Although we have addressed our regret about the focus on Ed Fallon’s failings as a candidate and human being that Iowa Progress has been taking (including the post above and below), it is worth doing so again. It was never the intent for this to happen but unfortunately, events have overtaken that intent. Several months ago, the conventional narrative about this election was Democratic activists choosing between pragmatism in the form of Leonard Boswell, a six term moderate incumbent who has consistently won in a marginal Congressional district, and Ed Fallon, a progressive activist with whom many activists were more ideologically in tune but who many worried was too far to the left for the district. This narrative has not held. While Boswell has run an unspectacular, mistake-free, “Rose Garden,” campaign, Fallon has seemingly made every mistake possible save being caught in bed with the proverbial “dead girl or live boy.”
What candidates do effects what is written about them. Leonard Boswell’s campaign has, quite intentionally, done little of note. That leaves little new to write about him. As Iowa’s only Democratic Congressman for 10 years, plenty has already been written about him and getting into the debate about whether Boswell is a “Bush Dog,” or “Blue Dog” or any other kind of canine is quite tiresome and repetitive. At this point, most readers of Iowa Progress and most voters know who Leonard Boswell is for better or worse. Had major ethical issues been raised about Boswell, they would have been covered. Had questions about Boswell’s loyalty to the Democratic Party, they would have been covered. Had Leonard Boswell’s campaign showed major signs of mismanagement, they would have been covered. But all three problems have arisen with Ed Fallon.
The conflict between Fallon’s professed position on campaign finance reform and the actions of his campaign, including I’m For Iowa can only be described for chutzpah. Fallon further dug himself a deeper hole by not just defending himself for paying himself out of campaign funds via the so-called “Fallon Loophole” but attacking attempts to close it as somehow being corrupt as well. His nondisclosure of his I’M for Iowa’s funds is quite unsettling and raises broad questions about what the purpose of the organization is. The refusal to disclose the information created the appearance of guilt, even if none existed, and created an ongoing story that appears to have severely hurt Fallon’s fundraising. The Fallon campaign has also resurrected broader questions about Fallon’s loyalty to the Democratic Party because of his campaign manager’s claim that he was considering a third party run for Governor in 2006. These questions were initially raised because Fallon endorsed Ralph Nader in 2000.
Ed Fallon began the race as a severely flawed candidate and his behavior since announcing his candidacy has done little to inspire any additional confidence in his fitness to serve in the United States Congress. If another Democrat had been running with the same policy positions of Ed Fallon without the personal baggage, Iowa Progress’s coverage would unquestionably have been entirely different. If someone like Frank Cownie or Kevin McCarthy was running against Leonard Boswell (though it’s impossible to imagine a situation where either would challenge Boswell in a primary), we would ended up taking a tone and stance far removed than what we done in the past few months. (Presuming, of course, neither of them would make the host of miscues that Fallon has made.)
While Iowa Progress’s coverage of the 3rd District has been entirely factual and every statement made has been true, it is still clear that some posts have become increasingly snarky and vitriolic. This is highly regrettable. We wish that these posts had been written in a more civilized tone but, we also wish that Ed Fallon had not engaged in the behavior that prompted these posts to be written in the first place.
John Deeth has a rather exhaustive rundown of what candidates have filed for state and federal office this year in Iowa but it’s worth noting two interesting trends that have emerged so far and what ramifications this might have for the 2008 election.
The first is that three Democratic candidates have filed in the primary for House District 13. This is an open seat consisting almost entirely of Mason City and is heavily Democratic leaning, although it is currently held by Republican State Representative Bill Schickel who is not seeking re-election. The prospect of a heated Democratic Primary for this seat should pump up turnout which will have a big effect on the competitive Democratic primary for Iowa’s 4th congressional district. In 2006, where there was a competitive statewide primary but no competitive local primaries, turnout in Cerro Gordo made up about 7.5% of Democratic voters in the 4th district. However, with the competitive State House primary this year as well, it should lead to a disproportionate increase in turnout in Cerro Gordo County. This means that Mason City, which is the second largest municipality that is entirely in the 4th Congressional District, becomes even more important in the primary. This probably benefits the candidacy of Kurt Meyer the most as he comes from neighboring Mitchell County and is already seen as one of the more credible candidates in the race.
The second is that Democratic challengers have already filed in two State House seats that weren’t contested in 2006 or 2004 for that matter. James Van Bruggen has filed in ultra-conservative House District 4 which consists of Lyon County and part of Sioux County. The district is currently represented by incumbent Republican Dwayne Alons. While the district represents what is perhaps one of the most Republican state legislative seats in the country, let alone Iowa, (Chet Culver lost the district by a margin of almost 6 to 1) two slim slivers of hope for Van Bruggen are that Alons may be complacent as he has never faced an opponent in a general election in ten years in the legislature and has made some terribly embarrassing statements in recent years as well. In fact, Iowa Progress has commented numerous times on Alons’s frequent inane statements. These include claiming that the ancient Maya were a race of giants due to warmer temperatures and that the invention of air conditioning means that global warming is not a problem.
The other challenger is Ron Rossman, an organic farmer from outside Harlan, Iowa, who is running against Jack Drake in House District 57 which consists of Shelby County, most of Cass County and a thin slice of Pottawatomie County. It is a much less one-sided district than House District 4, Culver only lost the district by a 60-40 in 2006. However, if the race is solely about local issues, Rossman has a chance. While Drake is from the small sliver of Pottawatomie County that is in the district, Rossman hails from Shelby County which makes up over 40% of the district. If Rossman has a strong local base to build from, he has the capacity to run a competitive race.
Although neither of these seats are likely Democratic gains, it shows that Democrats may have a chance at running a candidate in close to every seat this year. In 2006, 19 House Republicans went unopposed, although few were in competitive districts. One of those House Republicans who went unopposed was Mary Lou Freeman. Freeman was a long time incumbent Republican from a safe district in Northwest Iowa. However, Freeman died two months before Election Day. If there had been a Democrat who had filed, the Democrat would have won automatically. Instead, the seat was declared vacant and in the special election that followed, the Republican candidate won handily, easily defeating his Democratic opponent who was a 21 year old college student.
The other benefit of running candidates in every seat is that it builds up party organization in areas that had previous been ceded to Republicans and helps build a stronger base of Democratic activists and to turn out more Democratic voters. In a year that seems to be trending Democratic so far, this could yield a surprise or two on Election Day.
The Politico is reporting that Sam Brownback is expected to end his bid for the Republican nomination for President tomorrow. Brownback never recovered from finishing third, behind fellow social conservative Mike Huckabee, in the Iowa Straw Poll in August. Brownback’s withdrawal from the field helps consolidate Huckabee’s position as the leading social conservative amongst the Republican field.
Brownback’s withdrawal leaves several key Iowa Republican activists up for grabs. Chuck Hurley, one of Iowa’s leading social conservatives, was a Brownback backer and will be courted by Presidential candidates seeking support amongst caucusgoers from the religious right. Another major Brownback supporter was convenience store millionaire Don Lamberti. Lamberti’s son, former Republican State Senator and Congressional candidate Jeff Lamberti, is a leading John McCain supporter. Given their family relationship, not to mention the close ties between McCain and Brownback, it’s quite possible that Lamberti will switch his support to McCain.
Brownback joins Tommy Thompson as the second Republican candidate to drop out directly or indirectly because of the straw poll. (Jim Gilmore also had a short-lived and rather pathetic bid for the Presidency but dropped out to focus his energies on trying to lose a U.S. Senate seat to former Democratic candidate Mark Warner). The Straw Poll will have once again have significantly winnowed the Republican field, depriving Republican caucusgoers of choices in order so that the Republican Party of Iowa can make a few extra bucks.
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):
A few days ago, The Register wrote an article documenting State Representative Dawn Pettengill’s dissatisfaction with the Democratic leadership in the State House. Here’s a snippet:
“I’m just trying to get through this term as a Democrat,” said Pettengill, the former mayor of her hometown of Mount Auburn who is now in her third year in the Iowa House. “People elected me as a Democrat, and I would not change during a term, that’s for sure.”
Her indecision leaves Democratic leaders questioning whether they should recruit a replacement candidate for the 2008 primary, and Republican leaders wondering if she might be on their team by the general election.
Will she defect? Well, she says she won’t during this term. In general, though, I’m not too worried about it. Pettengill has always seemed concerned with her ability to get elected in a district that she perceives as leaning more Republican than Democrat. She has developed a reputation (partly, but not wholly, deserved) for being emotionally volatile. Although she has condemned other legislators’ pet projects and voted against them, she is somewhat famous for her own pet projects: last year, she sponsored legislation to ban stores from selling sex toys to minors, and this year, she was the main proponent of the bill that recently passed preventing Iowa from having any business dealings with businesses supporting the genocide in Darfur. (I don’t mean to claim that either of these bills is bad policy, but neither is exactly in the front of most Iowans’ minds.)
The Register notes a few key places where Pettengill differs from the Democratic leadership in the House, but none of them are cut and dry reasons for a defection to the Republicans (or even to the Independent ticket):
But the strain of the last month has taken a serious toll as she struggled with her dislike of bills dear to many Democrats — raising the minimum wage (she voted yes after some reluctance), upping the cigarette tax (she voted no), campaign finance reform (she may vote no), and allowing public employee unions to charge nonunion members a “fair share” fee (she firmly intends to vote no).
On raising the minimum wage, she did end up voting yes, and the political realities in her district meant that “some reluctance” on the vote was smart. On voting against the cigarette tax, she justifies her decision for liberal (dare I say Democratic) reasons:
During a caucus meeting on the cigarette tax two weeks ago, Pettengill wept as she explained that when she was 19 years old, she found herself living on her own with a baby, balancing college classes and a job. She couldn’t afford cigarettes, but they were such a critical source of comfort that she sacrificed food to buy them.
She objects to a cigarette tax because it is increcibly regressive — it takes money disproportionately from the poor, and, because it is a flat fee, it takes a greater percentage of the disposable income of a poor person than it does a rich person. Yes, it internalizes an externality, yadda yadda yadda; but there is a principled, liberal argument to be made against it. Frankly, I was surprised more members didn’t express that opinion. Maybe only a small minority of the party holds this view, but it isn’t because they are the more conservative members of the party.
On campaign finance reform, it really isn’t clear that all of the Democratic leadership are fully supporting the VOICE bill. Good liberals generally like it (despite the short-term strategic disadvantages it may present to parties currently in the majority of the legislature), but this isn’t exactly an issue that everyone is closely aligned over.
And finally, on FairShare, it disappoints many labor activists that Pettengill does not support it, but again, there is a fair amount of diversity among Democrats on this subject. Some have more union shops in their districts than others, and some have different opinions of labor unions than others. Our Democratic State Senator, Tom Reilly, voted against FairShare, and he isn’t leaving the party anytime soon. Again, it’s an issue where some people within the labor movement are doubting policies like this, so it isn’t’ only conservatives who oppose it.
So is it really just the House leadership’s fault that Pettengill is disgruntled, as others have claimed? No. The House leadership is doing its job. Their job is to push a Democratic agenda in the legislature, and they have to keep their members in line whenever they can. They’re getting results, and, unless Pettengill does end up defecting, no one will even remember this story in six months.
I know, I live in Iowa, so a defense of the caucuses that comes from me is just going to seem like I’m greedy. I should say that before I moved to Iowa for college four years ago, I shared the opinion that the importance of the caucuses is unjustifiable, and that a national primary would be more democratic. Then I experienced the caucuses (in 2004), and I changed my mind.
Over on MyDD, desmoinesdem published the second part of her diary series, “How the Iowa caucuses work.” She echoes concerns that we brought up here about inequalities in the caucus system based on delegate assignment, demonstrating that it takes more caucus-goers to elect a delegate in precincts with higher concentrations of activist Democrats who have free evenings than in precincts with lower concentrations of said activists. (E.g., it took about 70 caucus-goers to elect one delegate in the Poweshiek County, where I caucused in 2004, while in less-Democratic and less-populous Fremont County, it only took 22 caucus-goers to elect one delegate.)
The conclusion of all of this? The caucus system (according to our own Geraldine) “favors the old over the young, the rural over the urban, Western Iowa over Eastern Iowa.”
Why is this wrong? Well, while the caucus system seems to create inequalities on the surface, it can compensate for deeper inequalities. Many have complained, here and elsewhere, that the Iowa Caucuses are unfair to families with young children, workers who have evening shifts, handicapped persons, and, generally, people with busy schedules, because it requires them to take several hours out of a weekday night to argue with their neighbors about politics. Not everyone can do that, and it’s understandable.
That is why precincts are assigned delegates before caucus night: if a disproportionate number of Democrats in X precinct have to work the night shift or have young children (or even if there’s a blizzard), the system currently in place ensures that their precinct will still be important. And precincts are the smallest geographic unit our election officials recognize for general elections, so it is assumed that others in your precinct likely represent similar interests to yours. Think of it as a much more geographically specific version of the electoral college. (Maybe you have your problems with that system, too, but at least this caucus math has a constitutional precedent.)
Aside from that, though, here’s a question nobody has asked: what is the harm in giving Iowa’s downtrodden rural hamlets and agricultural areas a little attention from the rest of the country every four years? It isn’t like John Edwards is going to spend the last week before the caucuses camped out in Keokuk and Grundy Counties just because each caucus-goer is worth more there. At the end of the day, Keokuk and Grundy still represent a tiny fraction of the total delegates needed to win, and putting on events and doing GOTV work is easier and far more efficient in urban areas like Des Moines and Cedar Rapids.
While disparities in caucus-goer to delegate ratios from county to county may seem a little alarming, the truth is that urban areas are still immensely important, and that a candidate can win the caucuses without putting practically any resources into the less populous half of Iowa’s 99 counties. A campaign will hire more than 10 full-time field organizers for Polk County before they will hire a single full-time organizer for Grundy County. And most importantly, I don’t know a single Iowa Democrat who will argue that Polk County (Des Moines area) Democrats don’t have enough influence on state politics, the state party, or the caucuses.
I hope this will be the start of a series of posts written here as a defense of the Iowa Caucuses. Toward that end, I’m looking for more arguments to respond to. So, dear readers, please participate: What arguments against the Iowa Caucuses do you find most compelling?
In the latest must-read political story of the week, Adam Nagourney chronicled Hillary Clinton’s plans for her run for President. However, in the New Hampshire heavy article, one paragraph stood out,
“Mrs. Clinton has less experience with presidential politics in Iowa than in New Hampshire because in 1992, when her husband ran the first time, Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa was also seeking the presidential nomination, so other candidates steered clear of the race”
This misses one of the big challenges that Hillary faces. Rogue polls aside, she has next to no traction among Iowa caucusgoers. Vilsack has been Governor for eight years, Edwards still has a formidable base of support left from 2004 and Obama is not only seen as a political rockstar but, as a Senator from Illinois gets local television coverage in much of Eastern Iowa as well. In contrast, Bill Clinton never had to campaign in the Iowa Caucuses and Hillary has no hometown advantage in Iowa.
Hillary will have none of these advantages and right now is clearly running fourth in Iowa. Although she may have a lot of money, media is secondary to field in caucuses and among Democratic activists, all the candidates have high name ID. It’s still early and as Chase pointed out recently, the Iowa Caucuses are still wide open. But, Hillary is clearly starting behind the eight ball and it would not be a surprise if she doesn’t compete in the caucuses at all and tries to build up New Hampshire and South Carolina as firewalls.
Those who went to the Harkin Steak Fry may have noticed that we had a crack team of bloggers there. In the following post, Ben and Alec reflect over the highs and lows of the event, which has made the news across the country.
Alec filed the following post:
The Harkin Steak fry gave me so much to sink my teeth into that I don’t know where to begin.
First, the basics—it didn’t rain and the steak was good. I hear the beans were a little cold. The lack of coleslaw was an enormous oversight. Someone said they liked the chicken but that it could have used a little salt. I didn’t try, nor hear anything about the bread. All things considered, it was a good day on the food front.
Oh, and there were speeches and stuff.
Ben, Freeda and I first stumbled by some of Evan Bayh’s people from the All America PAC. We asked one of them how long he had been with Bayh’s campaign, and he corrected us (with tongue firmly in cheek) that it was a political action committee. We were assured that Bayh would be around Iowa next year. Surprise surprise.
Soon after, we got a hold of Vilsack standing by the ice cream machine and taking pictures. Ben asked him whether the speech he gave for Grinnell commencement in the spring could be the basis of a possible stump speech (read: the 08′ question creatively reworded). The Governor said he had a lot on his mind and that he would continue to go around the country and tell people about the issues he thought were important. It was a snoozer for an answer, but I guess we couldn’t have expected the man to announce his candidacy to three college kids with press passes. Ah well. Then, Ben asked how congressional candidates should talk about Iraq before November. Vilsack said that, as he saw it, the mission in Iraq had changed from three years ago—with an elected government and a “standing army” the mission needed to shift to “building civil society.” He didn’t say it upfront, but he strongly hinted that he supported some sort of phased withdrawal. Could Vilsack be changing the position he offered in June to the DLC?
I caught a glimpse of the back of Obama’s head in the middle of a giggling crowd. I knew it was no use to try to get a word with him at that point. Mark that as the first failed chance to nab Obama.
Next, we found Mary and Chet Culver hanging out by the press. After shaking his hand and introducing ourselves (I’ve met Chet before, but I forgive him), we asked him what issues he planned to highlight before November in order to secure a majority of the undecided voters (the people who, if the latest DM poll is right, are going to decide this thing). He said that he would keep detailing his plan to “move Iowa forward” and said it was important for people to know that he was a coach and a teacher. In what seems to be a recurrent theme, he talked about these credentials as a private citizen far more than his time as Sec of State. Indeed, all day, the only person to dwell on Culver’s job as Secretary of State was Harkin, who said Chet had done more than anyone else in the country to make voting accessible to all. If Harkin can praise Culver’s time in elected office that profusely, why is it that Culver seems to stress the teacher/coach angle far more often?
I’d guess the emphasis on having been a teacher/coach is meant to contrast Chet’s private life with Nussle’s lack of non-government work (besides being a lawyer, which is a dirty word in the Republican party), but I’d like to see Chet talk more about his time as Sec of State.
In what goes down as the best moment of the day, Mary Culver told us she reads our blog and even recognized Hannah as a contributor. That is, of course, the quickest way to a blogger’s heart. Swoon. She said she was surprised Nussle had gone negative so early and speculated that low internal polling numbers motivated his turn to mudslinging.
As we made our way toward the stage we briefly got to speak with Jerome Armstrong and also shook hands with Mark Warner. Sadly, we didn’t get a chance to pose a question—the man seemed pretty intent on working the crowd. But something tells me we’ll be seeing a great deal more of him next year.
And then from Ben:
Shortly after, we watched Leonard Boswell take the stage. I know this isn’t news for many of you, but it was the first time I had seen the Boz since his successful surgery, and I just have to mention how good he looks. Slimmed down and full of energy, he looks at least 15 years younger. And he sounded confident.
He’s going to win this election and it won’t even be close.
After his speech, which I largely missed, Secretary of Ag. candidate Denise O’Brien spoke about the need for a “safe and healthy Iowa” to fairly large applause. Sec. of State candidate Mike Mauro spoke next and got the crowd riled up with an attack on Katherine Harris and the 2000 Florida Recount (The Dems are never going to forget that). Patty Judge, hopefully our next Lt. Governor, spoke afterwards. She’s not that polished but she gave the crowd some good lines. Biggest applause lines: education, abortion rights (”Choice matters in Iowa”), and perhaps surprisingly stem cell research. I’m not sure how potent that issue will actually be here in Iowa, but Claire McCaskill does seem to be using it with success in her Missouri senate race this year.
Something to think about…
Up next was Mark Warner, who seemed a bit out of place at this Iowa Dems event considering his presence wasn’t announced in advance, but was still greeted with fairly strong applause and a small standing O. He joked that some people still hadn’t recognized him at the event (maybe that’s why he was there — gotta get that name id up) and said, “It all starts in Iowa,” which I took to be a not-so-subtle reference to the 2008 Iowa caucuses. He ended with fists pumped and a “Let’s win” shout, which played well with the crowd.
Governor Vilsack spoke next, almost wistfully (”I’m ever so proud to be an Iowa Democrat. Ever so proud.”). He gave a sort of retrospective on the last eight years. He’s probably experiencing a bit of uncertainty right now, as he’ll soon be out of a job and though he’s eyeing the 2008 race, polls show him not even coming close to winning his own state’s caucuses… He spoke about the need for community and the positive role government can play in people’s lives. He talked about the fact that Americans were feeling anxious, especially after the Bush failures of Iraq and Katrina. It was actually one of the better speeches I’ve seen him give.
Culver spoke next and did a pretty good job of energizing the crowd.
Lots of Culver-Judge signs were waving. A choice quote: “I want to be the people’s governor. Jim Nussle wants to be the special interests ‘governor.” (Good, me likes the populist rhetoric.) He also said that “We’re ready to implement our plan when we get there.” I’m not sure how effective this “plan” rhetoric actually is. Most voters won’t read his plan, and it seems kind of vague, but maybe I’m wrong. He encouraged the crowd to take part in the three keys to victory: Volunteer (canvass, make calls), Visibility (put up signs, bumperstickers), and Vote (duh). This was good, I thought. Voters and activists want to feel engaged in the campaign. They want to feel part of something and the more they feel connected the more they will do. He promised the “Big Trifecta” would pull through in November.
Tom Harkin, the man of the hour, spoke next. Always gracious, he thanked the woman doing sign-language next to him on the stage. Seriously, this guy is full of heart. He said some nice words about Culver and then started ripping into the Republicans. He said the GOP was in “full fear-mongering mode” and they were trying to do anything to distract voters from “Bush’s war.” “There’s no virtue in staying the course if the course you’re on is headed over the cliff,” he said. “There’s no virtue in being strong and wrong.” He also threw some jabs at Nussle, saying that “Bush and Nussle are attached at the hip.”
Harkin’s smart: Bush is an anchor for every GOP candidate this year — from dog-catcher to senator.
Obamarama spoke next and boy did he get an applause. He complimented Iowa and said, “I’m going to have to come again.” Is he running in ‘08? More hints that he is. He gave a strong speech and the crowd obviously loved it. He recalled an anecdote where he met Marjorie Lewis, a 105-year-old black woman while he was running for the Senate. He then proceeded to tell America’s story through her life. It was an excellent rhetorical device and the speech really tugged at your Democratic and progressive heartstrings. He said that whenever he is cynical about politics he thinks of Marjorie Lewis and what she’s seen. It was a long speech, but his eloquent delivery seemed to keep the crowd captivated. I overheard one grandmotherly lady behind me remark that “Edwards-Obama would be a great ticket.” Interesting…
Needless to say he got a standing O at the end (actually he received several throughout the speech). Harkin thanked everyone for coming and that was it. We stayed around for a bit longer after the speeches, hoping to get a chance to interview Obama, Harkin, etc, which we were promised by the Harkin people but there was such a long line of well-wishers and star-struck fans that we figured it wasn’t worth it to wait around. So we packed up the car and headed home, scheming all the way home over who we’d like to run in 2008.
The rumors are going around, and Vilsack is set to appear with Hillary in DC this week at a Democratic Governors Association press conference. Here’s how the Register reports it:
Some pundits as well as Democratic activists have suggested Vilsack would be a good fit on a ticket with Clinton as presidential nominee. Both are active in the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, and both have insisted they will not demand a specific date for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
A few days back, Hotline proposed some theories about the role Hillary could play in the race for the ‘08 Democratic nomination. Theory 1:
…unless she either doesn’t run or appears very vulnerable early on , one theory of the case holds that they will spend their time cozying up to her and tearing into each other. (Grover Norquist endorses that theory, too.) At least in part, they’ll try to use the primaries to audition for the general election.
To be clear: Bayh, Warner, Bill Richardson, Tom Vilsack — they all want to be president, not vice president. But they will almost certainly hedge their bets. They will not run a true-blue, rouse-the-base primary campaign.
Theory 2, however, simply says that Hillary is too polarizing a figure and won’t get anywhere. In that case, though, candidates might still stick to centrist rhetoric in an effort to distinguish themselves from Clinton (if the voters aren’t convinced by Hillary’s current centrist bent).
Frank Luntz’s piece today doesn’t talk much about this, but Luntz does attempt to lay out a strategy for Hillary to get elected. I’m really not sure a short, public essay could possibly prove useful to a presidential campaign, but here’s his first recommendation:
First, she must be herself. Her recent tack to the right - from equivocating on the Iraq war, to supporting a ban on flag burning - is fooling no one and is seriously agitating her liberal base. The reason Hillary became so popular in the first place was her unflinching willingness to tell it like it is. She must say what she means, and mean what she says.
Similarly, recent efforts by Clinton to inject religious references into her speeches to prove she’s a person of faith is like fingernails on a chalkboard to Democrat primary voters. Clinton must win the primary first - then worry about the general election. If Democrats really cared about religion, they’d be Republicans.
Will she? And is she really the vicious liberal that Luntz thinks she is in the first place? Perhaps, but it’s not looking like it right now.
I should also note that our coverage of 2008 contenders has been spotty of late. Our schedules haven’t permitted us to attend the candidates’ appearances across the state (which isn’t to say we don’t like getting the invitations, so thanks to the staffers who have kept us on their mailing lists…), so we’ve been reading Chris’s coverage on PoliticalForecast. We hope to get better as our schedules permit, but we still plan to spend more time analyzing the political issues facing Iowa than we’ll spend on national political celebrity watch.
And check out MyDD’s presidential straw poll, now reinstated. Chris Bowers rightly discontinued it four months ago because of how repetitive the results were, but maybe things will be different now.
Tonight, the Grinnell Campus Democrats met, and here’s what we discussed:
We’ll be holding satellite voting for the primaries 28 April. We’re postering campus with issue grids for the gubernatorial candidates, and, if possible, democratic candidates for other offices.
We’re also coordinating volunteer opportunities from the campaigns. We passed around signup sheets for volunteers that we’ll forward on to our contacts with the campaigns.
Campaigns are probably going to make stops on campus before our primaries. We’ve heard back from both Blouin and Fallon, and we expect to hear from Culver, too. It looks like Blouin will probably come on the evening of the 23rd.
Our blog (this site) is doing well, with a lot of visits every day. The Fallon and Blouin campaigns have agreed to do interviews. We might get promotional materials.
We have a lot of volunteer opportunities. In particular, Eric Palmer’s new campaign manager (who seems impressive) is already looking for interns and volunteers for the summer. (We already passed around the signup sheet.) Danny Carroll, his opponent, likes to think that we’re hippy “East Coast Liberals” who are all pinko activists. Let’s show him.
We’ll be hosting a GOTV workshop to make sure that we’re a well trained force for the party during this election season. The date of it hasn’t been determined.
We passed around a signup sheet for students who will be around during the summer doing other things. We’ll use the list to random requests for volunteers when extra people are needed. And maybe for parties.
The administration might let us install a “Student Activism Center” in the new campus center. There are planning meetings for the next two nights: 10:20PM in the Coffeehouse on Wednesday; 7PM in the North Lounge on Thursday.
And, finally, it looks like the father of a current student is running for governor of South Dakota. We may have some opportunities to help that campaign, too.
Just a reminder: Grinnell College Campus Democrats’ meetings are intended to help us coordinate efforts to cause progressive change. Anyone from the community who would like to raise a concern or promote a cause is welcome to attend on Tuesday nights at 7:30PM in the Forum Coffee House. Email democrat@grinnell.edu if you’d like to join us.
