It was never entirely fair, but for months, the conventional wisdom was that Bill Richardson was auditioning to be Hillary Clinton’s running mate. This came up, repeatedly, in large part because in several debates, when John Edwards and Barack Obama would try to highlight one perceived Clinton flaw or another, Richardson would immediately come to her defense — and dismiss the very idea of negative campaigning.
As a strategy, it seemed Richardson had a specific idea in mind: polls show most people claim not to like intra-party criticism, so he’d stay above the fray.
It hasn’t been particularly successful, and polls show him struggling. Left with little choice, Richardson is abandoning his previous position and going negative. It started earlier this week with arguably the most negative Democratic ad of the year. (It claims that Clinton, Edwards, and Obama “have repeatedly said they’ll leave thousands of troops in Iraq indefinitely, even beyond 2013.” That’s not quite what they’ve said.)
Richardson continued on this track with the NYT. Patrick Healy reported:
I just got a phone call — unprompted — from Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, a Democratic candidate for president, blasting Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for saying she would withdraw nearly all American troops from Iraq within a year of beginning redeployment.
“Senator Clinton’s comments are a stunning flip-flop — she’s been saying she would keep troops in Iraq for five years, until 2013, and now she comes up with an inconsistent, incredible turnaround,” Mr. Richardson said.
With regards to strategy, this tack certainly makes sense. I think Iraq remains the central focus of the campaign, and Richardson’s all-positive, all-the-time approach wasn’t helping him breakthrough.
With regards to substance, though, this criticism doesn’t make a lot of sense.
First, Clinton didn’t say she’d bring all the troops home in a year…
“I think we can bring home one to two combat brigades a month,” she said. “I think we can bring nearly everybody home, you know, certainly within a year if we keep at it and do it very steadily.”
…and second, she never actually said she would keep troops in Iraq “until 2013.” Tim Russert asked Clinton at a debate in September whether she would pledge to have every American troop out of Iraq by the end of her first term. She said:
“Well, Tim, it is my goal to have all troops out by the end of my first term. But I agree with Barack. It is very difficult to know what we’re going to be inheriting. You know, we do not know, walking into the White House in January 2009, what we’re going to find.”
That’s a far cry from, “[S]he’s been saying she would keep troops in Iraq for five years, until 2013.”
Richardson may very well be able to use his Iraq policy to make some gains in the primary fight, but this isn’t the way to do it. There’s just no “flip-flop” here.