Nation-Building

I'd previously been a fan of Richardson for Obama's veep, but the results today coming out of West Virginia have made me question whether a brown-black ticket wouldn't be overdoing it. Todd Beeton lays out a number of reasons why the Hillary veep scenario makes sense, not least of which being that a majority of Democratic voters want it to happen, according to a US News poll: In a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, 55% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents also would like Illinois Sen. Barack Obama to choose Clinton as his running mate, although there's notable resistance among his backers. [...] Three of four Clinton supporters would like to see her on Obama's ticket. But 52% of Obama supporters would rather he "choose someone else." There are however pragmatic reasons for Hillary as veep, as Todd also notes. I think that anyone who is automatically against Hillary for Veep is needs to understand the role that a Vice President pick plays. In order of impo...

There's a handy chart at myDD that purports to show, with references, where the dmeocratic candidates stand on various issues related to withdrawal from Iraq. Richardson comes out looking the most committed to withdrawal as soon as possible, which isn't surprising given that his campaign put the chart together (sourced from his affiliated campaign site, No Troops Left Behind ). However, Richardson gave a speech ("the New Realism") at the CSIS (PDF) a while back wherein he said several things that I think contradict the image he is trying to put forth here. in the introductory remarks he explicitly calls for increase in the size of the military: if America is to lead again, we need to remember this history and to rebuild our overextended military, increase the size of our Army, revive our alliances, and restore our reputation as a nation which respects international law, human rights, and civil liberties. But over the course of the rest of the speech, he doesn't ...

[Posted at ProgressiveHistorians , Daily Kos , My Left Wing , MyDD , Never In Our Names , European Tribune , Eteraz , and Nation-Building .] New Mexico Governor and Democratic Presidential Candidate Bill Richardson is one of America's leading foreign policy experts.  A former Ambassador to the United Nations, Richardson holds an M.A. from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.  Richardson is also perhaps America's leading diplomatic negotiator, having recently brokered successful agreements in both Darfur and North Korea.  Whether or not Richardson is elected President in 2008, he is certain to be one of the most influential foreign policy advisors in any Democratic administration.  Therefore, it is important to ascertain just where Richardson stands on the foreign policy issues most important to progressive activists. After reading my January diary about Bill Richardson and the need for a visionary foreign policy, a Richardson for President ...

Video of Richardson's speech about foreign policy and Iraq at the CSIS is now online. The AP has a summary as well.

Richardson is going to give a major foreign policy address today at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, titled "The New Realism and the Rebirth of American Leadership". The speech will outline his foreign policy vision as follows: 1. Repairing international alliances by working with traditional allies and reengaging them in our foreign policy; 2. Renew the U.S. commitment to international law and treaties, including abiding by the Geneva Convention, shutting down Guantanamo, rejecting torture as a policy device; 3. A "wholesale assault" to reduce global warming, including going beyond the Kyoto protocols in establishing national benchmarks for enivronmental protection; 4. Engage our enemies by having direct talks with North Korea, Iran, and Syria; 5. Refocus on the "real international threats" including nuclear proliferation and the threat of nuclear terrorism; 6. Engage Latin America on a range of issues from immigration reform to economic...

[Cross-posted at ProgressiveHistorians .] Well, folks, I have some pretty big news.  Yesterday morning, I posted this diary , which discussed the need for a visionary foreign policy in the context of Woodrow Wilson's 1919 Pueblo, Colorado speech in support of the League of Nations.  In it, I argued that New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is the only Democratic Presidential candidate who has made foreign policy his top priority, but that he still had a ways to go as far as developing a comprehensive foreign policy vision. Last night, I received an e-mail from a Richardson staffer who had read my piece.  He wanted to let me know that Richardson had in fact articulated a more complete international vision than I had realized.  He also asked me whether I wanted to interview Governor Richardson on foreign policy issues. To make a long story short (or a short story shorter), I'll be submitting a list of foreign policy-related questions for Richardson via e-mail within th...

[Cross-posted at Progressive Historians .] After reading my story last night calling for a visionary foreign policy, a Richardson staffer e-mailed me a link to the following speech, delivered by Richardson last summer: Democrats know from experience that maximizing our national strength means knowing when to work with others, and when to act alone. It means knowing when and how to employ our great military. Above all, it means understanding that military power and diplomacy are not alternatives to one another, but rather are complementary sources of strength. What the Bush Administration has failed to understand is that while diplomacy without power is weak, power without diplomacy is blind. Democrats offer real solutions that provide a new direction for America. We need a new realism in our foreign policy, which includes the following elements: One, achieve national security through energy independence. We need a man on the moon effort to reduce our dependency on foreign oil -- go ...