|
Richardson uses the B-word
Governor Bill Richardson was doing just fine as he addressed the National Jewish Democratic Council conference. He was engaging and funny, and was trying to convince the crowd that he was, indeed in a position to win the primaries, and even more so that he was better positioned than any other Democratic candidate to win the general election.
On the Middle East, he was not very specific, but got some cheers when he was preaching for direct talks with Syria and Iran. All Democratic candidates argue for that, some, like Hillary Clinton, more cautiously (she said that she wasn't sure if this will produce positive results), some enthusiastically (Richardson seem to think that his personal charisma can turn even the most resistant foe into someone with which the US can deal with).
One might think this is just naivete on Richardson's part, or that the candidate is merely trying to build on his experience as a negotiator as to convince people that he will be the best President of all available choices. Whatever it is, the crowd didn't seem to think he was totally of track. Even those who will not support him (too many people, he admitted, consider him to be their second choice) can find him acceptable as a candidate. And he made all the right noises expressing strong unwavering support for Israel (Did you know New Mexico has trade agreements with just three countries - Japan, Mexico and Israel?).
Like all Democratic candidates, Richardson calls for a more "engaged" American approach to the peace process. Whether one likes it or not - whether one thinks this is no more than political propaganda (the Bush administration is doing quite a lot) - Richardson is no different than the others in this sense. However, he did make one specific suggestion in his presentation: promising to appoint a special envoy to the peace process. No further details were shared.
Thus, right after the speech, Richardson entered a room full of reporters. He didn't have much time, so the number of questions was limited. I knew what question will produce the headline we wanted: Who's the envoy Richardson has in mind. They always fall for this question if they come unprepared, and Richardson proved just that. Israel, he said, should be a bi-partisan issue he said charitably. And with this sense of bi-partisanship in mind pulled out of his hat the first name he could think of: Former Secretary of State James Baker.
Baker, as I mentioned in the article published in Haaretz today, was a member of an administration "widely viewed as the most hostile ever to Israel." Saying you might appoint him as your envoy (John McCain also did it in the past) is like telling people a "more balanced policy" is needed. It seems just fine to the untrained eye, but is actually a code-word which has only one meaning: I'm prepared to pressure Israel.
Howard Dean, running in 2004, didn't quite understand this - and now it appears that Richardson suffers from the same problem. However, there is a big difference between the two. Dean was a novice to these foreign policy issue and sensibilities, while Richardson builds his whole case on the argument that he is the experienced, knowledgeable, sophisticated candidate.
That makes this Baker gaffe a lose-lose situation for him. Either he admits it was a gaffe - which makes all this bragging about experience seem quite silly. Or he can stick to the Baker proposal - which makes the pro-Israel bragging quite questionable.
"This is what happened when a candidate doesn't have a professional campaign, and professional staff making sure that he is well prepared to such events," a knowledgeable professional told me after hearing about Richardson's remarks. This, he said, will never happen to Hillary Clinton. And judging by her performance this morning at the NJDC I tend to agree.
More on the Democrats, Israel and the Jewish vote
Dodd, Biden and Obama ask for your Democratic and Jewish vote
John Edwards learns that Israel will not do the trick
Is the Democratic-Israeli disagreement getting out of hand?
|
