If you’re reading this later in the day, you can still watch it here.
So far, he’s doing his usual job of acquitting himself well. What’s surprised me is that all callers so far have seemed sympathetic to him. They’ve got three lines set up this morning: One for Dems, one for the GOP, and one for us NM residents. Calls so far: one Georgia Democrat who is clearly a supporter ("I’ve been following you since you were in the Clinton Administration . . ."); one New Mexican from Roswell who didn’t identify her affiliation, but asked about vets’ issues and added that she hopes he wins the presidency; and one Republican who asked about a couple of different issues, but who was not merely polite, but seemingly receptive.
Of course, each question gets a detailed answer - he’s as wonky as his buddy the Big Dog. Personally, I like that in a candidate, but I realize that a lot of people want the snazzy and substanceless sound bites.
He’s saying right now that he’d send Jim Baker to Iran as his emissary to negotiate! There’s a counterintuitive choice for a Democratic candidate.
Now he’s moving on the latest caller’s second question, WRT veterans’ medical care in their home states. So far, he’s talked about the fact that the federal vets’ death benefit was $11 lousy grand, and the fact that he’s arranged for NM vets to get $400K policies.
Well, just got the first marginally hostile question: "What are you gonna do when negotiations with Iran fail?" He refuses to be baited; good for him. He’s pointing out that diplomacy should be the first option, with the sabre-rattling coming only upon diplomatic failure. Not, of course, that the current pack of bulllies would ever dream of such an approach . . . .
Los Lunas, NM (I’ve been there a lot lately): Question about negotiating with Iraqi anti-American elements. Again, he’s stressing the importance of bringing Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia into the process. The host’s first question - literally right out of the box - was: "If you’re elected president, what will you do about Iraq?" His response: Set a timetable for withdrawal of troops within 12 months. Use the promise of withdrawal as an incentive to get the players to do two things: 1) Bring together all three religious factions (Sunni, Shi’ite, Kurds) and trade withdrawal and reconstruction for creation of a three-state confederation, underneath a "federalized" Iraqi government, that would require true cooperative effort; and 2) creation of truly multilateral approach to security via bringing Jordan, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc., into a wide-ranging reconstruction effort that would commit all parties to ensuring security.
Ohio Dem: Wants to know about his commitment to Ohio, which is now an electoral "kingmaker," so to speak, and whether he’s taking PAC money. WRT the former: "I’m going to get myself in trouble here, because there are 49 other states" that are important, but acknowledges the role of Ohio and promises to campaign accordingly. WRT the latter: Notes that he’s not independently wealthy, and is indeed taking PAC money, within campaign finance limits.
NM teacher, via e-mail: Wants to know about low teacher pay in NM; Richardson points out the changes he’s made already, as well as his bill before the current Lege. What he hints at, but doesn’t say bluntly, is that we’re coming off several terms’ worth of GOP anti-union and anti-teacher policies that left our state’s educational system in the gutter.
Okay, on to Mike Gravel . . . . I’ll have additional Richardson posts later today, too.
Update: Mike Gravel is obviously not my choice (although, were he by some freak chance to become the nominee, I’d vote for him in a heartbeat). However, I think he knows that he has no real chance, and it has freed him to say what he really believes. He was jsut asked a question by a [clearly conservative] Democratic caller who was agitating over the "homosexual agenda" and its supposed hold on the Democratic Party. Gravel professed confusion about what the caller’s question was, then said, "Look, here’s what I think . . .," and promptly endorsed gay marriage. Not civil unions, not domestic partnerships - marriage, for consenting adults, period. He concluded with this: "I think that it’s entirely right for a man and a woman to get married, a woman and a woman to get married, or a man and a man to get married. I can’t be any more clear than that." Bravo, Mike!!! (He’s wrong on the sales tax, but that’s another post . . . .)
