Imagethief has been trying to avoid paying too much attention to the early presidential debates because, frankly, he thinks twenty candidates is too many to follow. You can't tell one from another without a program. And with the election still a year and a half away, my voting tingles haven't started yet. After a few candidates self-destruct on YouTube it will all get more interesting.

Nevertheless, I was interested to discover --quite by accident-- that the issue of China, Darfur and the Olympics came up in the June 3rd Democratic debate in New Hampshire. Bill Richardson, the Democratic governor of New Mexico and a second-tier candidate, advocates threatening a US boycott of the 2008 Beijing Olympics to push China into action. Richardson has long taken a pretty stern position on China.

Here are the relevant parts of the discussion, which follows a suggestion from Delaware senator Joe Biden, the consensus debate winner, that force should be used in Darfur (for those unfamiliar with the players, they are identified at the bottom of the post):

BLITZER: Governor, would you use force to save people in Darfur?

RICHARDSON: No, what I would do -- and I was there. I got a very fragile cease-fire put together there, three months ago.

And we made things a little better. I want with the Save Darfur Coalition.

This is what I would do. Number one, more U.N. peacekeepers. The government is refusing to make this happen.

Secondly, economic sanctions. We've imposed them, but they're weak. We need European countries to make them happen.

Third, we need China, to lean on China, which has enormous leverage over Darfur. And if the Chinese don't want to do this, we say to them, maybe we won't go to the Olympics. And lastly, what we need is a country, a foreign policy that cares about Africa, that cares that 300,000 human beings have died, have been massacred, that over 2 million have lost their homes.

***

BLITZER: Hold on one second. What about that idea, Senator Dodd, about possibly boycotting the Beijing Summer Olympic games if China doesn't use its influence to stop the genocide in Sudan?

DODD: I think that goes too far, Wolf. Here, look. This is a major issue. There are ways of dealing with this. We're not only going to elect a president in November of 2008. We're going to elect, arguably, the most important, if not the most important, leader in the world.

And it's going to be critically important that we use the tools available to us to exercise the influence we'd like on China, on Russia and other nations to be more cooperative and participate in solving some of these problems here.

That's going to require real leadership based on experience that knows how to bring people together -- certainly, reminding the Chinese of the importance of this issue -- utilizing those tools that are available to us.

But the idea that you go in and stop the Olympics from happening I don't think gets you there. I think that's more likely to delay the kind of influence and support China ought to be providing.

BLITZER: Senator Edwards?

EDWARDS: Actually, I disagree with my friend, Chris Dodd, about that. I think that we should use whatever tools available to us.

And I have to say to Senator Biden, Governor Richardson, I applaud their being so vocal and out there on this issue. It's enormously important.

But I think all of us recognize that this is a piece of a bigger puzzle, which is America no longer has the moral authority to lead in the world.

EDWARDS: Watching a genocide continue has contributed to that, but it is not the only thing. The spread of HIV/AIDS, I think America ought to actually lead an effort to make primary school education available to 100 million children in the world who desperately need it, including in Africa...

***

DODD: I'd like to know how my colleagues would feel about it.

BLITZER: If you agree that the U.S. should consider boycotting Asian Olympics...

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Senator Dodd says he doesn't think that's a good idea. If you agree that it might be a good idea, raise your hand -- if necessary.

***

BLITZER: I want to go back to Jennifer, but I have to ask Governor Richardson, you're a former ambassador at the United Nations, and what I hear you saying, what you're saying is that you would consider the United States boycotting the Summer Olympic Games in China unless China starts getting tough with the government in Sudan.

RICHARDSON: Yes, I would. Because China purchases a lot of their oil -- most of it, a good part of it -- from Sudan.

And my view is that they are a leverage point. And they have not been strong on the Sudan.

We don't need, Joe -- with all due respect -- another military involvement. Iraq is enough. And we must get out of Iraq.

What we need to do is move forward with the toughest options. Am I for a no-fly zone? Yes. I think we need strong economic sanctions. And we lack the moral authority to build international coalitions, to fight genocide in Darfur. We should shut down -- I would as first day as president, I would shut down Guantanamo. I would shut down Abu Ghraib and secret prisons. That is the moral authority that we don't have.

The emphasis above is mine. You can see that opinion on boycotting the Olympics is not exactly unanimous. When the candidates were prompted to raise their hands if they agreed with the idea of boycotting the Olympics, only Edwards' and Richardson's hands went up.

For the record, Imagethief thinks boycotting the Olympics would be a bad idea (although he also thinks China needs to take a more activist role in Africa, and thinks that eventually it will). At least a couple of otherwise pro-Richardson commenters on Richardson's campaign website also think its a bad idea. Putting pressure on China via the Olympics brand, as human rights advocates are doing, is one thing. America boycotting the Olympics is an isolating move that will not only enrage China utterly and drop a nuclear bomb on US-China relations and trade, but create plenty of ill-will elsewhere in the world.

Don't get me wrong: I'm no idealist when it comes to the Olympics; it's a business first and foremost. But I remember the 1980 boycott (over the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, ironically) and it was a grim affair that had bad repercussions for two Olympic games and destroyed the dreams of a generation of athletes. Also, there are plenty of powerful American entities that have a huge stake in the Olympics going forward, including the deep-pocketed broadcasters and sponsors, who will be sorting out their campaign contributions as we speak.

But all this debate rhetoric does not equal policy. The election isn't until after the Olympics (giving you another idea of how far off the election still is), so none of these candidates will have a chance to implement any Olympic-related policy from the White House. And neither Richardson nor Edwards, the two boycott advocates, currently holds national office, which conveniently absolves them from any need to make good on their convictions at a tricky national level.

Talk is cheap. When actual US trade is at stake, with all the lobbying power behind it, we'll see what policy decisions actually get made. But it is interesting to see the topic of China and the Olympics floating to the surface again, and it may remain a campaign issue. China is a hot-button in the United States right now. Reuters today reported that the US House of Representatives just unanimously passed a non-binding resolution calling on China to take a more constructive role in solving the situation in Darfur. Some of the language:

"There is no way to sugarcoat this. China is the principal trading partner of a genocidal regime that has thumbed its nose at the international community," Rep. Barbara Lee, a California Democrat and sponsor of the resolution, said during the debate.

House Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, said: "This resolution is a wake-up call to the Chinese government: The United States Congress is monitoring China's collaboration with Sudan's repressive regime. And we will not stand idly by."

The House of Representatives is always emotional (that's its job; the Senate is to supposed to be the deliberative body), and a non-binding resolution is, well, non-binding. But don't expect the issue to fade over the next year. As if the Genocide Olympics campaign wasn't headache enough, it looks like hard luck for China that the run-up to their Olympic Games will coincide almost exactly with the peak of an American presidential campaign.

Note: Among the named participants in the exchange above, CNN's Wolf Blitzer is the moderator; "Dodd" is Chris Dodd, a senator from Connecticut; "Edwards" is John Edwards, former North Carolina senator and 2004 vice-presidential candidate; and "Obama" is a senator from Illinois and, along with, Hillary Clinton, one of the front runners.

Previously:

Don't politicize the Olympics? It's much too late for that...

Did the "Genocide Olympics" influence China?