Wearing Out the Shoe Leather in New Hampshire

By Emily Esterson, 7-30-07

If Bill Richardson wins the Democratic nomination, you’ll know who his cabinet members will be before the election. That’s what he told New Hampshire-ites this past weekend as he continued his relentless campaigning there. Richardson told the audience at Dartmouth College in Hannover, N.H. that he’d appoint a teacher as secretary of education and a union member as labor secretary. He’d even (gasp) appoint some Republicans. Is Richardson making such a bold promise now since his chances of winning seem so slim? It’s easy to promise what you know you won’t be called on to deliver. Richardson’s cabinet in the state of New Mexico has turned over substantially since his first appointments, so making those names known early doesn’t seem to be a big risk.

The way the campaign is shaping up, we’re due for a woman, an African American, a Latino or a good looking White Guy as the democratic presidential nominee. So if you’re a woman, an African American, a Latino or a White Guy, do you vote along race or gender lines? Or do you vote for the best person for the job? Or do you vote for the person who’s electable? New American Media poses the question regarding Richardson, as he prepares for a televised debate on Spanish language TV. Richardson demanded he be allowed to speak in Spanish rather than through the interpreter provided for the rest of the candidates. Richardson runs the risk of seeming one-dimensional, the website writes, if he asks Latinos to support him because he’s Latino. With rapidly growing population and stronger and more sophisticated political might it’s simplistic to believe that all Latinos stand unified on issues such as the Iraq war (where many are serving) or even immigration. After all, candidates are supposed to represent a wide range of issues and populations. Richardson has to walk a thin line here, writes NAM, between being a Latino candidate and being a democratic candidate.

Remember Al Qaeda and Afghanistan? The guys that blew up the World Trade Center and crashed a plane into the Pentagon? Exploded some bombs in the London Underground? Bill Richardson remembers, and plans to do something about it. For the past several weeks he’s been touting his aggressive “everyone out now” policy in Iraq. Over the weekend he said he’d shift troops to Afghanistan and re-energize efforts to capture Al Qaida’s leadership located on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.  Richardson told the International Herald Tribune, “If only the president had kept his eye on the ball and finished the job when he had the chance,” he said. “Al-Qaida was on the ropes in 2002, cornered in the badlands between Afghanistan and Pakistan. If our troops had been given the resources they needed, we could have finished them off.”

From the interesting stats department:  As of July 29, Richardson had made 15 visits to New Hampshire since November 2004 and spent 28 days here, according to Democracy in Action, an outfit that tracks the movements of candidates. Clinton has visited the state 11 times and spent 14 days here; Obama has dropped in 12 times and stayed 17 days. The Nashua Telegraph profiled the Governor from New Mexico over the weekend, noting that some pundits believe Richardson’s relentless grassroots campaigning may actually be working to raise his popularity in the state.

Sure, at a certain point in any election season the pandering for votes starts to sound ridiculous. Speaking to, say, dog lovers, candidates come up with new dog-friendly policies. Speaking to Iowans, for whom the ethanol/green fuels discussion is so over-used it’s become fashionable, Richardson noted that Iowa is in the top ten in potential terrorist targets. The opinion column in the Kansas City Star called that statement a “knee-slapper.”