In an interview with The Hill, Tom Harkin made his suggestion for who the Democratic nominee for the Vice Presidency should be. Harkin suggested a well-known liberal from the Northeast. Not Chuck Schumer or Chris Dodd but, instead, Jon Stewart. Harkin thought the Daily Show host was the best fit for the number two spot on the ticket. When asked if he would consider being Vice President himself, Harkin said, “No, I’d have Jon Stewart stand in for me. Jon Stewart. That’s my guy.” Harkin is the first super delegate to come out in support of Stewart. However, so far, Stewart has not collected the endorsement of a single pledged delegate.
Chuck Grassley was also asked if he was interested in being the Vice Presidential nominee of his party. Grassley’s response was “I’m too old to be vice president. But I am young enough to be reelected to the Senate.” That seems to be a pretty clear declaration again that Grassley is running in 2010. And when he does run, Iowa Progress has found the perfect opponent for him.
Stephen Colbert announced on his show last night that he was running for President, albeit only in his native state of South Carolina and as both a Democratic and Republican candidate. Colbert follows a long line of candidates mounted runs for the Presidency as a joke, ranging from Pat Paulson to Al Sharpton. However, unlike both of those candidates, Colbert may draw actual support. Colbert’s television show has millions of viewers every night, some of whom may support him for a lark. Although it is doubtful that Colbert’s support will be more than negligible, his run has to worry second tier candidate from both parties. While previously, candidates like Chris Dodd and Sam Brownback could run without consequences. The absolute worst that would happen to them was that they would finish behind a fringe weirdo like Dennis Kucinich or Tom Tancredo. It would be embarrassing, but both Kucinich and Tancredo are members of the United States Congress. Now respectable second tier candidates face the risk of a truly embarrassing result-finishing behind a comedian who is only pretending to be a fringe weirdo. Candidates who would normally limp through February 5th in hopes of a miracle might get scared off by the risk of humiliation.
In the meantime, Colbert now joins Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel as the only candidates yet to open a field office in Iowa.
Chris Dodd’s campaign announced that it had received the endorsement of State Rep Ray Zirkelbach today. Zirkelbach served two years in Iraq with the National Guard (and is the second Iraq veteran in the Iowa Legislature to make an endorsement in two days.) However, while Dodd’s campaign found an endorsement by an influential young Democrat in North East Iowa to be valuable in and of itself. It has added value, it’s one of the few Iowa endorsements that Dodd has received by a non-firefighter.
Dodd has been endorsed nationally by the International Association of Firefighters (or IAFF), which provided his only real major boost of the campaign. The only two Iowa legislators who endorsed Dodd previously, State Senators Jeff Danielson and Tom Hancock were firefighters and, of Dodd’s statewide leadership team that was announced this summer, a third of its members were affiliated with the IAFF. Dodd had IAFF-affiliated county chairs in seven of the ten counties that make up half of the caucus delegates and in four of the top five counties.
While Zirkelbach isn’t a firefighter, (he works at the prison at Anamosa), it’s still of concern for Dodd that his campaign’s leadership still has not expanded very far beyond its base labor support and that an endorsement by a non-firefighter is of note. With competition increasingly fierce even among the “second tier” candidates, Dodd is not going to get very far on caucus night if most of his supporters are just firefighters loyal to their International.
As Chris Cilizza reports, Joe Biden is staking his entire campaign on a strong performance in Iowa. He has moved almost his entire national staff into Iowa in hopes of a strong performance in the caucuses. Biden seems to hope that this increased focus, combined with support from many Iowa legislators (including his recent endorsement by Iowa House Speaker Pro Tem Polly Bukta). His strategy, as reported by Marc Ambinder seems solid, based on having surrogates hit smaller towns with a particular focus on the blue collar Democratic counties along the Mississippi River. However, there is one inherent flaw. Ambinder notes that Biden has “nine field offices and 23 full-time staffers” which is puny compared to the number of staffers and field offices that Obama, Edwards and Clinton have. In fact, even Chris Dodd has 59 full-time staffers on the ground in Iowa right now.
Not only does Biden have very few staffers, they aren’t very experienced either. According to this roster of Biden field staff. Six out of his 14 field staffers (all of whom are titled Regional Field Directors) have never worked on a campaign before. And of those who have worked on a campaign, most have worked on campaigns for Chicago alderman or Colorado Board of Education, not for major statewide or federal offices. The ground game is crucial in the Iowa Caucuses and with the limited field program that he has, Biden is in trouble. Unless Biden is able to fully tap into the organizations of the legislators to endorse him, he will not do well in Iowa and get one of the proverbial “three tickets out of Iowa” that go to the top three finishers in the caucuses. Unless things change, Biden’s hoped for third place finish will be just like Joe Lieberman’s “third place finish” when he went all out in New Hampshire in 2004. A third place finish that actually means he finished fifth.
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):
There are are two really good posts on other blogs this afternoon that are worth mentioning. First is desmoinesdem’s explanation of the Iowa Caucuses on MyDD. It does a great job of giving people who have never been to or experienced an Iowa Caucus a sense of how an actual precinct caucus works. The second is an interview with Chris Dodd that’s also on MyDD. It is the second in MyDD’s series of interviews with Presidential candidates. Both are interesting posts and are well worth a read.
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.
In today’s Des Moines Register, Tom Beaumont officially bestows the mantle of frontrunner in the caucuses on John Edwards. Now that Tom Vilsack has dropped out, there is no native son running and everyone can comfortably call Edwards the frontrunner. Beaumont notes that being the frontrunner gives Edwards’ certain advantages but it also means that he now has even more riding on the caucuses.
However, there are rumors in Des Moines that Edwards may have an ace up his sleeve. There has always been a close relationship between Edwards and Chet Culver. Their staffers are to some extent, interchangeable. Key Culver staffers like Patrick Dillon and Brad Anderson worked for Edwards in 2004 (and in Anderson’s case, on his 1998 Senate race.) In fact, Edwards’ state director, Jennifer O’Malley, is engaged to Culver’s Chief of Staff, Patrick Dillon. These ties are the tip of the iceberg. The Culver and Edwards people are heavily intertwined, and the list of connections goes far deeper. The current rumor is that while Chet Culver will not endorse any candidate (since he has to preserve Iowa’s first in the nation status), Mari Culver will endorse John Edwards at some point. This would follow the precedent set in 2004, where Christie Vilsack served as a surrogate for her husband in endorsing John Kerry.
Mari Culver’s commercial during the campaign where she called her husband “a big lug” was considered a turning point in the campaign. It’s unclear exactly how important an endorsement from Mari Culver would be for the Edwards campaign. But it would definitely help Edwards’ standing as the “frontrunner” and add momentum whenever he decides to make Mari Culver’s endorsement public. ( This is assuming, of course, that this speculation is correct)
While we’re speculating on endorsements, it’s worth noting that Mike Gronstal and Tom Courtney appeared at a Chris Dodd event in Des Moines last week. It’s the first reported public appearance at a Presidential candidate’s event by either man. With Vilsack out of the race, state legislators will have a lot more freedom to endorse and it will be interesting to see if either Gronstal or Courtney take advantage of that freedom. An endorsement by either man would give Dodd a lot more credibility in Iowa.
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.
A number of states, including California,Texas and New York are in the process of moving their Presidential Primaries to February 5. Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Missouri, Oklahoma and Utah already have primaries scheduled then. In addition, Florida might move up to January 26 and Alabama to February 2. It has the potential to create total chaos in the Presidential nominating process and to set up a chain reaction that pushes up the Iowa Caucuses to the first week in January, if not into 2007.
However, regardless of what happens with the actual timing of the Caucuses, what impact will a front-loaded primary schedule have on Iowa? The 2004 primary schedule was pretty frontloaded but by effectively ending the primary season before Lincoln’s birthday, the 2008 schedule will further elevate the importance of Iowa. Candidates will, at best, get four chances to prove themselves in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. There will be no opportunity to build firewalls at all or regain momentum after those four states and even if a candidate suffers one small slip or performs ever so slightly below expectations, they will be finished. Iowa will be the first and best chance for a candidate to distinguish themselves.
The frontloading will have a disproportionate impact on second tier candidates like Chris Dodd. Second tier candidates won’t have the opportunity to build momentum or develop a following if they do well in early states. This applies even to Tom Vilsack, who is considered the only second tier candidate who has a chance to win the Caucuses. Even if he takes advantage of his hometown appeal and wins the caucuses, he’ll have to translate his Iowa success into the millions of dollars necessary be competitive in California and New York in three weeks while simultaneously trying to do well in the other early primaries.
The frontloading makes Iowa more important but hurts the process as a whole. It is a move towards a national primary, which is one of the worst possible ways to nominate a President. Although it seems unlikely that any real reform can happen now, one would hope that after the 2008 election, both the DNC and the RNC can get together and actually set up a workable schedule to avoid this type of mess in the future.
