Richardson's Anti-War Bet

In his latest television ad, NM Gov. Bill Richardson is betting that three anti-war bloggers can convince Iowa Democrats that only his position on the war is pure enough.

"Clinton, Obama and Edwards all say they want to end the war in Iraq. But they support leaving thousands, even tens of thousands of troops behind," says OpenLeft's Matt Stoller.

"Bill Richardson is the only one who would actually end the war," says Christina Siun O'Connell, who blogs are Firedoglake

Richardson's ad comes days after some Democrats began to detect a distinct tone-shift in Sen. Hillary Clinton's utterances about troop withdrawal. Its content represents a bet that Democratic voters will favor the candidate who will withdraw the troops the quickest, consequences be damned.

Comments

The nutroots are irrelevant. If they were relevant, Howard Dean would be president today. The moderates/DLC winf of the democRAT party wield the power in their smoke filled rooms. The nutroots are like the troublesome, impotent flies that hover around their food.

Posted by Redstatepowerrule | September 25, 2007 2:49 PM

It's like that song: "re-alignment is coming, so if you're walking, you better get running!!"

Posted by Bjorn | September 25, 2007 3:08 PM

Isn't this selling out? Matt Stoller officially loses his credibility in his spat with Jerome Armstrong.

Posted by Chris | September 25, 2007 3:29 PM

couldn't they find a more "liberal elite" cliche place than a latte house?

also , MR. Ambinder any word there's actually a confirmed ad buy from a network?

Posted by Outside the Beltway | September 25, 2007 3:37 PM

Could some presidential campaign pollster (cause we all know Marc is a must read for you guys) please post your results of how many primary voters in Iowa get some or all of their news from the Internet? Why bloggers?

I mean Iowa is full of peace activists, why wouldn't you put one of them on TV?

Posted by Tom B. | September 25, 2007 4:05 PM

Only Richardson gets it on Iraq. He doesn't attempt as the other Dems are trying to have it both ways - bash Bush, call for an end to the war but then keep troops in Iraq for years to come, not actually bring the occupation to an end so as to appeal to the D.C. insiders that got us in the war to start with.

Richardson understands that by the U.S. remaining in Iraq, we unwittingly perpetuate the war. Our troops have become the targets in a civil war. The Iraqi government, in turn, is dependent on the U.S. for security that the Iraqis themselves should provide. Richardson notes: "The Iraqis won't take the necessary steps toward political reconciliation until the U.S. makes it clear that it will leave the country for good."

None of the other major Dem candidates have any foreign policy experience or the confidence in their own judgment to stand up to the military and political establishment and unambiguously call for a complete and prompt withdrawal from Iraq.

In the end if HRC is the nominee, what difference will there be between her and the Republican nominee on Iraq? Both will say we need to change course and bring the war to end - but "prudently and cautiously." The Democrats will lose the advantage they have on the most critical issue of the election. And America will lose because we will continue to be stuck in Iraq for years to come regardless of who wins.

Posted by Stephen Cassidy | September 25, 2007 4:36 PM

All right, what in the world is going on here?

I liked and respected both of the guys over at OpenLeft. I was even coming around to the idea that Billy Rich's campaign knew what they were doing. But this is just wrong, all wrong.

Marc, has anyone confirmed an actual buy with this ad?

This will have to go down with Mark Warner's flying naked avitar as one of the biggest blunders in political tech history. It does nothing to distinguish Richardson from the rest of the pack and tarnishes the bloggers reputations as quasi-independent sources.

How long has Richardson had them on payroll? I bet their combined salaries are more than the production costs would have been on another one of those great job interview ads, you know the ones that actually HELPED Richardson move up a little in the polls. Yeesh, what a disaster this is.

Posted by Willie | September 26, 2007 1:05 AM

These bloggers, Willie, are NOT on BR's payroll fer God's sakes! They have a strong VIEW of the war in Iraq and are willing to step up and remind voters who, (besides DK who will never get elected) really WILL bring our troops home and work toward reconciliation in the Middle East. Geez, people need to lighten up, quitcherbitchin' and start thinking seriously about WHO can actually win against the rightwing juggernaut. Bill Richardson has the experience, 4 nobel prize noms and the WEST. Think people!

Posted by Julie in VT | September 26, 2007 6:39 AM

Julie:

I stand corrected. A statement from Mr. Bowers on the ad:

"I am thrilled to be working with Bill Richardson on this issue. While this ad is not an official endorsement of Bill Richardson's candidacy, it is an endorsement of his no residual forces plan for Iraq. It is an endorsement of his leadership on the issue."

I still find it absurd that bloggers, no offence, would be used as credibility surrogates in a television ad on foreign policy and the future of our nation.

OpenLeft is one of my favourite sites, however, if they are the best Richardson's campaign can conjure up in support of his candidacy after a lifetime of public service, executive leadership, and diplomacy, I think he's in trouble.

On the other hand, what if Richardson's campaign is smart in putting Bowers & Co. in the ad? What does that say about the Democratic electorate that they, without any experience or expertise really in foreign policy, carry water among Democratic primary & caucus goers?

Posted by Willie | September 26, 2007 11:44 AM