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.
February 27th, 2007
Here’s a prediction: Hillary Clinton is going to lose the Iowa caucuses. Perhaps very badly. And it’s because she is still fumbling on Iraq.
In perhaps her most forceful statement on the issue, Clinton told DNC members on Friday: “If I had been president in October of 2002, I would not have started this war… If we in Congress don’t end this war by January of 2009, as president, I will.”
But according to a survey (pdf) done by The Politico (via MyDD), she does not regret casting her 2002 vote in favor of the war. This is a very tricky line to walk: As president, she would not have been for war, but as senator she would be? Isn’t there a singular responsibility as an elected official to do what’s best for her country, regardless of title? I’m sorry, but this is straight out of a 2004 John Kerry campaign.
MyDD’s Chris Bowers notes that Clinton is trying to pull a Joe Lieberman: appear anti-war to accrue Democratic votes, but maintain support for the war in reality. It worked in Connecticut, he says, because “low information voters just won’t know the difference.” Unfortunately for Clinton, Iowa caucus-goers are hardly low information voters. They brave the sleet and snow in order to stand — sometimes for hours — in crowded high school gymnasiums. And they sure as hell know where the candidates stand.
They also, sure as hell, oppose the Iraq War. The AP reported yesterday that the Iraq War is the number one issue for Iowa voters and that Iowa Democrats are overwhelmingly against it: 86 percent of Iowa Dems said the war wasn’t worth it and 76 percent favored at least the beginnings of withdrawal. According to Former Iowa Democratic Party Chairman Dave Nagle, “Anybody who tries to toe-step around it is going to have a real problem.”
At the moment, it looks like Hillary Clinton fits that anybody description pretty well. Despite a recent ARG poll that had her in the lead, every other poll coming out of the Hawkeye State has shown her down, behind Edwards, Obama, and sometimes even Vilsack. The fact of the matter is, the more people get to know her, the more they will get to know her views on Iraq. Which is why it looks like Iowa Dems will be looking for somebody else.
February 6th, 2007
Rubbermaid announced last night that it will be moving 500 jobs from Centerville (population 6,000) to Kansas. The company turned down the offer of a $1 million tax break under Vilsack’s Iowa Values Fund, and executives explained that they believe there are more opportunities for expansion in Kansas. Vilsack’s statement, issued this afternoon, doesn’t seem very reassuring to the hundreds of Iowans finding their jobs in jeopardy lately:
Today’s news is upsetting, but it reinforces my commitment to creating and retaining sustainable, quality jobs in our state. We are working every day to transform Iowa’s economy and minimize the impact of a changing, global marketplace.
Chris Woods at Political Forecast covers the possibility of an override of Vilsack’s veto on eminent domain.
The Concord Monitor’s story on Vilsack’s visit wasn’t exactly positive- it noted that he doesn’t have foreign policy experience beyond a few recent trips abroad and that he called complaints in New Hampshire about the possibility of making the primary later in the nominating calendar ”overblown.”
Another article says Vilsack’s people are leaving New Hampshire out to dry:
The plan has yet to be made final by the rules committee and the full DNC, but New Hampshire Democrats widely viewed the Iowa votes as a clear break from the decades-long alliance between the two states to work together to protect their early positions.
New Hampshire Democratic Chair Kathy Sullivan, herself a member of the DNC rules committee, said:
“There are a number of New Hampshire Democrats who are disappointed that the Iowa commissioners and member of the rules committee have not voted with New Hampshire on these things.”
Vilsack said he has not talked to the Iowans on these panels about it. One of them was Des Moines attorney Jerry Crawford, a big contributor to Vilsack’s Heartland PAC. The rules committee member is Sally Pederson, Vilsack’s own lieutenant governor and chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party.
Even more embarassing for Governor Vilsack, his wife was forced to wear ugly shoes while touring a plant in NH.
June 15th, 2006
