[Commentary] If there were an award for “most improved presidential candidate” to be awarded in 2008, no one would deserve it more than Gov. Bill Richardson.  The candidate Iowans got to know through a series of satirical TV ads over the summer is no longer kidding around.  On the campaign trail here this week, Richardson left the distinct impression that he means business.

Kicking off his latest campaign swing Thursday, the New Mexico governor gave a speech on global threats, one which I expected would be ridden with gaffes, pie-in-the-sky policy proposals, and poll-tested mumbo jumbo.  Having not seen Richardson stump in person for a period of two months, I had no idea what I was in for.

Richardson’s address, which he delivered using a teleprompter with unexpected precision and rhetorical skill, was bold and informative.  Far from the repetition I have accustomed myself to in these sorts of speeches over the past few months, Richardson showed his true colors as a man devoted to humanitarianism and global citizenship.  I dare say he sounded presidential.

“America will never be safe in a world riddled by poverty, by desperation, by hatred, and by violence,” he said.  “A hungry world will also hunger for scapegoats.  A thirsty world will thirst for revenge.  A world of crisis will be a world of anger and violence — and terrorism.”

“No nation can defend its own interests without blending with the interests of others.  It’s called international cooperation.”Proposing what he labeled “new realism” for American foreign policy, Richardson’s ideas are not altogether new.  Sen. John Kerry used similar arguments in the 2004 presidential campaign, and for decades liberal academics have supported this revision of the traditional international realism that drives US foreign policy out of self interest.  But this is the argument that provides the much-needed link between Richardson’s resume and his candidacy, and until this point Richardson did not seem to be making it effectively.

The speech showcased his diplomatic experience by folding it into its broader theme.  Rather than simply listing the countries where he has been involved in negotiations and leaving it there, Richardson explicitly laid out lessons he learned from his official trips abroad.  Did you know, for instance, that the root cause of the genocide in the Sudan was environmental?  Richardson knows.

He also used his diplomatic resume to prove that he has experience making difficult decisions.  When an American journalist and two of his foreign-born assistants were taken hostage in the Sudan, he traveled to the region to negotiate for their release.  He was offered the opportunity to take the American but to leave the other two hostages behind, and Richardson said no.  He had been offered an easy out, but he decided that he would not leave until all three were released.  And when he was finished negotiating, he had succeeded.  “Sometimes,” he said, “you have to lay things on the line to get results.”

In past appearances, he would have skipped that line in favor of a joke in which former President Bill Clinton called him “the undersecretary for thugs.”

Towards the end of his address, Richardson engaged directly with his opponents for the Democratic presidential nomination on the issue that may be the key to his success in the Iowa Caucuses.  “We cannot afford leadership that has not been tested,” he said.  “My colleagues in this race have my respect, but it is a simple fact that the next international deal negotiated by any of them will be their first.”

When he finished, the crowd of over 250 in downtown Des Moines gave him a standing ovation, but the format of the event — and the governor’s schedule — did not allow for questions.

At that point, I was still skeptical.  I wanted to see if Richardson’s newfound seriousness would translate to his “town hall” style events or if it was merely a product of his teleprompter.  So I followed him to the next event on his public schedule, which was in Nevada, IA, Thursday evening.

I expected the torrential downpour that had lasted for much for much of the afternoon to depress turnout, but when I arrived 15 minutes early, the chairs in the “Story County Outdoor Recreation for Everyone” complex were already full.

True to form, Richardson kept his stump speech short, folding new sections of his speech (based on his address earlier in the day) into his standard talking points.  “I’m troubled by the debate within the party on the war,” he said, before launching into a concise explanation of his plan to withdraw all troops from Iraq as soon as possible, because diplomacy will not succeed until our troops are gone.  “I’m not happy with the congress,” he said.  “They haven’t even made a dent” on Iraq policy.

He quickly concluded his remarks and opened the floor for questions, which covered a wide variety of topics.  I had seen Richardson stumble at this point during previous events over the summer, so I was expecting things to get a little shaky.  Again, my expectations were confounded.

He fielded questions on subjects ranging from peace between Israel and the Palestinians to fuel standards, and his answers were coherent and specific.  He displayed an understanding of the complex problems facing the world, emphasizing the gravity of our situation, but he was careful to note that “I’m not trying to be an alarmist.”

The only question where he stumbled noticeably was on the Farm Bill, which he noted is “always moving,” so he was not familiar with all of its current details.  But the gist of his answer displayed a fair amount of familiarity with the issues involved in the debate: reform the subsidy system so that the money does not go to agri-business (”Am I for subsidizing the family farm?  Yes.  I am.”), emphasize conservation, encourage farmers to grow healthy foods, and improve the international components of the bill to open more markets to American farmers.

Asked about “LGBTQ issues,” Richardson dodged, telling the questioner to examine his record as a governor to see where he stands.  “I’ll be with you,” he said, assuming (incorrectly, I found out after the event) that the questioner herself was a lesbian.  But dodging in front of that audience may have been his best strategy.

By the end of the event, Richardson had answered every question that audience members had, even if the last eight were done in rapid-fire succession.  Onlookers were impressed enough that several filled out supporter cards, and I was impressed enough to eat a slice of humble pie (look at what I have written about Richardson in the past) and write this post.