Bill Richardson on The Huffington Post

Bill Richardson: Obama's Commerce Secretary?

2008-11-21T12:15:43Z

***Check back for updates, or visit HuffPost's Obama Cabinet Big News Page***

AP: A senior Democratic official says New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has emerged as a serious contender for Commerce Secretary in President-elect Barack Obama's Cabinet.

Richardson had been in the running for secretary of state, but is under consideration for Commerce now that Obama plans to nominate Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state after Thanksgiving.

The official with knowledge of the private Cabinet discussions spoke on background because the deliberations are not final.

Richardson is a prominent Hispanic leader who endorsed Obama after dropping his own presidential bid this year.

ABC News' Jake Tapper comments on the Richardson consideration:

The usual caveats apply -- nothing has been officially offered, nothing has been accepted, the vetting needs to be completed, the process is not as far along as some of the others jobs being discussed out there such as Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, going to the State Department.

If Richardson ultimately takes a job in the Obama administration, he could be the third former primary opponent that Obama has brought into his Team of Rivals, the other two being Vice President-elect Joe Biden and possible Secretary of State Clinton.

***

More news is coming out about Obama's cabinet. With Penny Pritzker withdrawing herself for consideration, Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post reports that New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is now in contention for Commerce Secretary:

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has emerged as a "serious contender" to head the Commerce Department under President-elect Barack Obama, according to a Democratic official close to the proceedings.

Richardson, who was elected governor of the Land of Enchantment in 2002 and reelected with 69 percent of the vote in 2006, has made no secret of his interest in returning to Washington to take a place in the Obama Administration. A longshot contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, Richardson endorsed Obama in his primary battle with Clinton (to the dismay of many Clinton supporters), and, if nominated for Commerce, would help round out Obama's "Team of Rivals."

Richardson's own state newspaper The Albuquerque Journal is also questioning how their governor will fit in to Obama's forming cabinet.

So, I'm asking everyone I talk to about Richardson's chances, and for the past couple of days, people (including some whose opinion I really value) have been telling me he's a potential Commerce Secretary. We all know he really wants Secretary of State, but conventional wisdom says unless Hillary decides she doesn't want to be America's top diplomat, Richardson should expect something else. And maybe he should expect something else, even if Hillary doesn't take it.

Complete coverage of Obama's cabinet

Matt Littman: What Makes For a Great Secretary of State?

2008-11-19T14:51:07Z

Here's what you need to be a great Secretary of State: a massive ego. You need to believe that you and you alone can sit down with Hamas and Abbas and get them to agree on a peace accord with Israel. You need to believe you are so special that you can get the Ayatollah of Iran to quit his nuclear program. You need to believe that only you can get the strongman Putin to lay off the notion of missiles on Russia's border with Poland.

Would Hillary Clinton have the potential to be a great Secretary of State? Absolutely. If there is a single figure in the American political establishment who thinks as much of themselves as Hillary thinks of herself, show that person to me. Does John Kerry have Hillary's ego? Does Bill Richardson? I mean this as a compliment to Hillary. She's earned her scars, as John McCain didn't say.

The question becomes, does Senator Hillary Clinton want to be Madame Secretary? I hope so. Hillary is 61. She's the junior Senator from New York. She will not determine whether health care makes it through Congress; Tom Daschle, Max Baucus and Ted Kennedy will go a long way toward making universal health care a reality. She will not be the senior Senator from New York as long as Chuck Schumer can stand in front of a camera. She heads no committees.

At a time when the world is yearning to see America return to the forefront of global leadership, Secretary Clinton can lead the charge. She already may be a historic figure, embraced by the world community, but in this role, she would significant international achievements to her legend.

If I were Senator Clinton, I would run to this opportunity, not because the job has been offered, and not because my career in the Senate may not result in a leadership role until 2020. No, I would jump at it because Hillary Clinton is the most qualified person to be Secretary of State.

Eagleburger: I Have "Very Little Respect" For Bill Richardson's Intelligence

2008-11-18T16:14:39Z

In the waning days of the campaign, Lawrence Eagleburger memorably put his foot in his mouth by basically mocking Sarah Palin's capacity to serve as Vice President. Now, the former Secretary of State is once again deploying undiplomatic language to describe some potential Secretaries of State for the upcoming Obama administration.

Asked during an appearance on MSNBC to assess Bill Richardson's capacity for the post, Eagleburger attacked the New Mexico Governor's intellectual capacity.

"Again, I don't want to beat everybody to death, but I have very little respect for his intelligence and his knowledge of foreign affairs," he offered.

As for Sen. John Kerry, another potential appointee: "Good. But is he able to stand up to the Vice President? I'm not sure of that."

Eagleburger did offer some praise to Chuck Hagel, the soon-to-be-retired Nebraska Republican: "I think he could be a good Secretary of State. I shouldn't deny that. I think he could be quite good."

But his top choice was Sen. Hillary Clinton, the candidate who seems poised to actually get the job.

"I'm not trying to defend her. I think she would be, in terms of a competent Secretary of State, I think she stands probably head and shoulders above anybody else I can think of," he said. "There are all these peculiar connections that the Clintons have had for years, and I can't deny any of those. I do believe, however, when it comes to the serious issues of foreign affairs, she probably brings more to the job than most of the other possible candidates."

Robert Guttman: Obama: Choose Bill Richardson, Lee Hamilton, Dick Lugar, Al Gore or Chuck Hagel -- but not Hillary Clinton -- as your Secretary of State

2008-11-18T10:46:34Z

The new president-elect will have his hands full when he takes office in January, 2009 withdrawing American forces from Iraq and sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan and trying to successfully revive our ailing economy.

Luckily, he will have Vice-President Joe Biden who has an extensive background in foreign policy as his years as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Like most administrations before them, foreign policy will be made out of the White House. While President Obama spends his time on an economic stimulus and other domestic concerns Vice-President Biden can be the point person on foreign policy issues.

The new secretary of state will not be the person making foreign policy for the country under President Obama. He or she will be more than a mere figure head but will not be running a power center in the new administration.

So, why spend all this political capital on deciding whether or not Senator Clinton should be invited to be the country's new secretary of state? Why get involved with all the controversies of the past decade with the Clintons when there are much better choices to be considered? Why go back in time and get the country involved with the Clinton family again?

Didn't Obama promise change -- and massive change at that? Already, his senior staff appointments have ties to President Bill Clinton's administration. Shouldn't the new president-elect be moving away from the Clintons and forming his own team of Obama loyalists?

Is Senator Clinton really the best choice for secretary of state? Of course not. It would be a good choice politically to have her in the administration so she is part of the Obama team, but not as secretary of state. Political appointments of previous administrations have ranged from Postmaster General to Secretary of the Interior to the top trade representative at USTR. If Obama is looking for a political position for the New York senator these would be good positions for her many talents.

For Secretary of State New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson would be an excellent choice. He has been involved in foreign affairs from his days as Secretary of Energy to United Nations Ambassador to his many trips abroad as an envoy to trouble spots around the globe.

Other acceptable choices would include former Vice-President Al Gore, who is extremely well versed in foreign policy matters and would bring environmental concerns to the forefront of U.S. policy if he were chosen.

Former congressman Lee Hamilton would also be an excellent choice to be America's new secretary of state, as would fellow Hoosier Senator Dick Lugar. Choosing retiring Republican senator Chuck Hagel would also be a creative choice for Obama. Richard Holbrooke is certainly interested in the position. Senator John Kerry and former Senator Sam Nunn are both qualified candidates for the job as well.

Is there anything to prevent Vice-president Joe Biden from also being the secretary of state in the new administration?

There are qualified people out there without the controversy that would follow Bill and Hillary Clinton. She is a fine senator representing New York and the former president has a very worthwhile foundation that is helping people around the globe. They should stay in their current positions.

President-elect Obama, you have many qualified candidates for secretary of state from Dick Lugar to Lee Hamilton to Al Gore to John Kerry. They and other possibilities would carry out your foreign policy effectively and efficiently without the soap opera moments that always seem to appear with the Clintons.

It is good to have your "team of rivals" under your roof but that does not include giving one of the top and most visible positions in your administration to Senator Clinton. There are other better candidates for the job. Hopefully, you will pick one of them and Senator Clinton can continue her job in the senate. After all, a Supreme Court vacancy may come open during your first term and she should certainly be on the short list for the top court.

David Paul: Obama, Richardson and Building American Leadership in a Complex World

2008-11-17T17:35:06Z

Faced with a choice for Secretary of State between Hillary Clinton, Chuck Hagel and Bill Richardson, President-elect Obama's choice should be clear. While all of them have strengths to serve the new president well, only Governor Richardson brings both a depth of experience and a philosophical commitment to Barack Obama's leadership style.

Each of the candidates brings great strengths to the position. Hillary Clinton would bring unrivaled superstar status to the position, and provide unmatched energy and focus to push ahead the Obama foreign policy agenda. Like her husband, she is a pragmatist who will quickly grasp the nuances of every issue, and she will bring--as she does to all things--a tremendous motivation to succeed.

Chuck Hagel is a very different choice. He is a serious student of foreign policy and military affairs, with a deeply grounded understanding of the international world. Unique among the Washington crowd, Hagel understands and has spoken on the most serious foreign policy challenge that we face, which remains our relationship with Russia. Our ability to address all other international issues--Iran, Iraq, the Middle East, nuclear proliferation, drug trafficking, and financial integration and regulation--will be either facilitated or undermined by our relationship with our former adversary. Hagel understood immediately our error in embracing the Kosovar declaration of independence, which undermined the primacy and principles of international law, and the far-reaching consequences of that action, which continue to unfold. Hagel recognizes the importance of American leadership that embraces the world in all its complexity, particularly after years of hubris and empty threats that have eroded our credibility and capacity to lead.

But in Bill Richardson, President-elect Obama can choose a seasoned international diplomat and negotiator who truly embraces the core of Obama's worldview. Like Obama, Richardson understands and has practiced a style of diplomacy and leadership that begins with listening, and that is grounded in the view that even as disparate parties may have widely differing agendas, the most complex and intractable conflicts can be addressed if differences are acknowledged and respected, as a first step toward identifying and achieving common goals.

In addition, Richardson would bring to the administration a broad network of relationships across the international community and an ability to take on the portfolio of State with no learning curve. From his time as UN Ambassador, to his range of assignments as an international negotiator during both Democrat and Republican administration, Richardson has built an international reputation for diplomatic skill, integrity and credibility.

Much has been made of this being a time of transition from a uni-polar to a multi-polar world. But this is not an accurate reflection of the world that President-elect will inherit. The US will remain the dominant military and financial power for decades to come. However, the significance of that status is what people expected it to be, and the world has not, and will not in the future, march to our tune on account of that power. The emergence of asynchronous warfare and strategy has proven to be an effective counterpoint to US military dominance, and years of US deficits have led to the emergence of China and other countries as powerful financial players, even if the dollar remains dominant in times of crisis. Today, our power gives us the capacity to lead, but will not compel others to follow.

The celebrations around the world that greeted the election of Barack Obama reflect the hope that positive and effective US leadership will reemerge in the world. But that leadership must reflect a new world of struggling and emerging democratic nations that will each need to chart their own politics and path forward. This is a world that will need American support, encouragement and direction, but will not respond well to hubris or dictates from foreign soil.

The world today is defined by overlapping networks. National identity remains elemental, but in almost every conflict across the globe, we are witnessing the influence of transnational linkages and networks that put a claim on community identity. Afghanistan, Georgia, Kenya, Kosovo, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Russia, Sri Lanka, Syria, Timor, Ukraine, Zimbabwe. All of these nations are facing conflicts where religious, ethnic, tribal and family identities are threatening the primacy national identity as a unifying force. These challenges will be exacerbated rather than solved by democratic reforms--national unity was easier to maintain at the point of a gun--and demand the development of national and transnational institutions to create legal, political and regulatory frameworks for the new century.

In this world, US leadership and policy will need to focus on multiple levels and strategies. At the highest level, the US must define and focus on its core strategic interests. This is and will always be its primary priority. At the same time, the US must implement policies that encourage and support regional networks and leadership to engage regional conflicts and issues. The world of emerging and evolving democratic states must, under American leadership, learn new skills in conflict resolution. And all roads will no longer lead to Rome.

This is a world that is ready for the leadership of Barack Obama, who built a political campaign based on a philosophy of uniting people with vastly differing identities toward common purpose. This is the world in which Bill Richardson has been immersed for decades. A world he understands from extensive personal experience, and one where, like Barack Obama, he is greeted warmly wherever he goes as one who has the knowledge, understanding and philosophical stance that can enable him to bring together even the most entrenched adversaries.

Obama Meets With Bill Richardson About Secretary Of State

2008-11-14T19:33:49Z

WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama has interviewed primary election rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bill Richardson for secretary of state, according to Democratic officials who revealed his secret meetings with both as he weighed the decision on folding former foes into his new administration. Obama met with Richardson late Friday afternoon, a day after conferring one-on-one with Clinton at his Chicago office, said several Democratic officials.

He plans to meet there Monday with his Republican opponent, John McCain, but advisers to both of the general election rivals say they don't expect Obama to consider McCain for an administration job.

Mark Nickolas: How Far Will Obama Take 'Team of Rivals' Approach? ... Hillary? McCain? Romney? Lieberman?

2008-11-14T12:15:58Z

Turns out that Hillary Clinton (D) and President-elect Obama (D) met yesterday in Chicago, presumably to talk about the possibility of her being named Secretary of State.

My two cents: I love the idea. It would be great if Obama named Clinton as his very first cabinet appointment and such a move would show Obama was dead serious about his "Team of Rivals" approach to his administration. She's obviously qualified and I think America would love to see a new government that wasn't simply made-up of cronies but of people with differing viewpoints who come together for the good of the country.

Some will cynically view the effort as an attempt by Obama to remove his chief Democratic rival from the Senate so as to prevent a power clash like Carter had with Kennedy or Bush had with McCain. I don't buy it. Obama really has shown himself true to his word and has resisted attempts to make calculated moves that hint at petty politics. So, I do believe this intention is genuine and that he's determined to re-create the modern day version of President Lincoln's cabinet when he did bring in his true political rivals to govern with him. Beside, recall how close Clinton is to Vice President-elect Joe Biden (D).

The question I have is why would Clinton want the job? As Josh Marshall commented last night:

Secretaries of State don't usually last more than a single presidential term. And sometimes they don't make it that long. So, for the life of me, I do not understand why Hillary Clinton would want to give up what is in all likelihood a senate seat for life to run the State Department for Barack Obama.

It puzzles me too. Unless there was some belief that Biden would only serve one term and Clinton would land the VP slot for one term and set herself up for the presidency in 2016 -- but there's not a shred of evidence that Biden intends to do anything but serve eight years. Maybe Obama promises her the next vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court if she serves? Does Bill Clinton (D) get the appointment to her Senate seat (remember that he never ruled out running again for some office)? Who knows?

In any event, I hope it's true and would be very happy with Hillary as our chief diplomat. I'd feel very comfortable with her abilities in a tough meeting with the Iranians or Russians or North Koreans. She'd be exactly what we'd want in that respect, yet she would be executing Obama foreign policy, not her own.

Last point...How far does Obama go with his Team of Rivals approach? Who else does Obama name to his cabinet? He tapped Biden as his running mate and everyone fully expects that Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM) - another presidential rival -- will land in some Obama cabinet post, and John Edwards (D) had a great shot at Attorney General until his own bad judgment derailed that possibility.

But does Obama tap his Republican rivals? Does Obama ask John McCain (R) to be Defense Secretary (I hope not) -- but be mindful that the two rivals are meeting next week. What about Mitt Romney (R) as Commerce Secretary (I'd be okay with that)? Or Rudy Giuliani (R) as either Homeland Security or FBI or CIA chief (no thanks)? I mean Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) or Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN) or Tom Coburn (R-OK) are hardly rivals in any real sense. They're members of the opposing party who have worked with Obama on some issues -- especially Hagel -- but they aren't true political rivals. And then there's Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), who has emerged as a true political rival (please God, no). What about First Lady Laura Bush as Education Secretary (somewhat interesting)?

I suspect we are not going to see an Obama-Biden Administration where Clinton, Richardson, McCain, Romney, Bush and Lieberman hold the top posts. But how far does Obama go to try to replicate Lincoln's governing approach? He certainly has surprised us many times with his decision to take the high road when he would have been well within his right to clobber someone. I suspect we're going to be surprised again. The real question is how surprised?

Mark Nickolas is the Managing Editor of Political Base, and this story was from his original post, "How Far Will Obama Take 'Team of Rivals' Approach? ... Hillary? McCain? Romney? Lieberman?"

Bill Richardson: Secretary Of State?

2008-11-12T08:45:23Z

The Wall Street Journal reports:

The battle for America's top diplomatic post spilled into view Tuesday, as some Hispanic leaders made a public push to have President-elect Barack Obama name Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico, as his secretary of state.

...

The National Hispanic Leadership Agenda, an umbrella organization of 26 Hispanic groups, called on Mr. Obama to select Gov. Richardson, who endorsed Mr. Obama in March after dropping out of the Democratic race for president in January. Gov. Richardson, a Mexican-American, is a seasoned diplomat, having served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under President Bill Clinton.

"By all accounts, Latinos were a key part of President-elect Obama's historic victory," said John Trasviña, the NHLA chairman, who is also general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. Now, "Latinos have the talent and expertise to play a major role in governing at the cabinet level and throughout the federal agencies."

Val Kilmer Mulls Run For Governor

2008-11-07T08:23:40Z

Val Kilmer. By cellphone from Bulgaria, he said: "There's sort of a rumor around that I'm maybe thinking about running to be governor of New Mexico? Well, it's sort of true. It's been my home 25 years. I really love my state. Poor, hardworking, decent people - Native Americans, carpenters, artists, expats mixed in with hundreds of the world's smartest physicists at Los Alamos. I've always thought of myself as functioning as a candidate for them.

"The media interests me and it's influenced politicians since the '60s, and I'm approaching this as a worthy serious endeavor. I would be very comfortable in my position as a representative for the people."

Val Kilmer? Who was the lead in "Batman Forever"? Moses in "The Prince of Egypt"? Druggy rocker Jim Morrison in "The Doors"? Ladykiller Val Kilmer? Governor of New Mexico?

"People in the state are being supportive. Our current governor, Bill Richardson, who's hoping to be picked as secretary of state, and whom I've seen down in the dirt helping people you know could never help him in return, and whom I love, had a dinner for me and said not to dismiss the idea. Said I could be a great governor.
...

"After I wrap this film, I'm off to LA to see my kids then home to New Mexico to talk to friends and see what they say. I know I'm not yet qualified for the job. It's not like I need fame. If that's what it's all about, I wouldn't live in New Mexico.

Keep reading

-or-

Read more on Bill Richardson and Obama's Cabinet

Bill Richardson: Obama's Secretary Of State?

2008-11-05T16:13:58Z

***Check Back For Updates! For the latest news on the Obama cabinet, visit the Huffpo's Obama Cabinet Big News Page!***

Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico and former Democratic presidential candidate is among the top names for a position in President-Elect Obama's cabinet. Richardson has already served as Ambassador to the UN, another possible position for him and ran largely on his resume. Richardson's endorsement of Obama, though he is close with the Clintons, came at a time when Hillary was trying to court the Latino vote. Richardson, who is himself Latino, went on to campaign for Obama and Obama subsequently won New Mexico last night.

Richardson's campaigning led to early rumors that he might be gunning for a cabinet position.

There are rumors that Richardson may be picked for the Secretary Of State, though he kept mum today regarding the possibility.

via MSNBC, from a conference call today:

Finally, Mulkern [a reporter] went in for the kill: "Okay, I just want to ask Governor Richardson if he's been contacted because his name as definitely been out there." Four seconds of silence, followed by some laughter.

"I don't think it's appropriate," Senator Reid started to say, then quickly changed gears. "There's no one more qualified to be part of the president's cabinet than Bill Richardson and I would hope that he's under consideration."

Not a peep from Governor Richardson.

Leo W. Gerard: Obama's Theme of Unity Motivates Unionists

2008-11-03T18:05:04Z

The words Barack Obama uses are deeply meaningful to organized labor. He speaks to union members on a gut level about concepts that define their lives: unity and brotherhood.
Listen to what he says in his closing argument speech:

"Each of us has a responsibility to work hard and look after ourselves and our families, and each of us has a responsibility to our fellow citizens. That's what's been lost these last eight years - our sense of common purpose; of higher purpose. And that's what we need to restore right now."

That's the theme of serving as a brother's keeper that Obama detailed at the Democratic National Convention.

He continues in the "closing" speech:

"Yes, we can argue and debate our positions passionately, but at this defining moment, all of us must summon the strength and grace to bridge our differences and unite in common effort - black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American; Democrat and Republican, young and old, rich and poor, gay and straight, disabled or not."

These are the lyrics of unity that have distinguished Obama throughout his campaign.
They resonate with union members, who unify to achieve greater good for all and who call each other brother and sister because we are willing to sacrifice for one another.
This is what has lured members of my union, the United Steelworkers, to work for a candidate for president harder and longer than they ever have before.

More than 10,000 Steelworkers have volunteered their time to ensure Barack Obama's election. They've knocked on doors, manned phone banks, filled envelopes with letters of persuasion, leafleted at plant gates, worked to protect voters' rights and helped with the Steel Blitz for Barack bus tour that took Pittsburgh Steelers owner Dan Rooney and retired players on visits to battleground areas in Pennsylvania and Ohio over the past four weeks.

Steelworkers gathered together to accomplish these tasks, inspired by Barack Obama's words of harmony:

"In this election, we cannot afford the same political games and tactics that are being used to pit us against one another and make us afraid of one another. The stakes are too high to divide us by class and region and background; by who we are or what we believe.
Because despite what our opponents may claim, there are no real or fake parts of this country. There is no city or town that is more pro-American than anywhere else - we are one nation, all of us proud, all of us patriots."

By Election Day, Steelworker volunteers will have called and spoken to more than 105,000 union members in a dozen battleground states, including Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia and North Carolina. It's an incredibly time-consuming and frustrating endeavor because to reach that many human beings, 850,000 phone calls will have been made. Many of those were entreaties to answering machines. But Steelworkers carried on, spurred by Obama's counsel that everyone must work together to be part of the solution:

"I ask you to believe - not in my ability to bring about change, but in yours."

On weekends and evenings, Steelworkers across the country went door-to-door, checking in with fellow union members to ensure they supported Obama and would vote on Nov. 4. This labor-intensive and gasoline-consumptive activity has proven incredibly effective in the past. Steelworker door-knocking aided both Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown and Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey in winning their seats over the past four years. Steelworkers volunteered to block-walk and drive-the-suburbs in the past two presidential elections as well, but the number who gave time this year was unprecedented. Their willingness to suffer blisters and high gasoline prices was inspired by Obama's expression of their shared principles as U.S. citizens:

"Understand, if we want to get through this crisis, we need to get beyond the old ideological debates and divides between left and right. We don't need bigger government or smaller government. We need a better government - a more competent government - a government that upholds the values we hold in common as Americans."

At the USW headquarters in Pittsburgh, at district offices across the country, and at local union halls, volunteers spent countless lunch hours stuffing, not their stomachs, but envelopes. All together, the USW mailed nearly 4.5 million pieces of persuasive literature. That is a lot of folding and licking. It was worth the time for Steelworkers who understand negotiation and support Obama's intent to talk to prevent war:

"I will build new partnerships to defeat the threats of the 21st century and I will restore our moral standing, so that America is once again that last, best hope for all who are called to the cause of freedom, who long for lives of peace, and who yearn for a better future."

I've been part of the campaign as well, phone banking, block walking, and touring and talking with the Steel Blitz for Barack. I know great leadership when I see it. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who was once Obama's primary foe, mentioned what is for a union leader a key factor in leadership. Here's what Richardson said during Obama's half hour presentation to the American people Wednesday night about the Democratic candidate: "This guy is special because I think he can bring people together."

That is what compelled 10,000 Steelworkers to donate their time and energy to Obama. He creates connections. He unifies. He motivates us all by calling on America to be the best she can be:

"In one week, we can choose hope over fear, unity over division, the promise of change over the power of the status quo.
"In one week, we can come together as one nation, and one people, and once more choose our better history. . .
". . . together we will change this country and we will change the world."

Steelworkers joined untold thousands of other Obama enthusiasts across the country to get him elected. If he is, Steelworkers will remain active to support his goals and ours during an Obama administration.

Carol Anne Burger: Obama and Swing-State Governors Push Importance of Green Jobs in Palm Beach

2008-10-21T18:07:32Z

What gives strength to the fabric of American society? Jobs do, that's what, and that was the message delivered by Barack Obama to an audience at the Palm Beach Community College Lake Worth Campus here Tuesday.

Appearing with the governors of Ohio, Michigan, Colorado and New Mexico and the CEO of Google, Obama's "Jobs Summit" played to an audience hammered by the Florida economy's slump in housing and jobs creation.

"There have been 750,000 jobs lost so far this year and 7,000 jobs lost here in Florida in September alone," said Obama to a crowd that clearly was hearing his message of creating good, well-paying jobs with green technology and the movement to be energy independent.

The $10 billion the government spends each month in the war in Iraq would be better spent right here at home, he said, on infrastructure like roads, bridges and redeploying abandoned factories into making solar panels and manufacturing long-life batteries for electric cars, as an example.

The Democratic governors of four battleground states echoed and supported Obama's message of remaking America's approach to manufacturing and service jobs that pay a decent wage and provide a high standard of health care for working families. Michigan's Jennifer Granholm's state has bled jobs in the auto sector, New Mexico's Bill Richardson understands the energy imperative as President Clinton's former Energy Secretary and Colorado's Bill Ritter stressed how his government has lead initiatives in alternative energy innovation.

Ted Strickland of Ohio spoke eloquently of his state's recession. All saw hope in turning things around by having "a partner in the White House." Google Chief Executive Officer Eric Schmidt represented the Silicon Valley's contribution to growing smart jobs that pay well, while former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker spoke of common sense spending and regulation. A local successful businesswoman, Victoria Villalba, president and owner of Victoria and Associates Career Services, a Miami-based staffing and recruitment company spoke of the challenges faced by small businesses in a downsizing market. She said she pays 100% of here employees health care costs (and the audience applauded that) but feared that rising costs might not allow her to keep doing so.

Obama said that investment in preventive healthcare would reduce the higher costs of chronic health problems left untreated later on. Some 21 states are facing a budget shortfall and some may need to borrow from the Federal government just to continue paying unemployment insurance to their citizens who are out of work.

"The warning signs (of an economic meltdown) were clear," said Obama. "But President Bush has moved to help Wall Street but not Main Street." Obama said, reminding that nine months ago he called for a stimulus package. "These governors here know what the policies of the last eight years have done to their states, towns and cities. We've seen where the policies of the last eight years have taken us. It's time for something new."

Obama said he was confident the country could do these things because he believes in America and American workers.

Obama then left for an appearance with his wife Michelle at Bicentennial Park in Miami. His campaign announced yesterday that he'd leave for Hawaii on Thursday to be with his ailing grandmother. But his swing through Florida (together with Hillary Clinton, with whom he made an appearance yesterday in Orlando) and tomorrow's in Gainesville may signal his last stops in the Sunshine state before election day.

Judi Jennings: The End of Identity Politics: A Wake Up Call for Feminists

2008-10-02T12:02:17Z

Many American voters are still recovering from whiplash. Hillary Clinton's hard-fought, down-to-the-wire campaign for President had barely ended, when, from out of the northern sky, appeared Sarah Palin's meteoric rise from Governor to Vice Presidential candidate. Two very different women, but with some things in common: historic national campaigns, strong personalities, fierce family loyalties, undeniable political ambitions, amazing energy, sheer stamina and lots of guts.

Individually, they demonstrate the apex of identity politics. Taken together, they mark the nadir of identity politics. The rapid succession of two such strong women with very different political views leaves no doubt that gender can and should no longer be considered a determining factor in deciding for whom to vote.

If identity politics is dead (and I must say I am not weeping at her demise), what are feminists to do? Here is one answer: Wake up and get a move on!

Stop talking about who wears lipstick on what, and begin building a new multi-issue social justice framework for globally conscious feminism. Start by constructing strong coalitions with allies of any and every gender who share a commitment to social justice: environmentalists, human rights activists, artists, labor union members, yes, even rural people. Progressive people live everywhere!

Listen to fair housing activists and find out how foreclosures are affecting poor and middle class women and their children. Talk to teachers and learn how to help young girls and boys achieve at high levels, resolve conflicts, and create safe schools. Plant a garden or go to farmers markets and support homegrown healthy foods that nourish strong bodies and brains and sustain local economies.

Research peace and learn how early feminists put peace above all. Jane Addams worked for women's right to vote, inspired the settlement house movement, but never stopped working for world peace. Jeanette Rankin, the first woman elected to Congress, courageously supported peace. Ida B. Wells fought for women rights and ending the violence of lynching.

Ask yourself when and why feminists stopped talking about peace and started talking about being tough enough to go to war, and think about what that means.

Stop talking about personal moral issues and start working for better public health services, especially those promoting the mental and physical well being of children of color, poor children, and the children of new immigrants. Stop arguing about who is more feminist than thou, and start doing something about women living in poverty, mothers suffering from depression and addictions, children facing preventable diseases and violence, and elders lacking sufficient health care.

Identity politics is dead. Long live social justice feminism.

Judi Jennings is the Executive Director of the Kentucky Foundation for Women, but the views she expresses here are her own.

Julia Goldberg: Bobby Duvall Says Election is a "Toss-Up"

2008-09-22T11:42:40Z

Sadly, that's about the sum total of what I got off Robert Duvall at a dinner event at New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson's mansion Sept. 21. I should have been able to do better, given that I was actually seated at Duvall's table, but, as has been proven to me repeatedly, I'm not very adept at interviewing celebrities (and was probably not supposed to be interviewing anyone, for that matter).
Duvall was at the dinner, along with Jeff Bridges, in honor of the movie Crazy Heart , currently filming here in Santa Fe. It was obviously not a political event, given Richardson is a big Obama supporter and Duvall is a well-known Republican, but Hollywood can make strange bedfellows.
Duvall spent most of the dinner chatting with First Lady Barbara Richardson. My attempts at eavesdropping (they were only two seats away from me) did not go well due to the clatter (although I did gather that Mrs. Richardson is not super gung-ho at the prospect of moving back to Washington and certainly does not think it would be worth it if, for example, Richardson were asked to be DNC chairman, a current rumor floating around right now). Anyway, I snagged an empty chair next to Duvall over coffee and asked him what he thought would happen on Nov. 4.
He said it was a "toss-up," but he'd told a close friend of his with different political views that no matter what happens, "we'll still be friends." I wanted to ask Duvall a bit about Service, the documentary he narrated at the GOP convention. I personally think Duvall could read a grocery list and make it sound good, but I found the script of the documentary a little weird, particularly the line, "You can't really see your country, but you can love it." I don't get it; Why can't you see it? de Tocqueville could see it. At any rate, we didn't really get to that because Duvall seems to be under the impression that they never used his narration at the GOP and that it can only been on Youtube. My attempts to convince him otherwise were a. short-lived and b. ineffective.
That's about it. Except--I did not actually call Robert Duvall "Bobby," but that is how he introduced himself. You can see a photo of me bothering him here and read a little more about my very silly celebrity encounters.
Oh, one last thing. Apparently Duvall, like the rest of the world, does not think The Paper was a very good movie, and seemed a little amused when I told him it was one of my favorites.

Amitai Etzioni: Hispanics Went Missing in Denver

2008-08-29T13:06:17Z

Hispanics now outnumber blacks in the USA, but they were practically invisible during the Democratic Convention in Denver. Only one speaker during the primetime slots was Hispanic, and he did not speak to Hispanic issues. Otherwise, though the convention started slowly, it kept improving and by the end, it soared. The Obama campaign may well have some good explanation for this neglect of Hispanics. Hence, it may not need to say "sorry," but it had better make amends.

In recent days, new census findings further document what social scientists have known for years- that minorities are rapidly becoming the majority. The Census Bureau calculates that by 2042, Americans who identify themselves as Hispanic, black, Asian, American Indian, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander will together outnumber non-Hispanic whites. However, lost in this summary overview is that one group has accounted for much of this population growth in the recent past and will do even more so in the future. By 2050, Hispanics will account for 30% of Americans, compared to 15% today. In comparison, blacks will increase only from 13% to 15%, and Asians will increase from 5% to 9%.

In political terms, African Americans have been mobilized for decades. They had, and currently have, a large number and variety of leaders of national presence, culminating in the nomination of Barack Obama. Hispanics are just beginning to find their political legs. Many of them are still new to this country, and like many first generation immigrants, they focus on finding their way and on local affairs. However, with each election their votes have become more important. Moreover, while most African Americans tend to vote Democratic, and surely will do so this year, Hispanics must be won over if more of them are to vote for Obama.

During the Democratic Convention in Denver, only one Hispanic person, Governor Richardson, was given a prime spot. (Gov. Kaine of Virginia threw in two lines in Spanish). Other speakers courted the unions, spoke of Israel, expressed concern for gay rights, and so on, but little voice was given to the issues that trouble Hispanics. This is especially regrettable, as the relationship between African Americans and Latinos is, let's just say, complex.

The Obama campaign may well say that the large number of African American speakers, introducers, and endorsers was due to the special nature of the day-- the 45th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.s "I Have a Dream" speech -- and that they were speaking for all Americans and not just for their race. Fair enough. But the convention was mindful of special concerns of other groups, and hence the campaign should make amends.

Let's have one or more occasions in which we hear from a variety of Hispanics on what their version of the American dream is.

Amitai Etzioni is Professor of sociology at The George Washington University and author of The New Golden Rule and Security First. www.securityfirstbook.com email: comnet@gwu.edu

Bill Richardson DNC Speech: (VIDEO) (TEXT)

2008-08-28T18:06:11Z

Watch Bill Richardson's speech from the Democratic convention. Scroll down for the text of the speech, as prepared for delivery.

------

Fellow citizens-I am not known as a quiet man. But I hope you will allow me, for a moment, to bring quiet to this great hall.

Because at a time when young men and women are dying for our country overseas, America faces a question worthy of silent reflection. And the American people are watching to see how we answer it. What is the best measure of a person's capacity to protect this country? There are often moments of great importance that go unnoticed in the unruly course of history.

And six years ago, there was a moment of great clarity and foresight. And if the world had known to listen, perhaps today there would be less heartache and sorrow. In October 2002, on a small stage before a small crowd, Barack Obama gave a speech that was barely noticed at the time.

In the midst of great fervor-brought about by an administration that questioned the patriotism of anyone who disagreed with it-Barack Obama called the coming war what it was: "a war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics." He was right!

Barack's words were prescient and brave. "I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East-and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al-Qaida." He was right!

He said: "a successful war against Iraq would require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences." He was right!

Instead, Barack Obama urged President Bush-who's never in the mood to be urged in a direction other than his own folly-to finish the fight with bin Laden and Al-Qaida. He was right!

Six years ago, in this simple but forceful speech, Barack Obama did more than just challenge President Bush. He offered a detailed vision for foreign policy-including the vigorous enforcement of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty-condemnation of human rights abuses even among our allies-and a commitment to reconciliation between Pakistan and India. He was right!

At the same time, there was another voice. After 9/11, John McCain turned his sights toward Iraq-a country that had nothing to do with 9/11-and called for a full-scale invasion. Barack Obama foresaw chaos. John McCain said we'd be welcomed as liberators, and that Iraq would pay for its own rebuilding. John McCain was wrong. Barack Obama was right!

Barack Obama was among the first to call for a timetable for responsible withdrawal. But John McCain, to this day, condemns the idea. The Iraqis are calling for a withdrawal timetable, but John McCain would keep us in Iraq for 100 years. John McCain is wrong. Barack Obama is right.

And Barack Obama saw the foolishness of embracing Pakistan's Musharraf. John McCain thought we should support the dictator and let him take care of the Pakistani terrorists. Musharaff is now gone, and the terrorists are stronger than ever. John McCain was wrong. Barack Obama was right.

With America fighting two wars, the 9/11 terrorists still at large, Iran pursuing nuclear weapons

and Russia in Georgia, America needs a president who gets it right the first time. That president will be Barack Obama. With a vision of foreign policy that has ranged far beyond Iraq, Barack Obama has found a kindred spirit in another leader of great strength and wisdom-Joe Biden.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe we must fight the terrorists-not where we imagine them to be, but where we know them to be-like Afghanistan and Pakistan. We must lead a global effort to secure loose nuclear materials, not where we imagine them to be, but where we know them to be, in Russia, and the countries of the former Soviet Union.

It's time we had a president committed to fighting poverty in the Third World and ending the genocide in Darfur; who leads international efforts to stop global warming, strengthens our friendship with Mexico and Latin America, and stands behind Israel with full-time diplomacy to achieve peace in the Middle East; a president who ends the global scourge of AIDS in our time and sets an example of moral leadership by following our constitution, shutting down Guantanamo, and ending torture.

We must do all of this, not because we imagine these are American ideals, but because we know they are.

And ladies and gentlemen, Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe it's time to finish the job and get bin Laden. We don't need another four years of more of the same. It's time for the change America needs. This is the judgment and vision of Barack Obama. This is the preparation he has to be President of the United States. And this is the man we need to return our country into the goodwill of other nations and the grace of history. Thank you, and God bless our country.

John Sauer: Finding the Toilet in Stockholm

2008-08-27T14:56:21Z

Last week a mix of water and sanitation experts gathered for World Water Week in Stockholm, Sweden to mull over the world's biggest public health crisis. The problem is that not enough people paid attention.

Each year over 2 million deaths could be prevented with improvements related to access to safe drinking-water, sanitation and hygiene. To put that in perspective, we have it within our grasp to prevent the equivalent deaths of 10 Asian tsunamis or 1,000 Hurricane Katrinas. Yet a major effort--like those that have been launched to address HIV/AIDS and malaria--to tackle the global drinking water and sanitation crisis remains elusive. The scope of this disconnect is baffling; water- and sanitation-related diseases (like relatively-easy-to-prevent diarrhea) kill more children each year than HIV/AIDS, malaria, and measles combined.

One reason why there hasn't been a Herculean effort to address this global scourge is that we in the water and sanitation sector are not doing enough to influence how this issue is understood by others. We have not been proactive or coordinated enough to frame the issue to the media and the wider development community in an action-oriented "this-can-be-done" tone.

All too often, water and sanitation has been framed as a "privatization" issue instead of an "access" issue. This is problematic. The "privatization" frame is confusing. It too often results in a blame game that takes attention away from the end result of the sector's work: getting water and sanitation to those who need it. Many of the most innovative, scalable solutions to the water and sanitation crisis are locally initiated approaches, such as the production of latrine slabs or ceramic water filters. They are put in place by a combination of actors: beneficiaries, communities, governments, local entrepreneurs, corporations and NGOs. The work of all of them is necessary to solve this problem.

There is a great need for the water and sanitation sector to reframe the issue so that those outside the sector understand what is at stake and become part of the solution. This effort will take leadership, resources, and working together (for more than one week in Stockholm). I propose "universal access" as the theme that guides this new direction. Developed countries have had universal access to water and sanitation for nearly 100 years. It makes no sense why the rest of the world can't get universal access as well.

Another explanation why the water and sanitation crisis remains in the shadows is that "sanitation" specifically has been ignored. Let's face it-- diseases associated with sanitation, like diarrhea, do not have "disease appeal" for governments and donors. The result is that very few people in the general public even know that 2.5 billion people do not have access to improved sanitation--nearly half of whom actually have to resort to open defecation. Those who do learn are outraged and take action.

More resources must be devoted to recruiting sanitation champions. HIV/AIDS has a built-in constituency because many people have a direct connection with someone who has suffered from or died of HIV/AIDS. Malaria has David Beckham trumpeting its cause. Sanitation needs a brave soul to be its spokesperson.

It has become a joke in the sector that no one in their right mind would become a "sanitation spokesperson." But this is no laughing matter. The lack of sanitation is one of the main reasons there isn't greater progress towards enabling the world's poor to meet their basic needs; malnutrition, poor education and disease burden are all exacerbated by inadequate sanitation. And the plight of the poor becomes more related to the survival of all as the world gets smaller each day.

In fact, some high-profile individuals have spoken out about the urgency of access to sanitation and they should be applauded. Matt Damon, Ashley Judd, Keira Knightley are a few. Would they be willing to form a Sanitation Celebrity Council to move this issue to its tipping point?

So the appeal I'd make to the 2,500 experts who went to Stockholm is to start a "universal access" campaign and to make sanitation--the most important medical advance since 1840--a major part of it. It's time to elevate water and sanitation to the status that it enjoyed during the UN's first Water Decade, which ended in 1990. This is, after all, the second Water Decade (2005-2015) in case we forgot. It's time to get this done.

Logan Nakyanzi Pollard: Those McCain Houses... Why They Don't Matter

2008-08-22T20:41:09Z

The problem with John McCain and his houses is not that he has them or doesn't know how many he has. It's that most Americans aspire to be so lucky, to have his wealth.

So to belabor the point that McCain doesn't know how many houses he has - while it's witty and cute for the moment - shows a misunderstanding of 'the psychology' of how many Americans think. Americans want to be rich, they want to be so fortunate that they don't know how many houses they have.

A good example of the gap between how Democrats think and the reality of our culture is this exchange from "The Larry King Live" show, between King, Bobby Jindal and Bill Richardson:

KING: And John McCain answered, governor, does a guy who made more than $4 million last year, just got back from a vacation on a private beach in Hawaii, bought his own million dollar mansion with the help of a convicted felon, really want to get into a debate about houses? How do you respond, Governor Jindal, to all of that?

JINDAL: // I think what they really care about is how do they keep their own homes, how do they pay their mortgages, how they afford gas? What I think the candidates should be talking about is how do we get energy independence. I prefer Senator McCain's approach, with more domestic production, more nuclear, clean coal, conservation. Senator Obama has said he wants to raise taxes on gas on coal, on natural gas. He doesn't want more domestic production. He's against nuclear power for America.//

// KING: Do you think this house thing, Governor Richardson, has any traction?

RICHARDSON: It remains to be seen. I mean Senator McCain should know how many homes he has.

Richardson doesn't have a good comeback for Jindal, and Jindal is able to frame the issue in a way that makes McCain look good and Obama disconnected from the issues that people really care about.

So what might Richardson have said? Well, my problem with McCain, if I were to make the argument, is that he doesn't think about people like me.

And, here's a clip you've probably seen a few times, confusing key details about Iran: it hints at a certain laziness of mind. This kind of modus operandi from an influential person creates friction abroad because it says - I do not care. Even though I have access to a lot of information, I do not care to get the facts correct. I do not need to get the facts correct. And, it massages a feeling in all of us that we don't have to get the facts right. By setting this standard he conveys to us that none of us really need to know the facts. That maybe most of the time is good enough.

While it's arguable that a leader who comes up short, who has a flaw like this one, could surround himself with better men and women, wouldn't you rather someone who started out with better stuff to begin with?

Dems can capitalize on this. Because they seem to understand complication, nuance, and detail, they could play that strength. They could show that the other way of being in the world is dangerous. They could show how a simple-minded leader creates more chaos and how this type of person makes us less safe. They could show we need a leader to take us through chaos, not create more of it.

Richardson Helping Clinton Retire Her Debt

2008-07-30T13:31:51Z

Governor Bill Richardson is set to announce today that he's hosting a pair of fundraising events for Hillary Clinton in New Mexico August 17, which is being cast as one of the higher-profile installments of Obama's effort to help Clinton retire her debt.

Though Richardson seems to be hosting the events in his capacity as an Obama backer, it's also a move which could repair Richardson's own relationship with the Clintons -- some of whose supporters resented his Obama endorsement . It could also soothe Clinton backers concerns that Obama isn't raising enough money for Clinton.