You might have missed it; I know I almost did but at the last minute I happened to notice that George Stephanopolous was moderating an "official" DNC-sanctioned debate this morning with the eight Dem candidates.
I have told you in the past that, with one exception, I have not been overly impressed with the Gov's performance in the debates so far. He has been, generally speaking, OK. But "OK" is not going to cut it when trying to move up high enough in the polls to challenge for the lead. He has also occasionally been less than "OK," and I've been disappointed by that because I know he is capable of so much more. Which brings us to today....
And he was good, even great at times. More than ever, he made it crystal clear that his plan is the most urgent to bring *all* of the troops home from Iraq as soon as possible. He was not perfect, but far more noteworthy political analysts than myself thought he did very well for himself. Over at Reason magazine, they say Bill Richardson and Hillary Clinton won today.
Meanwhile, at the Washington Post, Chris Cillizza, who has been rough on the Gov's past debate performances, gave him high marks for distinguishing himself well on his Iraq position.
Good on ya, Gov. Here's to doing even better next time, and the time after that....This campaign is still on the move and there's still plenty of time to win.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Clinton, Obama or Edwards aren't confident enough in their judgment and lack the foreign policy expertise to order a complete withdrawal should they get elected. We saw this today again at the debate in Iowa.
They'll keep forces in Iraq for years to come. What difference then will there be on the most important issue of the campaign between the Democratic and Republican Presidential nominees?
The path out of Iraq for Clinton, Obama and Edwards will be a long march spread over years. That will be true as well with any Republican Presidential nominee. No Republican will advocate an endless commitment to Iraq. All will be critical to a degree of how Bush has waged the war.
I am supporting Richardson in part because he has the best plan for leaving Iraq. William M. Arkin who writes on National and Homeland Security for the Washington Post recently commented:
"It is on Iraq though, that Richardson really shines. "I believe that we need to withdraw all of our troops within six months," he writes. "Other than the customary Marine contingent at the embassy, I would not leave anyone behind. And if the embassy isn't safe, they're coming home too. No airbases. No troops in the Green Zone. No embedded soldiers training Iraqi forces, because we know what that means. It means our troops would still be out on patrol -- with targets on their backs."
We are spending $10 billion a month on Iraq, Richardson says. "Of the many ways in which Mr. Bush's ill-conceived war has distracted us from our real national security needs, this is the most dangerous," he concludes. "There is not a single sign that Iraq is improving. To the contrary, every indication is that it's getting worse, and a smaller force will do nothing to change that."
And so Bill Richardson says something that the other candidates evidently can't or won't: "A regional crisis is worthy of military intervention. A true threat to our country's security is worthy of war. But a struggle between a country's warring factions, where both sides hate the United States, is not worthy of one more lost American life.""
Source: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/08/bill_richardson_the_man_who_wo.html?nav=rss_blog
Post a Comment