Bill Richardson signs bill repealing the death penalty

Bill Richard, governor of New Mexico, signed a bill repealing the death penalty. Good for him.

I had two internships in Washington, DC, during college, opposing the death penalty. I interned at Amnesty International and the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. It was my original political cause.

I have long been of the opinion that contemporary support for the death penalty in America is a historical anomaly, and that it will fade over time. I think it is a response to the 60's, particularly the race riots and the challenge to traditional authority. The 60's were a chaotic time; the death penalty is the ultimate reinstatement of "order." The "war on drugs" has, of course, exacerbated the situation.

The death penalty is not about justice or crime prevention; it's about vengeance and punishment.

One of the things that I had to do during my internship at the NCADP was fact-check the number of executions in the history of America (including before we were the "United States"). At the time, in the late 1980's, it was about 15,000. My guess is that it's above 16,000 now. That's a lot of death.

Props to Bill Richardson for doing the right thing. It's one big step towards a more enlightened America.

Hillary as Secretary of State?

I've been dismissing the rumors that Hillary might be named Secretary of State as more Hillary fans fantasizing about seeing her come just a smidgen closer to president. But apparently there might be a bit of fire behind the smoke.

There are pros and cons to Hillary as SoS. The cons are obvious: she's still a polarizing figure in the country at large. As chief diplomat, that might not matter all that much, because she will be spending a lot of time outside of the country, and her decisions won't have much of a clear, direct impact on the lives of people in this country. Also, many of her critics are on the right, and one of the Clinton administration's signature foreign policy accomplishments is Nafta, which many Republicans would be in favor of. In many respects, she's not a classic liberal on foreign policy - she did vote for the Iraq war. That would be a pro and a con; the left still isn't happy about that, but the right would see it as a positive. All in all, this is probably the least-polarizing job she could have in an Obama administration. It would certainly be less polarizing than putting her in charge of health care.

On the plus side, she's highly qualified. She certainly has met more foreign leaders than almost anyone else who is even in the running, possibly even more than Bill Richardson, who was ambassador to the UN. Even her most vocal critics respect her work ethic. Apart from policy issues, I think we can assume that she would do a good job. Given how she ran her campaign, I am not as much of a fan of her management abilities as I once was, but I'm sure she could actually manage Foggy Bottom.

The big question is, of course, the Big Dog, but I think Bill brings slightly more positives than negatives. Slightly. He already spends a huge amount of time traveling the world, so this would mesh well with his personal agenda. As to his personal personal agenda, there's always the risk of an "international incident." He is a private citizen these days, but his presence would also make many people nervous. Including me.

In the grandest sense, there are two issues. One, how well would she actually work with Obama? Would she be a good soldier, taking orders from someone much younger than her, or is there a risk of freelancing? She would clearly bring many of her own people, so State could be her own power base. That's a real risk, but, at the same time, as SoS, she ties her fate to Obama's. That one's hard to call. I don't think she is seriously thinking about running in 2016; it's possible, but she would be 77 at the end of a second term, and I think at some point she's going to be happy with what she has accomplished so far in life.

I think she would be a good soldier. I think Bill could be put to good use; he understands how closely tied his fate is with Obama's. And I think both Clintons are starting to respect Obama. I think they realize that they were beat by a great opponent. That may be wishful thinking on my part, but as great game players themselves, they recognize talent. Of course, it helps that Obama has been recruiting many Clinton people, so he has been paying them a certain degree of respect. It also helps that Obama is, in some respects, a better politician than Bill. He's just as smart as Bill, but more disciplined. I think Bill and Hillary enjoy the simple fact that Obama and his people like policy discussions. They can have geek fun in an Obama administration.

The second defining issue is that it would send a strong signal to the rest of the world that Obama is taking foreign policy very seriously, that he wants a strong presence representing him on the world stage. She would command attention, which could be useful in and of itself when visiting other countries.

At the end of the day, I come down against giving Hillary the post of Secretary of State. Apart from the baggage that she brings, and the potential for her own agenda, she does not represent change. Obama has hired many old Clinton hands, which is understandable simply because they tend to be the most experienced. The other names being considered are Sam Nunn, John Kerry, and Bill Richardson. Nunn would be a good choice, not least because he brings some geographic diversity, and he's eminently qualified, but he is somewhat conservative. John Kerry would be a safe choice, but not an inspired one. I'm leaning towards Richardson. He's extraordinarly qualified, he would bring some diversity, and he clearly has a passion for diplomacy. And he doesn't have a lot of baggage. Obama has made it clear that he doesn't like drama within his circle of advisors. Choosing Hillary as Secretary of State would be a serious challenge to that most excellent principle of governance.

James Carville is an idiot, Part 2

First of all, I should clarify that I don't really think that James Carville is an idiot. He's obviously a very intelligent man, and I am very glad that he is on my team (at least in terms of party). But I want to expand a bit on my earlier post. I think his comment about Richardson was idiotic because it reinforces what many people are saying about the Clintons: it's all about them. They put their interests ahead of everyone and eveyrthing else. Calling a former colleague who supports Obama "Judas" and justifying it in terms of loyalty makes that blatant. I'm still glad I supported and worked for Bill Clinton in the 1990's. But it is increasingly clear that people like Andrew Sullivan are right: you are with them or you are against them.

James Carville is an idiot

James Carville wrote in the WaPo recently about his description of Bill Richardson as "Judas" for not supporting the Clintons. He's unrepentant - Richardson is a traitor, pure and simple. He does add some classic Ragin' Cajun flavor:

Heck, I give myself some credit for managing to get the Clinton and Obama campaigns to agree on something -- that neither wanted to be associated with my remarks.

He is personally deeply loyal to the Clintons, which is perfectly appropriate - they made him. And, at the very least, Richardson could have kept his mouth shut: "Silence on his part would have spoken loudly enough."

For Carville, it's pretty straightforward: "I believe that loyalty is a cardinal virtue."

Fine. Nothing wrong with loyalty. But Carville is a political operative, not an elected official. And for someone holding an elected post, I think the loyalty should first go to the three c's: country, conscience, and constituents. Richardson's loyalty to the Clintons is superseded by his loyalty to America, his principles, and what he believes is the best for the people of his state. If James Carville can't handle that kind of complex political calculation, maybe he should keep his mouth shut.

Obama and Superdelegates

Rumor has it, from Tom Brokaw, that Obama has 50 more superdelegates ready to announce their support for him. My guess is that the Big Three who have not yet announced their endorsements, i.e. Al Gore, John Edwards, and Bill Richardson, will announce their support for Obama very soon, within a week, at the latest. That's my prediction.