bill Richardson

A Democratic donnybrook

The debate was rich in sound and fury, but did little lasting damage to unruffled frontrunner Barack Obama.

Bill Richardson — who limped into New Hampshire after winning only 2 percent support in the Iowa caucuses — finally had the debate moment that all underdog candidates crave. After listening to the tag team of front-runner Barack Obama and Iowa silver medalist John Edwards battle with the suddenly vulnerable Hillary Clinton, the almost-forgotten Richardson finally had a chance to utter his one-liner: “Well, I’ve been in hostage negotiations that are a lot more civil than this.”

While featuring moments of intriguing drama, the final Democratic debate before the New Hampshire primary did not in itself change the contours of the race. (Truth-in-journalism disclosure: All verdicts rendered in a press room late at night always should be considered tentative). Clinton’s critiques of Obama, which had been advertised in get-ready-for-this fashion by her campaign since her third-place finish in Iowa, turned out to be little more than a series of charges that the first-term Illinois senator had been (gasp!) a sometime flip-flopper. Since Saturday was Fight Night on ABC — and the undercard GOP debate featured withering attacks on the zigzagging Mitt Romney — Obama’s sins of inconsistency seemed minor in comparison.

The highlight of the debate was an intense 10 minutes (with the only lightness provided by the Richardson hostage-negotiator crack) as the three leading candidates argued fiercely over…well…not that much really.

Clinton was the instigator as she challenged Obama over minor differences between his rhetoric as a 2004 Senate candidate and his actual voting record in Congress. She also launched into what may have appeared to most voters as an arcane argument over Obama’s health-care plan and its lack of a “mandate” to require everyone to purchase coverage. In truth, Obama’s proposal is less sweeping than the programs advanced by first Edwards and then Clinton. But these are small-bore differences — and any Democrat elected in 2008 will rewrite the plan for universal coverage once in the White House.

What really was going on had nothing to do with health care. Clinton was trying to use the issue to suggest that Obama is really not the knight in shining armor that he seems, but instead is just another politician tacking with the winds. As she put it — and the awkwardness of the phrasing undermined her argument — “I think that what we’re looking for is a president we can count on, that you know where that president is yesterday, today and tomorrow.

The emotional turning point in the debate came when Clinton rushed to fault Obama for having supposedly once said that Edwards was not electable. It is a rule in political debates that once your rivals begin defending you, it is a signal that you are irrelevant as a candidate. Joe Biden and Chris Dodd — the Democrats voted off the island in the Iowa caucuses — were constantly crowned with laurel leaves in prior debates because they were not a threat to anyone.

But Edwards was not to be patronized. Suddenly, in a tactical shift, the 2004 vice presidential nominee joined forces with his erstwhile rival Obama. “You know, Senator Obama and I have our differences,” Edwards said before mischievously adding, “But both of us are powerful voices for change.”

Whap! Two candidates for change and, by implication, one candidate for the status quo. Then Edwards turned the knife by harking back to Clinton-Obama dustup: “I didn’t hear these kind of attacks from Sen. Clinton when she was ahead. Now that she’s not, we hear them.”

What seems obvious is that Edwards believes that he can slip past a potentially fading Clinton for second place in New Hampshire, which was once thought to be her firewall state. The initial post-Iowa-caucus polls in New Hampshire show Edwards running third, about 10 percentage points behind Obama and Clinton. But in state notorious for its well-informed but late-deciding voters, this is an unlikely, but not impossible, amount of ground to make up in the next two days.

Obama may have won the Saturday night debate simply by coming across as substantive and unruffled. There was almost a bemused tone in his voice as he flicked off Clinton’s attacks. As in many debates, it is difficult afterwards to recall much that Obama said, but he consistently seemed in command while saying it.

There were points in the debate when Clinton’s exasperation at her suddenly perilous position shone through. She gave what was, at essence, her life philosophy when she said with an edge in her voice, “Making change is not about what you believe. It’s not about a speech you make. It’s about working hard. There are 7,000 kids in New Hampshire who have health care because I helped create the Children’s Health Insurance Program.”

It took Obama a while to get a chance to respond to the words-versus-deeds issue, but when he did, he delivered his most eloquent speech of the evening. “There have been periods of time in our history where a president inspired the American people to do better,” he argued. “And I think we’re in one of those moments right now. I think the American people are hungry for something different and can be mobilized around big changes; not incremental changes, not small changes.”

There is a temptation in covering politics to look at a debate in isolation, as if undecided voters will get all their direction from 90 minutes of back-and-forth banter. But what the final New Hampshire face-off did was to add a bit of color and shading to the picture that was already before the voters. In short: an entertaining evening, but not nearly as memorable as many expected.

Walter Shapiro is Salon's Washington bureau chief. A complete listing of his articles is here.

Richardson — not charged, but not exonerated

A U.S. attorney pours cold water on the New Mexico governor's celebration

The cloud that’s been hanging over New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson recently, and cost him his shot at being Commerce secretary, appeared to be lifted yesterday. That’s when the Associated Press broke the news that Richardson won’t face charges stemming from a federal probe of pay-to-play allegations. Now, the cloud is back.

On Thursday, a Richardson spokesman, Gilbert Gallegos, took a little victory lap, saying in a statement that the governor is “gratified that this yearlong investigation has ended with the vindication of his administration.”

That’s not the way the U.S. attorney sees it, though. Greg Fouratt sent a letter to defense attorneys, the AP reports, in which he said the fact that no charges were filed “is not to be interpreted as an exoneration of any party’s conduct.” He also said the investigation “revealed that pressure from the governor’s office resulted in the corruption of the procurement process.”

It’s not great form for a prosecutor to be talking guilt out of court when there weren’t even any indictments, but that’s not likely to matter politically. Rather than being able to go on from here free and clear, Richardson will have to deal with that letter hanging around his neck for some time.

In another statement, this one released Friday, Gallegos said Fouratt’s letter “is wrong on the facts and appears to be nothing more than sour grapes.”

Continue Reading Close

Alex Koppelman is a staff writer for Salon.

Richardson won’t face charges in federal probe

The New Mexico governor was part of an investigation into a pay-to-play scheme

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson appears to have successfully weathered the federal investigation that cost him a spot as secretary of Commerce. The Associated Press reports that Richardson and former top aides will not be charged in the investigation, which was looking into an alleged pay-for-play scheme.

Decisions about charging high-ranking political figures are generally made in consultation with main Justice back in Washington, D.C., which typically has final say. That appears to be what happened here, as the AP reports the decision “was made by top Justice Department officials.” The AP’s source doesn’t appear to be happy about it, saying, “It’s over. There’s nothing. It was killed in Washington.”

Alex Koppelman is a staff writer for Salon.

Bill Clinton to the rescue

The former president's trip may be successful in securing the release of two American journalists

Update: Clinton’s mission was successful, and Kim Jong Il has pardoned the two journalists. See this post for more.

In a surprise visit, former President Bill Clinton arrived Tuesday in Pyongyang, North Korea, to meet with the isolated nation’s leader, Kim Jong Il. While North Korea’s nuclear program and recent spate of missile tests have caused growing consternation around the world, the main purpose of Clinton’s trip was to negotiate for the release of two U.S. journalists currently imprisoned there.

ABC News is now reporting that Clinton also met with the jailed reporters, Laura Ling and Euna Lee. A government source described the meeting as highly emotional but told ABC that those on Clinton’s team in North Korea are hopeful the journalists could be released as early as tomorrow.

Clinton has a loose connection to the jailed reporters. Both work for Current TV, a news and media venture headed by Clinton’s former vice-president, Al Gore. Ling and Lee were arrested on the border between North Korea and China in March. In June, they were sentenced to 12 years of hard labor for what North Korea said was their illegal entry into the country, as well as engaging in undefined actions deemed hostile to the communist country.

The White House has thus far remained reserved when discussing Clinton’s trip. North Korean media said Clinton shared a message from President Obama, but White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs released a statement in which he said, “While this solely private mission to secure the release of the two Americans is on the ground, we will have no comment … We do not want to jeopardize the success of former President Clinton’s mission.”

However, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., seemed somewhat confused by the decision to send Clinton. On the “Today” show this morning, he said of Clinton’s visit that “I don’t know what this is,” though he expressed hope that the visit could lead to progress on limiting North Korea’s nuclear arsenal.

 

There is a long history in the U.S. of notable political emissaries traveling across the globe to try to free hostages.

Perhaps the most memorable diplomatic mission was the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s 1999 trip to Belgrade to ask for the release of three U.S. soldiers held as prisoners of war by then Yugoslav president (and war criminal) Slobodan Milosevic. The trip was controversial because Jackson made the journey without the blessing of the Clinton White House. That he actually convinced Milosevic to release the soldiers after the Clinton administration had been unable to do so made Jackson’s fame as a hostage-release negotiator grow. The civil rights leader has worked as a diplomat in similar circumstances numerous times over his career: He was able to get hostages released from Syria in 1984, from Cuba in 1987 and from Kuwait and Iraq in 1990 — all without official presidential or congressional approval.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who had been discussed as a possible liaison to negotiate the return of Lee and Ling, brokered the release of U.S. hostages from North Korea in the 1990s. Richardson has also helped secure the release of hostages from Iraq, Cuba and Sudan and most recently met with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to seek his support in getting a Colombian Marxist guerrilla group to release three U.S. contractors they’ve detained since 2003. Colombian commandos eventually freed the hostages, along with Ingrid Betancourt, in June 2008.

And in one of the most embarrassing hostage situations the U.S. ever faced, President Jimmy Carter proved unable to negotiate with Iran for the release of 52 Americans held after the overthrow of the shah during the Iranian revolution. A daring military operation to free the hostages also failed. Iran eventually released the hostages once President Ronald Reagan took office. Later in his presidency, Reagan suffered a major political scandal when it was revealed that his administration had sold arms to Iran in an attempt to gain the release of seven American hostages being held in Lebanon by Iranian terrorists.

Continue Reading Close

Vincent Rossmeier is an editorial assistant at Salon.

Will third time be the charm at Commerce?

Former Washington Gov. Gary Locke is reportedly President Obama's new choice to head the department.

President Obama struck out with his first two picks for Commerce secretary, as both New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) withdrew their nominations for the post. Now, he’s reportedly hoping to do better with a fairly obscure choice — former Washington Gov. Gary Locke.

Locke, who left in office in 2005, served two terms and opted not to run for a third; he was the first Chinese-American governor in U.S. history.

Alex Koppelman is a staff writer for Salon.

Richardson speaks

The New Mexico governor explains his decision to drop out of the running to be commerce secretary, and says his political career isn't over.

One day after the sudden announcement that New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson’s nomination to be commerce secretary was being withdrawn, Richardson offered additional details during a press conference. It did not go off without a hitch.

Richardson maintained that the decision to withdraw was his, and said he came to make that choice because an investigation into state contracts given to CDR Financial Products Inc., whose president is a Richardson donor, had gone on longer than he expected it to — he’d hoped it would be done in December, removing the cloud from over his head before confirmation hearings were to begin. The governor said, as he had in a statement on Sunday, that the country couldn’t afford any delay in confirming a new head for the department. “Sometimes your own dreams and plans must take a back seat to what is best for the nation,” he told reporters.

Still, Richardson made clear that he doesn’t believe this is the end of his political career. Referencing a statement from Barack Obama in which the president-elect said he “look[s] forward to his future service to our country and in my administration,” Richardson said, “I still believe I have a future in public service.”

There was one odd note Monday afternoon. When one reporter asked Richardson — who’d previously said he would not take any questions related to the CDR investigation — whether he had a lawyer, the governor responded, brusquely, “I am not getting into any more questions,” and the press conference was over.

Continue Reading Close

Alex Koppelman is a staff writer for Salon.

Page 1 of 12 in Bill Richardson