Of course not. It's a lot easier to say "I'll unveil a plan to revitalise the American economy" than to say "I'll hand out tax breaks to corporations left, right and centre."

of Johnson County Democrats? LOL.

Your comment reminded me of one of my favorite stories from the last caucuses. Afterwards I asked all my friends how things went in their precincts. One woman I know was very involved with the Kucinich campaign, and she was in a Des Moines precinct where Kucinich was viable (he may have even gotten more delegates than Dean out of her precinct).

When I asked her about the caucus, she said, "It was great! All my resolutions passed but one!"

This surprised me, because at every precinct caucus I've ever been too, all resolutions pass (mostly by unanimous voice vote). Occasionally there will be a no vote, e.g. from an anti-abortion Democrat on a resolution supported by pro-choicers, but for the most part the resolutions are passed almost as a formality. It's at the county and state convention level where the battles over what resolutions get into the party platform are joined.

So I was curious. Which of your resolutions did not pass, I asked her.

Well, three of the resolutions she submitted could be paraphrased as follows: Resolved, that the United States should unilaterally disarm all of its chemical (or biological, or nuclear) weapons.

The resolutions about our chemical and biological weapons stock passed, but even in the precinct where Kucinich was viable, those lefty Democrats couldn't sneak through a resolution calling for the US to unliaterally disarm all of our nuclear weapons. LOL.

Yeah, Richardson's resume as a foreign policy expert is based on thin air.  Strange though - following his advocacy of diplomacy with North Korea and his visit earlier this year we've seen the most progress in U.S.-North Korean relations since Bush became President.  Boy did Richardson mess up there.  

Nor has Richardson done anything for the people of New Mexico.  Which makes we wonder why an otherwise reputable organization like the  Mexico League of Conservation Voters would praise him today in its annual scorecard of New Mexico officials:

Governor Richardson Scores an "A"
The CVNM Scorecard recognizes Governor Bill Richardson with a solid "A" for his commitment to protecting the environment. The Governor weighed in behind a strong renewable energy agenda in 2007 and exercised his veto power on several anti-conservation measures, including a line-item veto of $945,000 for "Gila basin water development", and a pocket-veto of SB 220 that would have provided a de facto $6.9 million subsidy to the coal industry.

But hey, Richardson is opposed to choice.  Those crazy pro-choice groups should never have given him any awards for supporting a women's right to reproductive freedom.  I don't know what Richardson was talking about in Iowa when questioned on whether he would appoint pro-choice judges to the Supreme Court:

Richardson said he'd treat abortion rights differently than other issues because it's so crucial to so many Americans. ``I say this because we always dance around this issue,'' said Richardson. ``I'm also going to ask them, you do support civil rights, right? You do support a right of privacy, right?''

By not directly discussing standards for picking nominees, Richardson said presidential candidates hide vital information from voters. ``I would put men and women on the court who would shape policy for a generation,'' said Richardson. ``That's the biggest legacy of a president. We're already paying for the Bush legacy with these last few decisions on privacy and choice.''

Oh, but The New Republic is always right - just like all the reporters criticizing John Edwards as a hypocrite for advocating for the poor while getting $400 haircuts are on target.  We should take as truth whatever an editor of The New Republic says.  Those editors are so sharp.  Remember what editor Peter Beinart of The New Republic told the nation on CNN right before the invastion of Iraq:  "I'm for this war."

Richardson is just wrong when he calls for a total withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq combined with a diplomatic offensive.  We should keep troops there indefinitely.  

When Richardson spoke at the Take Back America Conference he was so off target on Iraq:

But there is a fundamental difference in this campaign -- and that's how many troops each of us would leave behind. Other than the customary marine contingent at the embassy, I would leave zero troops. Not a single one. And if the embassy and our embassy personnel aren't safe, then they're all coming home too.

No airbases. No troops in the Green Zone. No embedded soldiers training Iraqi forces, because we all know what that means. It means our troops would still be out on patrol with targets on their backs.

A regional crisis is worthy of military intervention. A true threat to our country's security is worthy of war. But a struggle between a country's warring factions, where both sides hate the United States, is not worthy of one more lost American life.

And Richardson just doesn't know what he's saying about how to addressing climate change.  We need a plan that goes slower and sets voluntary benchmarks:

I'm proud to have the most aggressive plan of anyone running for president. Within twelve years, my plan would reduce global warming pollution by 20 percent, lower demand for oil by fifty percent, and push fuel economy standards to 50 miles per gallon.

By the year 2040, my plan would require that 50 percent of our electricity be generated from renewable sources and would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent.

You can read the plan for yourself at my campaign website or you can listen to the League of Conservation Voters. They rated it the most aggressive plan with the highest goals of any other candidate. These aren't pie in the sky proposals, but they are ambitious.

If we can spend billions waging war in a country that never had weapons of mass destruction ... then we can certainly find the will to stop the mass destruction of our planet.

It's time that we as a nation chose the collective good over the desire to collect goods. And frankly, buying carbon offsets isn't enough. Just like paying somebody else to go to church doesn't make you religious ... paying somebody else to conserve doesn't make you a conservationist.