THE BLOG
01/07/2008 07:05 pm ET Updated May 25, 2011

News Flash: Clintons Back Bill Richardson for President

The Clinton campaign strategy apparently has been revamped to tell the American people that their criteria for judging for whom to vote is just wrong. Telling people they are wrong is not necessarily the best way to win friends and influence people, but their argument has another flaw: if you bought it, you would not vote for Hillary, you would vote for Bill Richardson.

Here is Bill Clinton, campaigning in North Conway, N.H., sticking to the key word "change."

"There's a difference between talk and action. It makes a big difference if you've actually changed people's lives, if it's the work of your life," the former president said.

And Hillary: voters should elect "a doer, not a talker."

Assessing the "Final Four" candidates for President, to whom can the Clintons be referring? The only person that truly fits THAT description is Bill Richardson, New Mexico Governor, former UN Ambassador, former Energy Secretary, and negotiator extraordinaire.

James Carville, Bill Clinton's major advisor, called Richardson, "probably the most qualified person EVER to have run for President". But, he backs Hillary, so he must disagree with them that results matter more than talk.

Bill Richardson has been eyeball-to-eyeball in negotiations with our fiercest enemies, and won, e.g., release of US hostages. Has Hillary? (Or Obama? Or Edwards?)

North Korea's nuclear program poses a threat to world security. When North Korea decided it wanted to speak again to the US about a deal to relinquish its nuclear program, Hillary is correct when she says that they did not call Obama (or Edwards). But, they also did not call Hillary. They called Bill Richardson, invited him on a mission to recover American remains from the Korean War, which he accepted, and had to opportunity to grease-the-skids for the talks that appear to be headed to North Korea dismantling its nuclear program, if Bush et al. do not blow it again. Think of the implications for world peace. Consider how many times analogous situations might occur if Richardson were President of the United States.

Or, consider domestic issues. Bill Richardson fought for and won settlements totaling in the BILLIONS of dollars for radiation safety workers that the federal government, Democrats and Republicans, had ignored fo 50 years. When Edwards won his legal cases, he personally took 33-40% of the settlement. Richardson took not a single dime. And, Hillary has done what, exactly, in this arena? So far as I know, she worked for the largest law firm in Little Rock.

Richardson took a state that was 48th in economic growth and made it #6. He balanced the budget 5 times, cut taxes and increased investments in education and child health. Children now have healthcare in New Mexico, and all children can go to kindergarden. He even took junk food out of the schools. He made New Mexico the clean energy state, abiding by the Kyoto Treaty. How does Hillary measure up compared to this track record of delivering results that matter in peoples' lives.

As indicated in "How Handlers Have Hurt Hillary", Hillary's main problem is authenticity. Sitting in the debate next to the most experienced person by far and touting your own experience over Obama's (and Edwards') is hardly the route to authenticity.