1. You make an interesting comparison to Tester in describing Richardson's appeal in the West. Richardson is a relentless campaigner and will make the Democrats competitive in states that they have not won in a generation. NM, AZ, CO, NV, FL and even TX will all be in play with Richardson at the top of the ticket.

No longer will the fate of the Democrat candidate depend upon outcome in a single state. That is precisely the type of candidate Democrats must have to retake the White House, and to extend their majorities in the House and Senate. With Richardson leading the Democrats, they will win in a landslide in '08.

Stephen Cassidy at 5:25PM on Jul 21st 2007

2. One other point, the Salon article was incorrect in stating Richardson initially supported the war without providing any context to his statements.

After we invaded Richardson naturally voiced support for our troops and hoped the war would be concluded quickly. Richardson also thought Saddam was a brutal dictator and threat to regional peace.

But prior to the invasion, Richardson urged patience and continued diplomacy. At the time, many Democrats blasted such reasoning as "the faulty logic of the French." Edwards, a war hawk, asserted that any further diplomacy was useless and we had to invade to remove Saddam from power because Iraq posed an immediate threat to the U.S.

On the eve of the war, Richardson showed sound judgment. He criticized the Bush Administration's rush to war. Richardson advocated the U.S. work with the U.N. and accurately predicted that unilateral U.S. military action would undermine the prestige of the U.S. abroad.

From CNN on March 11, 2003 (eight days before the invasion):

"CROWLEY: I want to ask you the question, first, if there is no Security Council resolution approving of a war on Iraq, and if the Bush administration should go ahead, who loses in that scenario?

RICHARDSON: Well, I think the United Nations loses because it shows a lack of relevance to this crisis.

And, secondly, I think, Candy, that the United States loses because we're going into a major conflict without the blessing of the U.N. Security Council, without some of our major allies like France and Russia, and also those 10 other members of the Security Council, the 10 non-permanent members that have a voice right now.

So I think it would come at considerable cost especially if we're to win the war, which we would, issues relating to a post-Iraq configuration to the prestige of the United States worldwide to bring some kind of order to the Middle East and bring some kind of Persian Gulf-lessening attention. So, I think everybody would be a victim. The United Nations, the United States and, certainly, our NATO allies. I think would be hurt, too, because if they don't support us the breakdown of the NATO alliance might be next to go.

CROWLEY: Well, I want to cite a couple of figures for you. One of them just came from a CBS/New York Times poll, which showed that right now only about 34 percent of Americans believe the U.N. is doing a good job handling this situation.

Fifty eight percent think it's doing a poor job. On top of that, we also found that 55 percent would support an invasion, even if the Security Council says don't do it. What does that say about how Americans view the U.N., and has that changed since you were the ambassador?

RICHARDSON: Well, the United States as a populous, here in new Mexico, there's not much support for the United Nations. But at the same time, Candy, what everyone should understand is the United Nations does a lot of things that we, the U.S. as the only superpower, don't want to do.

They get involved in conflicts in Kosovo, in the Congo in Africa, in Guatemala and Latin America. Immigration issues, AIDS, refugees. We don't want to get directly involved in these, but we use the arm of international support, legitimacy of the United Nations to do it.

Now, in the Persian Gulf, conveniently, the U.N. supported our efforts in 1991 to get a broad coalition. And I think we've used the U.N. in the war on terrorism to get international support.

But clearly in this Iraq crisis, the U.N. has to step up and simply enforce its [1441] resolution. And it's not doing that. So, it's going to be a big loss for the U.N. in terms of its peacekeeping relevance, unless it really steps up and gets tough on Saddam Hussein. I think that's the issue.

CROWLEY: So, am I right, am I hearing you correctly that you believe that the U.N. Security Council should pass the resolution that Britain and the U.S. are proposing?

RICHARDSON: Well, I would go a little differently, Candy. I think the U.S. and Britain should compromise. That's the essence of diplomacy. To get nine votes, if it means postponing for 30 days, or 15 days or 10 days, a new resolution with benchmarks on Iraq's behavior, let's do it. I think that France and Russia are basically gone.

They are going to veto. But it would be a partial victory if we get nine votes for a victory of a majority in the Security Council. If we don't do that, I think it's going to be tremendous prestige loss overseas. I think, domestically, it's going to cause more problems for the administration. The Congress will be divided. This is a time when it's frustrating, but what's the rush, really. Iraq is not heading down Baghdad into the United States.

Again, it is a threat, but it's not an immediate threat. It's not something that is like the war on terrorism, where we're under alert from a potential terrorist attack in this country. So let's be judicious. Let's be calm. Let's be patient."

Stephen Cassidy at 5:36PM on Jul 21st 2007

3. Richardson is many times more qualified than Hillary in foreign affairs. He has dealt with Saddam Hussein, Kim Jung Il and was ambassador to the UN and the list goes on. There is nothing in Hillary's resume that shows she is anywhere as qualified. She apparently thinks rhetoric is enough to qualify her for the top job in our land and I believe most voters are too smart to be fooled.

Stuart at 6:39PM on Jul 21st 2007

4. Governor Richardson has impressive credentials earned in a career of public service. He probably could present the best diplomatic solution to the war in Iraq. Unfortunately, the partisan attitude in Washington precludes him getting involved at this time.

Steve Bonomo at 9:40PM on Jul 21st 2007

5. I think that it is common knowledge that the tallest mogul to climb is ahead of Mr. Richardson... the comments and platforms are easily spoken, and promises that each of your predecessors made, have yet to be fulfilled. I would like to hear some "grassroots" promises, like how to get Americans off of the streets, the homeless are awaiting a refill in their everso extended cup. America is pouring hard earned cash to African Nations. Our Immigration laws are causing prices to soar, a new level of acceptance, for Immigrant workers to continue to work in labor jobs, to help the economy maintain a lower standard. The Rree-Trade Agreement needs to be revived, and International Relations restored, as it seems that Allied Countries are lashing out at the U.S. for our Greed, and in weapons agreements. In part, or in whole, we need to get our Nation back to where it was, when times were good. Our troops cannot exit Iraq, just as it took a couple of years to enter that country. We need to bring them back, a little at a time, and replace them with U.N. troops, where this whole melee began. Our Country, needs to be reunited from within, before we can carry out peace in foreign countries. We are currently divided, and the Press is to blame for the Majority of these issues. Good Luck, Mr. Richardson, I stand behind you, in support. I have waited a long time for you to make the race, that could save our country, and its' allies. You have my vote! Yours, Steve Medellin, Converse(San Antonio), Texas

Steve Medellin at 1:07AM on Jul 24th 2007

6. Free-Trade Agreement

Steve Medellin at 1:09AM on Jul 24th 2007

7.
The "Leadership" of the party have lined up in supporting people once more that can not win the big race. The last sitting member of Congress to be elected President was JFK almost 50 yeaes ago.

There are two things to notice, the GOP have all but ran the other way from there memebrs of Congress, and they are not in the lead. Two the overall rating of Congress is not good at all.

We have someone that can win and has the background to get it done. He as been able to talk with heads of governments that are not our friends, he has been able to keep peace he was nonanated four times for the Nobel Peace Prize.

As other mebers have started to attack each other Richardson has stayed out of that and has shown others running respect. If you can treat member of your party with respect how are you going to keep peace with people around the world.

JC Connors at 1:58PM on Jul 25th 2007

8. If I ever vote Democratic again it would be for someone like Bill Richardson.Seasoned and thoughtful.

Dick Klein at 7:29PM on Sep 17th 2007