A matter of trust

ELABORATING on his diplomacy during a Democratic presidential debate last week, Bill Richardson told the Globe's editorial board yesterday, "There's policy differences which I believe are legitimate. With Senator Clinton I differ on the war. My plan ends the war. Hers doesn't. I differ with her on her vote on Iran. I wouldn't have voted for that resolution. . . I don't believe, for instance, that we've gotten safer under President Bush. And I've said that. And she has said the opposite. I think those are legitimate policy differences.

"But when you talk about trust, when you talk about, 'Oh she's controlled by special interests,' when we toss those kind of differences, I think that is, those are, personal attacks."

In the debate in Las Vegas last week, the New Mexico governor said rivals John Edwards and Barack Obama were going too hard after front-runner Hillary Clinton. "It seems that John wants to start a class war," Richardson said. "It seems that Barack wants to start a generational war. It seems that Senator Clinton, with all due respect on her plan on Iraq, doesn't end the war. . . . Let's stop this mudslinging. Let's stop this going after each other on character, on trust."

Yesterday, Richardson was asked why shouldn't the Democrats practice for the mud that will surely come from the Republicans? "Because those will end in ads by the Republicans," Richardson said. "They'll use the ads against us. And they are better at demonizing us."

Toward the end of his interview, Richardson was reminded that President Bush originally ran on capping carbon dioxide emissions and on a humble foreign policy.

"He also said we're not going to engage in nation building," Richardson added. "I think a lot of it involves character and trust. Where do you stand? Where have you been all these years?"

Richardson was immediately challenged. Hadn't he just said that character and trust were off the table? He responded, "No . . . my reason is tactical. I'm a Democrat. I want us to win. I'm just saying among Democrats we should have a huge debate on the issues. It should be on the direction of the party. It shouldn't be on tearing each other apart."

He was pressed; so trust debates are OK for Republican candidates and not the Democrats?

"It's OK in general," Richardson said.

This brought yet another obvious question. What if the Democrats nominate someone with trust issues that are not brought out in the primaries? Is that not a problem?

"No," Richardson said. "I just believe that . . . the heart and soul of the Democratic Party should be a debate on where we stand on the issues and policy. Not on issues relating to personal character attacks."

From most accounts, Richardson has been a decent governor, and was a diplomat and US energy secretary during the Bill Clinton presidency. But his pretzel answer on trust and character was yet one more reason the Democrats better figure out fast what they stand for, before they twist themselves into a puzzle that swing voters and independents cannot figure out.

Trust and character should be more central than ever to the election of the next president. Democrat President Clinton promised so many things, then almost immediately chickened out on healthcare and openly gay soldiers. He destroyed his remaining moral capital and political juice by lying in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Republican President Bush promised to be pro-environment and pro-education and annihilated his credibility in a deadly war over weapons of mass destruction that did not exist.

After nearly 15 years of that, candidates have every right to challenge each other on who can be trusted. That goes all the way around, whether it is Edwards questioning if Clinton is part of a corrupt lobbyists system, whether it is Obama chiding Clinton on prewar positions, or Clinton firing back at both Edwards and Obama on whether their hands are clean. It includes whether Republican Mitt Romney is a hopeless flip-flopper or rival Rudy Giuliani was too loyal to disgraced former New York police commissioner Bernard Kerik.

This includes Richardson himself saying things like Edwards wants to start a class war and Obama is trying to start a generational war. The next president will have a war to manage, an unmanageable healthcare system, and a global image to repair. There are no more urgent reasons for a president we can reasonably trust.

Derrick Z. Jackson's e-mail address is jackson@globe.com.