ABOUT FIRST READ

First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC Political Researcher



Richardson appears in Playboy…

Posted: Friday, November 02, 2007 4:06 PM by Domenico Montanaro

From NBC’s Domenico Montanaro
...thankfully, not in the way people usually "appear" in the magazine.

In an interview appearing in the November issue of Playboy, Richardson bluntly levels criticisms and frustrations about the Democratic Party. He talks of the “tactical mistake” made in 2000, how the party has “become the party of the poor instead of the party of the middle class,” and that he reveals a resentment of “elites,” particularly on his position of gun control.

“We’ve become the party of the poor instead of the party of the middle class,” Richardson said. “I believe we have to help the poor, but we forgot about middle-class anxieties.”

He added later, “We have to broaden our base. Too often we have nominated candidates who may be very strong in New England and Los Angeles and San Francisco but are unelectable in the great in-between. I resent some elites telling me my position on gun control is wrong, for example. It’s a cultural issue in New Mexico and the West, a respect for a way of life. Most gun owners are law-abiding. I’m not going to change my position. That’s where I may deviate from others in my party, too, the elites on the coasts. I have very common tastes.”

Richardson also spoke about the way forward in his campaign, talking to dictators, baseball -- including Barry Bonds and growing up with Mickey Mantle as an idol but later becoming a Red Sox fan -- and why he and his wife never had children.

On the Democratic Party: “We’ve become the party of the poor instead of the party of the middle class. I believe we have to help the poor, but we forgot about middle-class anxieties.”

“In 2000 our party made a tactical mistake. We should have run under the banner of economic prosperity; instead, we ran under a banner of populism. It was totally out of sync with a country that had a balanced budget, a surplus and prosperity.”

“We have to broaden our base. Too often we have nominated candidates who may be very strong in New England and Los Angeles and San Francisco but are unelectable in the great in-between. I resent some elites telling me my position on gun control is wrong, for example. It’s a cultural issue in New Mexico and the West, a respect for a way of life. Most gun owners are law-abiding. I’m not going to change my position. That’s where I may deviate from others in my party, too, the elites on the coasts. I have very common tastes.”

On campaigning: “I will never go negative. I will never attack them personally. I will, however, emphasize my advantage over senators Clinton and Obama. I will never go negative. I will never attack them personally. I will, however, emphasize my advantage over senators Clinton and Obama.”

On talking to dictators: “You draw a line with an entity like Al Qaeda that professes to want to kill you. You can’t talk to them. I might agree to some kind of mediation in a situation of dire national emergency but not otherwise. But yes, Obama and Clinton are fighting over whether or not you should talk to a dictator. Nobody’s bothered to ask me, but I’ve talked to almost all of them.”

On Fidel Castro: “Fidel Castro has an enormously powerful intellect and is well informed. He told me he reads every newspaper, sees every morning broadcast and reads prodigiously. He showed me all the books he read. While I have enormous dislike for his policies -- especially human rights; he incarcerates everybody who disagrees with him -- he is a fascinating character who tries to intimidate you with his intellect. Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, tried to intimidate me with his physical actions. He would try to stare me down. He had a bunch of the Revolutionary Guard around us. He was heavily armed. His gestures were menacing. But through his intellect, Castro would try to destroy every argument I made about why he should take certain steps.”

On Barry Bonds: “There’s no question Bonds is a great player and should be in the Hall of Fame. But I believe there should be some kind of an asterisk placed alongside his record. It should say, “There is a strong possibility that he used steroids.”

On not having children: “Somebody once used it against me or once implied it in a race. The explanation is that Barbara and I tried to have children but weren’t able to. We tried. We tried in vitro. It’s one of our great regrets. If you look at a lot of my career, especially as governor, there’s an emphasis on children. I feel I’m responsible for all children.”

And why they never adopted: “We were always moving. I was in Congress, commuting back to New Mexico. I went to the UN in 1997; I became secretary of energy a year after that. I went into the private sector, and then two years later I was running for governor. Time passed us by.”

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

This Richardson guy.  Smart man.  He's got it figured out.  Too bad the rest of his party is heading down the toliet.
'...“We’ve become the party of the poor instead of the party of the middle class...'

No ! We've become the party of corporations instead of the party of the people.
Blame the DLC, Carter, Gore, the Clintons, Lieberman, ad nauseum....

'...“In 2000 our party made a tactical mistake. We should have run under the banner of economic prosperity; instead, we ran under a banner of populism...'

Sorry, Al Gore was NOT A POPULIST !!
He was a phoney who selected Joe Lieberman to be his VP.
The problem with the 2000 election was that the nation was sick of the Clinton lies and scandsls.
That's why Al chose Joe Lieberman.
He was thought to be an upstanding man
(mistaking sanctimony for righteousness).

We NEED a REAL POPULIST, John Edwards !!

Edwards/Obama '08
What if the government looked out for people instead of corporations ?
I don't know about you Domenico, but I read Playboy for the articles.  But ... if you're going to give us a synopsis of the articles here on FirstRead, I guess I'll cancel my subscription.   : )
Looks like they finally found a way to get Edwards to buy the magazine.
Thanks for this - I'd like to read the whole article - does Playboy play on line?  :)
I like the way Richardson thinks.  After reading up on him,  i'd vote for him over Ms. Clinto or Obama.
As a life long Democrat, I thinkthe party is moving in the wrong direction with either of those two.
Again, I have to stress that the Democrats need to correct their falures in past elections if they hope to win in 2008.  On big mistake is that they think the rest of the country thinks like them.  The result is that on the election night map only the Northeast and California are painted Democrat blue.  You don't win the White House with the largest number of votes - you win the White House with the largest number of state by state electoral votes.  The sure thing about Governor Richardson is he will put states Kerry and Gore could not win - like Florida and New Mexico in play for their combined total of 32 electoral votes.  Richardson is Hispanic which automatically gives him a leg up in Florida.  As Governor of New Mexico he will deliver that state too.  If nothing else he forces the Republicans to spend money and resources there that they otherwise would not.

Just look at the record and you will see a long list of failed candidates from Northern states the Democrats thought they could sell on the country. Dukakis, Mondale, and Kerry . . .  Al Gore was viewed as a Washington insider and even though he came from the South he could not win his own home state.

Just because Bush is unpopular, doesn't mean the Democrats can cakewalk to the White House.  The Democrat Congress is unpopular too and that is where most of the Democratic candidates come from.  If the Democrats are going to win they need to win states in the West and South and I don't see how these other candidates are going to do that.
Sierra, I don't agree with all those statements but choosing Lieberman was a BIG mistake on Al Gore's part. I think it could have made the difference in the election. Holy Joe was offending people left and right during the campaign and I know it cost votes.
The USA needs a Diplomat like Bill Richardson which includes the rest of the world.
The USA needs a Diplomat like Bill Richardson which includes the rest of the world.
I have long been a "Eisenhower" "Nixon" republican,Richardson will get my vote in the Massachusetts primary!
Bill Richardson is, by far, the best Democrat running.  The only one I've seen with a respect for the limits of power.  His personal decency shows through with the way he rescued HRC, except that I believe she is REALLY one person who doesn't deserve to be rescued.  The only one with respect for gun rights.  Oh, just by far the most experienced.
   And the only liberal.
All of the others, "progressives", worship the same god as their claimed arch-enemy, Karl Rove.  The father of Progressivism is Theodore Roosevelt, who is Rove's hero.  Fortunately for America, TR's progressivism died after only a few years, as America realized it was just a stop on the road to socialism.    
Here's a novel idea. After the incompetance, arrogance, idiocy, malfeasance, corruption and all the rest of the Bush legacy, why don't we choose a president who is intelligent, well-educated, honest, competent, experienced and likely to look out for the people?  That might be a better criteria than choosing someone we think we would enjoy having a beer with.

As for Richardson, he has been an effective governor here in New Mexico, so if he doesn't become the Democratic nominee, it is your loss and our gain.
The middle class is the Neo-poor so better get them back on the bus, they need somebody to work for them.
Hey, Norm, I'd rather sleep with Edwards than any of the Republicans, even Romney, who is the handsomest of them but also rather icky. Kidding aside, I support Edwards because he is the sharpest of the lot, and his values are All-American, the values we used to have: up-ward mobility, positive thinking, competitive and compassionate.
Gov. Richardson represents the type of Democrat that could perhaps get this constitutionalist-who-leans-Republican (most of the time, anyway) to vote for someone in his party.  He has broad experience and, for the most part, a moderate approach to government.  I am (of course) concerned that he supports more government involvement in health care and education than I believe is constitutionally valid, but his positions (to the extent I understand them) are more constitutionalist than those of any other Democrat with the possible exception of Sen. Biden.

Unfortunately, he has no more chance of being nominated by his party than does Ron Paul by the Republicans.  The "star quality" surrounding Sens. Clinton and Obama (not particularly justified, but nonetheless omnipresent) practically ensures that one of them, and not the obviously better-qualified Richardson or Biden, will win the nomination.

The only possible saving grace from that is the fact that Sens. Obama and Clinton will be harder for the Democrats to elect in 2008.

Fortunately.

Sierra--You are quite correct that Al Gore was not a populist in 2000.  He ran (badly) as the heir-apparent to the incumbent President Clinton.  Anyone who had to "re-invent" himself or his candidacy a half-dozen times in the same campaign obviously had nothing to run on.  Al Gore was "done in" in 2000 by his own ineptitude and Bill Clinton's excesses.  

The fact that Gore chose Sen. Lieberman as a running mate had little to do with his loss.  You animus against the gentleman from CT is obviously predicated on his refusal to denounce the Iraq war, and not anything else.  That is hardly a reason to vilify him, even for the SITTs (single-issue tub thumpers)who think Iraq is the ONLY salient issue.

Populism is little more than a disguised form of class warfare.  it was tried (unsuccessfully) during the Gilded Age and failed miserably as a political tactic.  It is now usually trundled out by those who want to make political hay by turning people against each other on economic grounds.  

I sincerely hope that John Edwards does not get the Democratic nomination.  I say that because his brand of class-warfare politics will not only not succeed, it will further polarize and tear the country apart.  The only good thing that might come from an Edwards nomination is a defeat for the Democrats next year, and even that may not be for the best.  
Amy B . . . Hey, Norm, I'd rather sleep with Edwards than any of the Republicans,

This guy Edwards is really a hunk!  He's already got them lining up in case something happens to Liz.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=445511

First Read e-mail alerts


Sign up for First Read alerts
The first place for key political news and analysis

Syndicate This Site

Add First Read to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google