Bill Richardson started his campaign as a moderate Democrat who was running based on a rather impressive resume as Governor, Cabinet Member, Diplomat and Congressman. He talked about his experience balancing budgets and opposing gun control. However, Richardson’s campaign has recently changed its tack dramatically. While Richardson still emphasizes his background as a pro-gun moderate in rural areas, he’s now become the peacenik candidate in the rest of Iowa.
Richardson has come out as the only major Presidential candidate to support withdrawing all American troops from Iraq in six months and filmed an ad with bloggers endorsing his policy. He has phased out wearing an American flag lapel pin in favor of the Sensible Priorities pin.
The most extreme sign of Richardson’s tack to the left was his recent hiring of Dave Rogers as his political director. Rogers worked on Dennis Kucinich’s Presidential campaign and was reported by reliable sources to be staffing Kucinich at events as recently as this spring. Rogers has also worked for Western Iowa’s answer to Dennis Kucinich, Joyce Schulte, as well as for the Sensible Priorities campaign.
In contrast, the political directors for 1st tier Presidential campaigns are longtime Iowa political operatives (Chris Hayler for Clinton, Emily Parcell for Obama) or national operatives (Tim Maloney for Edwards). However, they focus on getting the support of legislators, major activists and organized labor. It seems that Rogers will be focusing on the anti-war left (as it is doubtful that someone who operated a salon and day spa is the right person to reach out to the UAW).
Rogers’ hiring further reinforces that Bill Richardson is making a very determined effort to reach out not just anti-war Democrats but, specifically, to the core of peace activists who supported Kucinich in 2004. Although peaceniks are a relatively small bloc, they are very likely caucusgoers. If Richardson is still around 10% then, peace activists could play a decisive role in propping Richardson in up in many precincts and making him viable.
But this is a dangerous balancing game for a candidate who started running as a moderate. Richardson has already lost one key supporter due to his swing to the left and Hotline, among others, finds his policy shift not plausible. Richardson is playing a very delicate balancing game trying to woo both the most conservative caucusgoers and the most liberal over the next ten weeks. If it works, Richardson might become a first tier candidate. But if it doesn’t, Richardson will not only lose but could so in a way that undermines his credibility as a politician in the future.
This week marked the first time that candidates were competing head to head with TV ads for the Iowa Caucuses, as John Edwards, Bill Richardson, and Chris Dodd all announced ad buys on local networks and cable. The Edwards and Richardson ads are so unique, that one might call the more boilerplate Dodd ad ‘distinctively normal.’
The first two of the three, from Edwards and Richardson, were not what one might call standard TV ads. In Edwards’s 30-second spot, the first 27 seconds feature “everyday-looking” Iowans finishing each others’ sentences about what Congress should do to end the war (the answer is support Edwards’s call to send the same bill that Bush vetoed back to his desk unchanged). The Senator does not come onto the screen until the mandatory “I’m John Edwards, and I approved this message” tag at the end. It is clearly intended to portray the sense that Edwards’s campaign is more about its supporters than its principal, and it drew quite a bit of notice from media when it was first announced.
In Richardson’s two 30-second spots (one is airing currently, the other is sitting in the can to be aired later), the Governor sits at a desk while a middle management-type interviews him for a job. The tone is something akin to the film Office Space, as the interviewer begins by rattling off impressive facts from Richardson’s resume and ends the second ad by saying, “For what we’re looking for, you might be a little overqualified.” Most people will think the ad is funny, but they won’t realize why: it is because, from Richardson’s point of view, the public is behaving like the caricature of the middle manager, ignoring his resume as if experience weren’t important. The ads are intended to change minds with humor, and the media has been buzzing about them ever since they launched.
On Tuesday, Chris Dodd’s campaign released its new Iowa ad, and it provides a stark contrast to Richardson’s and Edwards’s ad in that it follows the fairly standard format of the candidate talking to a camera for 30 seconds. Although Dodd’s was not the first ad to go up, it is the first standard political ad of the campaign to hit the airwaves. In it, Dodd maintains a serious expression while explaining his support of the Reid-Feingold plan in the Senate. Next to Richardson’s informative-but-funny ad and Edwards’s community-oriented, borderline gimmicky ad, Dodd’s looks stately but uninspired.
Perhaps the Dodd camp has made the calculation that they aren’t going to win by trying to run the most inspiring (or inspired) campaign; they see their opening in wonkish policy plans and sober assessments of reality. I couldn’t get them to reveal this entire campaign strategy to me, but I did ask Dodd’s Iowa Press Secretary, Taylor West, about the distinctive seriousness of the new ad. “There can be no more serious issue confronting the nation than how we bring this war to a responsible close,” she began. “[Dodd’s] campaign and his ads reflect his understanding that at a time when the stakes have never been higher for the country, we need proven, bold leadership.”
All this isn’t to say that Senator Dodd does not have a sense of humor, because he does have at least one joke that we know of that he tells regularly on the campaign trail. Still, Dodd’s new web site has launched, and it promises to make full use of all the latest Web 2.0 crazes that often impress netroots activists. Perhaps what we are seeing now is the beginning of Dodd’s repositioning himself to appeal more to policy wonks, technocrats, and bloggers, and this experiment might just work.
Video of all three candidates’ ads is below:
Edwards ad:
Richardson ads (the first is airing now; the one that plays after it in the clip below is likely to air later on):
Today Bill Richardson released new TV ads that will air in Iowa starting tomorrow. The ads, which are funny and poignant, highlight Richardson's qualifications by staging a "Job Interview" (that's the name of the ad) for the position of US President.
"We wanted to do something original in a Presidential campaign - and that was to use humor to communicate Governor Richardson's vast record of achievement in public service, foreign affairs and as Governor of New Mexico," said campaign manager Dave Contarino in a released statement. The ad is below:
In his column in today’s Register, David Yepsen sees Tom Vilsack’s departure as a bad sign for the caucuses. Now the first primary is not Iowa but the invisible primary of fundraising. Now a candidate needs to raise a lot of money to compete and if they can’t, they will be forced to drop out. Yepsen sees a scenario where “by Labor Day, there may be only three or four viable candidates in each party.” This is all baseless fearmongering.
First, there’s a long precedent of candidates dropping out early because they can’t raise money. If David Yepsen wants some examples, from 2000 alone, I’m sure that Lamar Alexander and Elizabeth Dole could have told Yepsen that, if not a couple of others. But Vilsack’s the only candidate, at least on the Democratic side who won’t be able to raise money. Of the three second tier candidates remaining, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson all will have ample financial resources. Both Biden and Dodd are Senate Committee Chairs and Richardson is the former Chairman of the Democratic Governors Association. All three are national political figures to a much greater extent than Tom Vilsack and should be able to raise considerable amounts of money. They all should have more than enough money in the bank to be competitive into 2008. (Provided, of course, that they do a better job budgeting than Vilsack did.) Yepsen is falling into the common tendency among columnists to draw as grand conclusions as possible from events. Vilsack’s dropping out is not indictative in and of itself of some major new trend. He just couldn’t cover his payroll, and one should be careful drawing larger conclusions than that.
Bill Richardson is coming to Iowa in early March and one of the events on his schedule is a house party at the Indianola residence of State Representative Mark Davitt. Needless to say, when a state legislator has a house party for a Presidential candidate, it seems quite likely that the state legislator is supporting that candidate. And if Davitt is endorsing Richardson, it offers Richardson a major boost in Warren County.
Davitt is a well-liked State Representative who defeated another popular incumbent, former State Senator Doug Shull, to win re-election to his third term in 2006. Davitt’s family also has strong local roots. His father also served as a State Representative from Warren County and his wife is the publisher of the local paper. Davitt is the leading Democrat in the 14th most important county in the state in the Iowa Caucuses.
Mark Davitt is comparatively unknown next to another politician who endorsed a candidate in the caucuses this week, Tom Daschle, who endorsed Barack Obama. But it’s doubtful whether the mind of any caucusgoer will be swayed by Tom Daschle’s endorsement. However, while Mark Davitt is nowhere near as well known nationally or even statewide as Daschle, his opinion is a lot more likely to sway caucus goers, particularly those in Warren County. Iowa Caucuses are not won by the endorsements of major national politicians, they are won by the support of well-respected community leaders like Mark Davitt. If Davitt is backing Richardson, his endorsement is worth more than that of 10 Tom Daschles.
There has been some speculation about the connection between Tom Vilsack and Hillary Clinton. Perhaps some of the ’sack staff will move to the Clinton camp, and that would be a huge boost to Clinton if it happened. But while the staff might go to Clinton, it is way too early to assume that Vilsack’s supporters will automatically flow that direction, too. So the question remains: who will fill the Vilsack vacuum here? Who gains the most politically from the drop-out?
That’s a question that requires two answers, because, here in Iowa, we have gotten to know two different sides of Tom Vilsack. The first Tom Vilsack is the conservative DLC Democrat who was our governor for eight years. He was well-liked by moderates because of his political positions, and he was well-liked by many progressives because he was able to win. It is safe to say that the majority of Vilsack’s caucus support over the past few months has come from folks who got to know Vilsack as a moderate, and these folks are going to be looking for another moderate, probably with some executive experience.
The second Tom Vilsack is the McGovern-esque presidential candidate he had started to become over the past few months. He ran far to the left on the Iraq war, calling for immediate withdrawal and a cutoff of all funding in Congress, and he fashioned himself an expert on environmental issues in general (and renewable energy in particular). He was getting some traction on AirAmerica Radio and on certain liberal blogs (although clearly that wasn’t enough) and using “Courage to Create Change” as his tagline. In many ways, his campaign might have hoped to be 2008’s Howard Dean, another candidate who had a somewhat moderate record as a governor but who broke out as the antiwar left’s poster candidate during his campaign. (Vilsack was even using Blue State Digital, the team that handled Dean’s online strategy 2003-2004, for his web stuff.)
So these are two different voids. In Iowa, though, it is the moderate Vilsack who attracted most of the supporters. So the question is, which candidate matches up the best?
Ironically, Evan Bayh and Mark Warner would probably have gained the most. Unfortunately for them, they both dropped out months ago, perhaps because Vilsack was sucking up all of the moderate governor oxygen. (Yeah, in Bayh’s case, he has Senatorial experience, too, but it was his experience as Indiana Governor that he seemed to be emphasizing to distinguish himself.)
Without Bayh and Warner, it seems that the most likely to gain will be Bill Richardson, but he doesn’t draw as many obvious comparisons to Vilsack as Bayh and Warner would have. If Richardson doesn’t have an excellent Iowa field campaign soon, he will lose whatever advantage he might have gained, because folks who were comfortable settling on Vilsack this early could be looking for another candidate to settle on soon. He has a strong Iowa field director already, but that won’t be enough. Maybe this will encourage him to buy access to the state party’s VAN (the super-high-tech voter file), which is the mark of any serious Iowa Caucus campaign.
Either way, all of the non-”rock star” candidates must be breathing a sigh of relief today. Tomorrow, we’ll find out which one is “rock solid” enough to fill Vilsack’s two pairs of shoes.
Last week, it was Bill Richardson to make a big hire, this week it was Chris Dodd. Dodd, who was in Iowa earlier this week, hired Marc Beltrame, a former longtime Boswell staffer, to be his state director. Interestingly, according to GWU’s Democracy In Action site, Dodd has also hired two former Loebsack staffers as well. It seems like he’s building a good foundation with these hires by tapping into the networks of incumbent Democratic Congressmen. It’s still an uphill fight for Senator Dodd in Iowa but he’s off to a solid start.
I’ve been meaning to post on Chris Dodd for a while and Century of The Common Iowan’s post on Dodd’s habeas corpus bill has finally spurred me to action. Dodd presents a very interesting profile as a candidate. He’s always good but never the best at everything. He has a lot of experience in the Senate, but not as much as Joe Biden. He has a terrific website but not the same Internet following as Obama. He has support from celebrities but can’t match Hillary Clinton or Obama in Hollywood. He can raise a lot of money but is not expected to raise anywhere near as much money as first tier candidates. Although Dodd has a lot of virtues as a candidate, he also has his faults like his close ties to the financial services and insurance industry. This adds up to presenting a solid profile of a candidate who should be able to successfully present themselves as everyone’s second choice. Dodd isn’t a frontrunner and can’t pretend to be one. But if he works hard and puts in the ground work, he’ll be able to establish himself as a solid contender who could end up surprising people, especially if a first tier candidate implodes.
The real question is will the Dodd campaign do that work? He hasn’t hired any Iowa staff yet and hasn’t been in Iowa since Chet Culver was inaugurated in January. Even if Chris Dodd starts making it to Iowa, it’s difficult to see right now where he will be able to gain traction here right now, especially when it can be tough for a second tier candidate to get media attention. Dodd has the potential to be a serious contender among the second tier of candidates right now but unless he starts getting serious about Iowa now, it’s difficult to see him making any headway. (Especially with indications that Bill Richardson is getting serious about competing in the Hawkeye State.)
Word on the street is that Presidential hopeful Bill Richardson has started staffing his field operation in Iowa. Sources have revealed to us that Brad Frevert has been hired as Richardson’s Iowa Field Director.
Frevert has worked for the Iowa Democratic Party since 2004, when he served as Regional Field Director out of Waterloo. After the 2004 elections, he was hired as the state party’s off-year Field Director, and he served as Deputy Field Director under Jesse Harris during the 2006 election. Before working for the IDP, he worked for Bob Graham’s aborted 2004 Presidential Campaign and then for AFSCME, organizing caucus supporters for Dean.
Frevert is an experienced Iowa organizer, and this pickup shows that Richardson is absolutely planning to play in the Iowa Caucuses.
Hillary Clinton had a wonderful first day in Iowa today but is she ready for the next stage? Estimates of her crowd at East High School in Des Moines range from 1500 to nearly 3000. She got an introduction from Leonard Boswell and has had an interview with David Yepsen that’s as close to a puff piece as Yepsen writes. So what’s next for Hillary?
Although this is a good first step, she still faces major challenges in Iowa winning the support of many caucusgoers, such as Poweshiek County Democrats Co-Chair Don Smith. Smith gives voice to two of the major concerns about Hillary among caucusgoers. Those are the belief that she can’t win a general election and that she has been what Smith describes as “weak on the war issue” or too hawkish on Iraq. Although she addressed both of those issues today, it’s too soon to tell if she’s made any headway.
Finally, Hillary, along with the rest of the Democratic contenders, faces one more new challenge. Bill Richardson has a new anti-Iraq war, celebrity supporter. It’s not Bruce Springsteen, Ben Affleck, or Alec Baldwin, it’s Toby Keith. Keith is an interesting supporter for a Democratic candidate to have, although he’ll probably be viewed as a little weak on the war issue too.
