I'm not really much for forcible identity politics, but some Latino leaders are making noises that a Hispanic ought to replace Bill Richardson (who withdrew his nomination) as the Secretary of Commerce, making the argument that the Latino population must maintain its representation in the Administration. I'd prefer the best man or woman for the job, but this is a case where there already is a Hispanic who Obama considered for a separate cabinet appointment who may be able to be persuaded into accepting this one. That would be Xavier Becerra.
An Obama transition team source said a veteran California congressman, Xavier Becerra, has emerged as the leading congressional candidate to replace Richardson, the Hispanic governor of New Mexico, as President-elect Barack Obama's choice for a job that will include overseeing the 2010 U.S. Census.
"Even though he turned down the trade representative slot, Becerra is not only Hispanic, but he has the skill, talent and experience to do the Commerce job," said the source, who was not authorized to speak for the president-elect.
"Xavier's name has gone to the top of the list of potential replacements in part because he is a member of the House leadership, he is well liked, he has very good credentials, and, of course, he was an early Obama backer," the source said.
It's all speculative at the moment, but I wouldn't be surprised if this happened. Becerra wanted a bigger role in the Administration than trade representative, and certainly the Commerce Department would give him a better opportunity to shape White House policy.
Obviously this would create another special election in an adjoining district to incoming Labor Secretary Hilda Solis' CA-32. Los Angeles County from Hollywood to points east would be ground zero for political wrangling this spring.
Xavier Becerra is not considering an appointment to become Secretary of Commerce and will remain in the House, his spokeswoman told Politico.
"The Congressman has already expressed that he is staying in Congress and looks forward to working with the Obama Administration from his position as House Democratic Vice Chair," said Fabiola Rodriguez.
(Crossposted at Daily Kos)
Brian has a diary about the session Bill Clinton had with Superdelegates at the CDP convention, and his comments to Rachel Binah about Carville calling Bill Richardson Judas.
(I had a chance to meet Rachel this weekend, and she is a great person, and very sharp.)
Then there is the excellent Op-Ed by Bill Richardson on the issue of his endorsement of Obama, and James Carville's comments referring to Richardson as a Judas:
"Mr. Richardson's endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic," Carville told the New York Times.
Carville, who usually appears on CNN as an analyst, today was an interviewee, telling Wolf Blizter that his quote "had its desired intent" -- i.e., depicting Richardson as disloyal to the Clinton brand that he once had been so firmly affixed to.
Where this story gets interesting is when Bill Clinton is quoted in the SF Chronicle today as saying:
"Five times to my face (Richardson) said that he would never do that," a red-faced, finger-pointing Clinton erupted.
Meaning, Bill Clinton is saying that Richardson told him that Richardson would never endorse Obama, I suppose that means Richardson would endorse Clinton or at least not endorse.
In any case, Bill Clinton is adamant in this quote that Richardson told him that he would never endorse Obama and probably would endorse Clinton.
And while I was truly torn for weeks about this decision, and seriously contemplated endorsing Sen. Clinton, I never told anyone, including President Clinton, that I would do so. Those who say I did are misinformed or worse.
Richardson says that those that say that Richardson would endorse Clinton are "misinformed"
There could be alot of word parsing here, but this sounds like there are inconsistencies in the business of was Richardson going to endorse Hillary Clinton or not, and did he tell Bill Clinton that he was going to endorse anyone, or did he just tell Bill Clinton he would never endorse Obama.
Bill Richardson, by virtue of this Op-Ed, could be saying that Bill Clinton is misinformed or worse.
"I never did," Richardson said. "I never saw [President Clinton] five times. I saw him when he watched the Super Bowl with me. We made it very clear to him that he shouldn't expect an endorsement after that meeting."
"I held back. I waited. I felt the campaign got nasty. I heard Senator Obama; he would talk to me continuously," Richardson said.
That's a lot of names there, huh? I was thinking about throwing Carole Migden in there as well, but decided to limit myself. At any rate, former President Clinton went off at the mere mention of Governor Bill Richardson. From Matier and Ross:
The Bill Clinton who met privately with California's superdelegates at last weekend's state convention was a far cry from the congenial former president who afterward publicly urged fellow Democrats to "chill out" over the race between his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Barack Obama.
In fact, before his speech Clinton had one of his famous meltdowns Sunday, blasting away at former presidential contender Bill Richardson for having endorsed Obama, the media and the entire nomination process.
"It was one of the worst political meetings I have ever attended," one superdelegate said.
Apparently, Rachel Binah of Mendocino County brought up the New Mexico Governor's name, and Bill went off. CDP Chair Art Torres reportedly called Binah to apologize for the former President. I don't know what's going on with President Clinton, but perhaps he needs more sleep or something. It's clear the pressures of the campaign are getting to him in a way totally unlike the 1992 campaign.
The Clinton campaign is shunting the former President off to minor markets where the locals in the media and the activist set are just excited to see somebody of that character. Clinton himself titled his new role as "rural hitman." Perhaps they have yoga studio in South Bend, IN where he could "just chill out."
Supporters of Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM) and his now aborted bid for the Democratic Party's nomination for President have taken a new turn: They are petitioning to have Richardson named as Vice-President on the Democratic ticket, regardless of the nominee. Apparently, this new wrinkle is not authorized by Governor Richardson or the Richardson for President campaign.
Initially started a few days ago by Ken Camp, a Richardson volunteer supporter and blogger, who started a blog and petition drive (richardson4vp.blogspot.com); the move was seconded by another petition created by former Richardson National Grassroots Coordinator, Jeff Gulko. The two groups have now joined forces and have already received almost 500 signatures in the petition effort.
Today, Thom O'Shaugnessy and David Buchanan, who headed up Richardson's volunteer and political initiatives in California, launched a new website, www.draftrichardsonforvp.com, complete with links to Camp's blog and the petition, as well as news stories on the petition drive.
(full disclosure: I work for the Courage Campaign)
Look out! Hillary Clinton just passed Dennis Kucinich and is now in 3rd place both in California and nationally in the Pick Your President Poll. Barack Obama is still leading John Edwards. I know for sure that the Obama supporters and network are encouraging their people to vote in the poll. What about John Edwards? He was doing quite well before Obama supporters started working on GOTV. Who knows maybe Clinton will catch up?
I can't share with you the actual vote margins, but suffice to say they do not match up with your average daily kos poll. There is plenty of time for anybody to claim first place. The poll will run until the 18th. You can follow the results on this page. The numbers are current as of 2 PM PST. We will be updating over the weekend.
Here are the current California standings, which are now identical to the national rankings:
1. Sen. Barack Obama
2. Sen. John Edwards
3. Sen. Hillary Clinton
4. Rep. Dennis Kucinich
5. Gov. Bill Richardson *
6. Sen. Mike Gravel
(Richardson is starred because he dropped out, but people voted for him prior to that, so he retains his rankings.)
Here are the Republican rankings. The vote totals are many magnitudes less on the Republican side than the Democratic side. RONPAUL (yes all one word) is leading, not a surprise given his online organizing strength. Being from California really isn't helping Duncan Hunter.
1. Rep. Ron Paul
2. Sen. John McCain
3. Gov. Mike Huckabee
4. Gov. Mitt Romney
5. Mayor Rudy Giuliani
6. Sen. Fred Thompson
7. Rep. Duncan Hunter
As an aside, it has been a real pleasure to work side by side with other state based progressive groups on this poll. People I met in Chicago at Yearly Kos are now partners on this poll. It's been a lot of fun and we are happy to see people having fun and firing up their networks.
Watched some of the Democratic Candidate debate on CNN tonight filmed at the UNLV campus in Nevada.
Impressions:
(1) Wolfe Blitzer remains an idiot
(2) Nevada Democratic voters ask much more interesting questions than the news media
(3) Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich aquitted themselves well.
(4) Barack Obama comes across as either less than well-informed or arrogant or a less than adequate listener
(5) Regardless, any of these candidates would make me proud to be a citizen of the U.S., and any of them are better candidates than any that the Repugnants have to offer
Bill Richardson is goal-oriented, assertive and confident. He has served as a Congressman, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Secretary of Energy and is in his second term as Governor of New Mexico after a landslide re-election victory in November 2006.
Here are five of many reasons why I believe Richardson possesses the experience, vision and leadership skills to be a great President:
1. A Bright Vision for America
2. An Ironclad Promise to Promptly End the U.S. Occupation of Iraq
3. A Bold Agenda To Address The Pressing Challenges Facing Our Nation and Planet
4. The White House and A Landslide Victory for Democrats Nationwide in 2008
5. Comprehensive Immigration Reform In Accordance With the Values Upon Which Our Country Was Founded
Hillary Clinton's plan for ending the war is weak and imprecise. She refuses to commit to bring all of our troops home by the end of her first term in office. Clinton's military and diplomatic advisers believe our invasion of Iraq was justified and a military solution exits for resolving the war. Clinton is not demonstrating the qualities of leadership we need in our next President to end the war in Iraq.
The latest Rasmussen poll in New Hampshire shows Dennis Kucinich in fourth place, tied with Bill Richardson at 7%. This shouldn't come as such a surprise, however.
Water-boarding is term that describes strapping an individual to a board, with a towel pulled tightly across his face, and pouring water on him or her to cut off air and simulate drowning.
When asked directly last week whether he thought waterboarding is constitutional, Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey was evasive. As noted by NPR, Mukasey "danced around the issue of whether waterboarding actually is torture and stopped short of saying that it is." "If it amounts to torture," Mukasey said carefully, "then it is not constitutional."
Waterboarding is torture, and anyone who is unwilling to identify it as such is not qualified to be the chief legal officer of the United States of America. If I were in the U.S. Senate, I would vote against Mukasey unless he denounces such specific forms of torture.
What about the Democrats in the U.S. Senate and other Democratic Presidential candidates? Will they oppose Mukasey unless he denounces the use of torture by our government?
Gov. Richardson, Sen. Dodd, and Sen. Edwards have offered both statements and resources for those suffering in our state this week.
John Edwards: "Our thoughts and prayers are with the more than 300,000 families who have been forced to flee their homes to escape the wildfires spreading across southern California. Those affected by this tragedy should take comfort in the fact that their fellow Americans are standing with them and will do whatever it takes to fight the fires and rebuild the homes and businesses that were destroyed."
Edwards is calling on his One Corps volunteers to assist in local projects in and around San Diego. You can sign up here.
Bill Richardson: "Today, we all extend our sympathies and prayers to those devastated by the wildfires in California. Millions of Americans are impacted by this natural disaster.
Neighbors should help neighbors in their time of need. As Governor of New Mexico, I ordered two fire crews (strike teams, with 5 engines and 21 crew members each) to California. As a candidate for President, I donated to the American Red Cross ($10,000 -ed.) and I encourage you to do so as well, click here to do so.
But as someone who believes the war in Iraq is a complete disaster and that we need to get our troops out now (www.getourtroopsout.com), I look at the natural disaster in California and feel compelled to also ask President Bush and every candidate who thinks it is okay for our troops to remain in Iraq until 2013 or longer - where is our National Guard?
It is a sad irony that yesterday, the very day I sent fire crews to California, 300 more New Mexico National Guard members were sent to Iraq. Just when we need them most at home, more of our brave men and women, true public servants, are sent away to a war we cannot win."
Chris Dodd: "As you know, Governor Schwarzenegger has had to ask other states for help because so many of California's National Guard, who provide critical support to the citizens while you are fighting the fires, were deployed to Iraq. In a Dodd Administration, never again will our houses be on fire because our troops are taking fire in Iraq. Never again will our first responders be left without the support they need because our President failed to do what it took to keep our communities safe. That is why in 2008, nothing will be more important than leadership that can get results that make us stronger and more secure. That's the first responsibility of an American President."
This is cross posted at the Huffington Post. If you've seen California Lt. Governor John Garamendi on CNN or MSNBC today, you'll agree with his statement that, "we need our troops back from Iraq."
This post deals with that.
Today, we all extend our sympathies and prayers to those devastated by the wildfires in California. Millions of Americans are impacted by this natural disaster.
Neighbors should help neighbors in their time of need. As Governor of New Mexico, I ordered two fire crews (strike teams, with 5 engines and 21 crew members each) to California. As a candidate for President, I donated to the American Red Cross and I encourage you to do so as well, click here to do so.
But as someone who believes the war in Iraq is a complete disaster and that we need to get our troops out now (www.getourtroopsout.com), I look at the natural disaster in California and feel compelled to also ask President Bush and every candidate who thinks it is okay for our troops to remain in Iraq until 2013 or longer - where is our National Guard?
It is a sad irony that yesterday, the very day I sent fire crews to California, 300 more New Mexico National Guard members were sent to Iraq. Just when we need them most at home, more of our brave men and women, true public servants, are sent away to a war we cannot win.
Never before in our history has our National Guard, a group of dedicated men and women who serve our country and provide critical aid in the time of natural disasters been used, and re-used, for so long to fight a war tens of thousands of miles away.
In California, the Guard force is authorized to have over 21,000 members. Today, that number is just under 15,000. Why the decline? I believe it has nothing to do with a diminished commitment to service, but rather is a frustration with having that commitment abused, and families turned upside down, just so President Bush can continue to pretend his war can succeed.
George Bush, his Republican friends and the Democrats who continue to allow this war to continue have not only broken our military, they've broken our National Guard.
The news this morning had images of Americans fleeing to a huge sports arena for shelter during a natural disaster that struck a familiar chord. When Katrina struck and the floods hit two years ago, a good portion of the Louisiana National Guard was in Iraq. How many people died in the days it took to get proper personnel on the ground in New Orleans? Today, as the fires rage, California has National Guard men, women, and critical equipment thousands of miles away in Iraq.
They need to come home. We need them here.
This has gone on long enough. When a national disaster hits, our states depend on the National Guard. Right now, President Bush is robbing Peter to pay Paul to continue his disastrous adventure in Iraq, and when tragedy hits us here at home, Americans are stuck with the bill. This cannot continue.
Bush won't end this war. Congress must. And they must end it now. We shouldn't have to wait until January, and we certainly can't wait until 2013 - we need our troops out of harm's way and our National Guard members back home where they belong.
Join my call at www.getourtroopsout.com to push Congress to begin ending this war now. Not in January, not next spring, not next year - now.
The war in Iraq is a tragedy, and compounding it by leaving our citizens here at home defenseless is an even greater crime.
This displaced Southern Californian sends her most heartfelt gratitudes out to Governor Bill and the New Mexico firefighters for their generosity. Bill also donated $10,000 to the Red Cross to help assist in the recovery efforts. This has led me to believe that under a President Richardson administration, the National Guard will be home to support their fellow citizens in a time of natural emergency. That is just one reason why I support Richardson for president.
Bill Richardson ordered New Mexico firefighters today to assist in bringing the devastating fires in Southern California under control. He noted, "Neighbors should help neighbors in their time of need."
This is another illustration of Richardson's leadership skills in operation. Richardson's vision of neighbors helping neighbors, however, is not limited to domestic matters. Last week Richardson gave a well received speech in Iowa on the role the U.S. can play in improving the welfare of the planet and human race.
Today our campaign released a new ad, entitled "Only One," which details a hostage situation in Iraq that then-Congressman Richardson was called upon to defuse. In the 60-second spot, Bill Barloon, the late David Daliberti, and his wife Kathy Daliberti praise Richardson for obtaining the release of the two men from Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in July 1995.
Today, Chase Martyn of the Iow Independent reviewed a major policy speech by Bill Richardson earlier this week on how to improve the welfare of the human race and our environment. Martyn is no supporter of Richardson, noting "I expected would be ridden with gaffes, pie-in-the-sky policy proposals, and poll-tested mumbo jumbo. Having not seen Richardson stump in person for a period of two months, I had no idea what I was in for."
Martyn came away highly impressed. Martyn described Richardson's speech as "bold and informative. . . . I dare say he sounded presidential.
In his speech, Richardson set forth a global agenda to address the welfare of the human race, linking climate change, poverty, international disease and war. Richardson stated: "A hungry world will also hunger for scapegoats. A thirsty world will thirst for revenge. A world in crisis will be a world of anger and violence and terrorism."
(I think a Presidential candidate rates a front-page promotion. - promoted by David Dayen)
This is cross posted at The Huffington Post and posted here for your convenience in case you missed it yesterday.
Truly ending the war in Iraq will only come about when our troops are no longer targets. That is why Governor Bill Richardson believes that we should not leave behind any of our troops. --Joaquin H. Guerra, Bill Richardson for President.
Five years ago was critical week in the decision by our nation to go to war with Iraq. While the Senate was debating the war, Edwards gave a well-publicized speech in Washington, D.C. on October 7, 2002, supporting the Bush Administration's rationale for invading Iraq.
At the time, Edwards was busy planning his run for President and seeking to position himself as a Southern war hawk. He failed to read key intelligence reports available only to members of the Senate that cast doubt the Bush Administration's claims that Saddam possessed WMD and which influenced those that read them to vote against the war.
Edwards had made up his mind that the U.S. should invade Iraq. Edwards' judgment on Iraq was flawed in 2002 and it remains flawed today. He refuses to commit to the withdrawal of ALL U.S. forces from Iraq by 2010 or even 2013.
Bill Richardson gave an extremely thoughtful speech yesterday at Georgetown University on the responsible path out of Iraq. Richardson also outlined a new foreign policy for the U.S., discussed our relations with Iran and explained need to restructure our armed forces.
On Iraq, Richardson stated, "If you haven't seen enough to know that we need to get all the troops out then you aren't watching the same war that I and the rest of America are seeing. I don't think just changing the mission is enough -- we need to end the war."
Everyone should watch Richardson's speech and hear the compelling case he makes for ALL U.S. troops to leave Iraq now. The video clip follows.
At the Democratic debate in Davenport, Iowa, the most significant exchange to date in the debates occurred. Judy Woodruff asked the candidates how many U.S. troops would remain in Iraq one year after taking office if elected.
Biden said it depends on how Bush leaves Iraq. Edwards agreed with Biden, claiming "it's impossible to say." Clinton echoed Biden's view, vaguely offering "a reasonable and prudent plan" to get our troops out. Dodd objected to speaking about 2010 and said Congress should not wait that long to act.
Only Richardson provided a direct and unambiguous answer:
Zero troops! . . . Without getting our troops out you can not have a political settlement. . . . I would take all of our troops out. We need to end this war now.
