It is increasingly unlikely that Ed Fallon will win the Third District Primary as his campaign is both broke and languishing far behind Leonard Boswell in the polls. The question now arises what will professional candidate Ed Fallon run for next? Fallon is a professional candidate at this point (and, thanks to the still open Fallon Loophole, can still make a good living running for office). There are several possibilities for Fallon. The first is running for Mayor of Des Moines against Frank Cownie in 2011. Cownie is a leading environmentalist, which makes him a prime target for Fallon who actively worked to defeat Al Gore in 2000. However, that election is three years away and the Mayor of Des Moines only makes $31,500 a year. Fallon would be much better served continuing his I’M For Iowa gig rather embarking so soon on a campaign for a weak office so far in the future.
Another possibility is Polk County Supervisor. This job pays $93,000, which is more than Ed Fallon has ever lapped up from the public trough in a single year so far. However, Fallon lives in the area represented by John Mauro. Although Mauro’s reputation has been tainted by association with CIETC, Fallon’s ethical lapses in regards for IM for Iowa and his attempts to cover up that misconduct make Mauro look like the second coming of Abraham Lincoln. While Fallon has never showed any fear of entering in races he’s likely to lose, it seems unlikely he’d want to tangle with La Macchina in a district that is almost entirely on the South Side. This is especially true when Fallon is probably the only candidate who Christine Hensley would support a Mauro over.
Fallon could also run for State Senate against Jack Hatch in 2010. Although Hatch endorsed Boswell, he was one of two State Senators to vote against closing the Fallon Loophole and unlike most other elected Democrats in Polk County, he has not been vehemently opposed to Fallon and has even attended a Fallon event or two as a polite observer. However, in Fallon’s political career, loyalty has not been one of Fallon’s most notable traits. He endorsed Nader in 2000, considered running as a third party candidate against Chet Culver in 2006 and refused a pledge to support all Democrats on the ticket in 2002. (One wonders whether Fallon was more conflicted about supporting Tom Harkin or Tom Vilsack.) In that light, stabbing Jack Hatch in the back seems like small potatoes. However, while Hatch’s district includes many places Fallon has represented in the past, a State Senator only makes about $30,000 a year and as a state candidate, Fallon could lose income in the remaining interval if the Legislature actually closes the Fallon Loophole and keeps Fallon from paying himself from campaign contributions. But there is one office Ed Fallon could run for where he would never have to worry about the Iowa Legislature cutting into his earnings.
Chuck Grassley is up for Senate in 2010 and Fallon would make an admirable Democratic nominee. Aside from giving Fallon the chance to earn nearly $170,000, he could pay himself a salary without worrying about any legislation from Rick Olson to cut off the gravy train. It would also be the one office where Fallon would not have to primary an incumbent and would have a chance to receiving the backing of the entire Democratic establishment as Ed Fallon possesses a very rare skill that is essential to running against Grassley. After all, what politician in Iowa has more experience and talent at turning receiving only 25% of the vote into a victory?
No matter what office Ed Fallon runs for in the future, there is one thing for certain. Professional political candidate Ed Fallon will be running for office again.
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.
There is an issue in the news right now that is of greatest interest to Iowans. I’m not taking about frontloading the primary schedule, but rather the exponentially increasing role of the internet in campaigns. While it remains to be seen what impact it will have had when this process culminates on January 14, 2008, we have already seen the effect it can have for a candidate. Many have credited YouTube for handing Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) and the Democrats the senate majority, thanks to a video featuring now former Senator George Allen calling a Webb staffer a “macaca.” Facebook and MySpace have also thrown their names into the political arena. While this may get many more people involved in the caucuses, it is increasingly difficult for the rest of us to process such a large volume of information and take the time to make sense of it for ourselves.
A prime example of this is a video entitled “Vote Different.” Posted on YouTube two weeks ago, it has been viewed over 919,000 times. It is a testament to the power of such ad campaigns on the internet. If you haven’t seen it, watch it for yourself.
Upon first glance, you should notice a few things. First is that it is a clever mashup of the famous 1984 Super Bowl ad introducing Apple Macintosh to the computer world. Secondly, it appears to be obvious that it is from the Obama campaign. This is a view that many major sources of news media have advanced. It’s a fair statement. The woman with the hammer has the symbol of Obama’s campaign on her shirt, and at the end of the ad is Obama’s web address.
But something just doesn’t seem right. Why would that particular sound bite be chose? There must be something that gets their message across more efficiently. They show Hillary’s explicit attempt to come across as a regular person, having a “conversation” with each of us individually. Now watch the original. The Macintosh ad speaks of “one people, one will, one resolve, one cause,” and “a garden of pure ideology where each worker may bloom, secure from the pests of any contradictory thoughts,” all coming from a voice that is meant to sound evil. It completely contradicts with Hillary’s explicit statement that “we all need to be part of the discussion,” and “I don’t want people who agree with me.” Themes such as unity, and “one people” are actually coming from the Obama campaign. Also notice the change in contrast between the two, as Hillary is bright white, as opposed to the dark room. The image of the “big brother” is dark, and blends with the dark wall, with a lighter room.
Now consider that the video was posted by someone with the username “ParkRidge47.” It is significant in that Senator Clinton was born in Park Ridge in 1947. It was also posted with the text: “Make up your own mind. Decide for yourself who should be our next president,” very much in line with the Hillary sound bite. So let’s say this actually is from the Clinton campaign. Could the message be that she is trying to create an exchange of ideas to make everyone better off, thus distancing herself from the image of politics that she is associated (i.e. a war of the partisans or even a politics as a competitive sport in which the American people are spectators)?
In the original commercial, the power comes from the irony of the hammer hitting the screen just as the “big brother” says “we will prevail.” In the mashup, the hammer hits Hillary as she says “I want to keep this conversation going until November, 2008.” Also notice that the woman with the Obama symbol is now wearing an ipod, symbolizing that she refuses to take part in Hillary’s conversation, and is then actually stops it suggesting that Obama is the one who wants to end her conversation. As for the reason why 2008 won’t be like “1984,” that is the year that Walter Mondale, running as an unabashed liberal, lost forty-nine of the fifty states in the general election. This suggests that having Hillary on the Democratic ticket would result in a different outcome this time around. This message is made clearer by having Obama associated with the black screen, while Hillary is associated with white.
Both sides have denied responsibility for the mashup, and I personally don’t subscribe to either view. We just don’t know, and can’t say for sure where this ad came from. My point is that not everything will be as it appears this campaign season. We must all take a closer look at everything we see and form our own opinions. It’s not an easy job, but it is our responsibility to do so.
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.
As Mark over at Bleeding Heartland notes, four Iowa House Republicans, including Scott Raecker, requested a hearing on a bill and then didn’t show up for the hearing. The bill, SF 62, passed the Senate unanimously. At the hearing, only three people showed up. The four House Republicans have every right to call for a hearing to be held on SF 62 or on any other bill. But for them to set up a hearing and then not show up is an insult to every taxpaying Iowan. It shows that those four legislators are more interested in political gestures (and political gestures that waste taxpayer money to boot) than actually governing. This is a new low for State House Republicans, who have already spent the still young legislative session insulting working families and playing politics with the health of Iowans. Now, they’re not even bothering to show up for work. But if Raecker and his three fellow goldbricks, Carmine Boal, Linda Miller and Tami Wiencek, don’t want to do their jobs, that’s fine. I’m sure we can find four good Democrats to replace them in 2008.
As Barack Obama’s announcing his Presidential candidacy today in front of huge crowds. We thought it was worth revisiting some of our past coverage of Senator Obama’s candidacy as well this handy Obama primer from today’s Guardian that does an excellent job of offering a brief introduction to the man and the phenomenon that he has spawned.
The other noteworthy political news today is that Mitt Romney has adopted a new campaign strategy that should prove very successful. It is to feed Republican activists free steak. Even if Romney’s supporters aren’t the most fervent of any candidate, they will certainly be the best fed.
There has been a lot of talk over the past few weeks about who is going to win Iowa in 2008. I’ve been resisting the temptation to join, because it’s pretty unlikely that the picture we see now will look anything like the picture we see a year from now.
Think of how much has changed from four months ago: Warner, who has since dropped out and now might be un-dropping out, was attracting a lot of Iowa support. Obama, whose candidacy I have been predicting for a year, was written off as too green and inexperienced to run in 2008. Bayh looked like he had too much money not to play in at least the first four primary states. John Kerry was not a favorite, but he was in as good a position as any of the candidates. And John Edwards was probably getting the most buzz around here. (Incidentally, Hillary’s position as the elephant in the room everyone either loves or loves to hate has remained relatively consistent this whole time.)
Since then, Warner and Bayh dropped out, and a lot of people started talking about what that might mean, often concluding that it was because the caucuses were close to being decided — already. (Kyle’s post here is actually what provoked me to write this.) Here are five reasons why it’s still wide open:
The caucuses are an expectations game above all else. Given two candidates with equal money, talent, charisma, etc., the candidate who is favored more heavily is actually in a weaker position right now than the candidate nobody is talking about. To “win” the caucuses, you have to beat expectations, not just the other candidates, and the job gets harder and harder as expectations get higher and higher.
Nobody knows what to expect from Tom Vilsack. Before he announced, I didn’t know very many people who took his candidacy seriously. But his campaign has assembled an excellent staff, and he keeps on impressing me. He isn’t expected to do all that well nationally (his strategy is clearly to paint himself as the underdog of the race), but nobody really knows how well he’ll end up doing in Iowa. (Drew has some thoughts on how well he has to do to stay in, but even he’ll admit that it’s guesswork at this point.) Again, though, I think it’s clear a fair number of candidates have to play in Iowa (particularly Edwards and probably Obama), and, if Vilsack can even hold his own against them, he isn’t out of the picture.
The majority of the field hasn’t even declared yet. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and John Kerry are all staying above the fray by not making themselves candidates yet. As soon as they do, expect a lot of rhetoric to change. Even if attacking Obama will hurt the attacker more than it will hurt Obama, somebody will start doing it as soon as he declares in hopes of shaking the tree a little bit. Expect a wave of attack dog pundits and surrogates as soon as Obama and Clinton declare. We don’t know how that will turn out.
Nobody is talking about John Edwards right now. Even though Edwards is a fundraising force with name recognition, a strong biography, charisma that rivals Obama’s, and a reputable staff, he has avoided high expectations. Polling in Iowa has consistently put him on top, and it looks like he’s going to declare pretty soon, so it isn’t clear how he will end up.
In the end, staff quality and political strategy make a much bigger difference in the caucuses than buzz and media coverage. John Kerry was not a frontrunner in November of 2003; he was closer to a longshot. But his staff put together a better field program than Dean’s staff, and he ended up winning. (And because Dean was the frontrunner before losing, it pretty much knocked him out.) Field work is huge in Iowa, and we probably won’t know who has the best field program until the caucuses are over.
Of course, keep checking here for more news and analysis as the field of candidates continues to narrow.
So John Kerry said that we made a mistake by going into Iraq and then Bush and the Republicans said that his remarks were insulting to the troops…again. This latest rendition of the familiar tune evokes a series of responses. So let’s just move beyond the fact that Kerry’s remarks were pretty much true, even if in poor taste, and the chagrin of seeing yet another flashback to 2004.
We’re all pretty hyper-sensitive to anything that might possibly in the slightest way impact the outcome on Tuesday. In Iowa it seems to have devolved into the implication that if you have any connection to John Kerry then you too hate the troops and America and are in fact working in cahoots with the terrorists.
Jeff Lamberti, the Republican candidate in Iowa’s third congressional district, says his opponent — Democrat Congressman Leonard Boswell — should give back the money Kerry’s donated and still raising for Boswell’s campaign. “Leonard Boswell should be calling on John Kerry to apologize…and quite frankly, ought to be giving back the east coast special interest money that agrees with John Kerry on this,” Lamberti says.
This is almost too ridiculous to warrant debunking. Both Boswell and Lamberti receive money from out-of-state sources, and there is nothing wrong with that–every candidate does. Furthermore, candidates receive donations from many different sources and that doesn’t mean that they believe everything that the donor believes. Lamberti takes this preposterous assumption one step further to say that Boswell shouldn’t take contributions from friends of John Kerry.
The point is that Republicans are trying to turn this into the Democrat’s Foley, but I don’t think it takes much insight to see that John Kerry’s remarks about Iraq are in no way as reprehensible as Mark Foley propositioning an under-aged page via instant message. As Vilsack points out in the same report:
“(Kerry) obviously made a mistake and it’s an unfortunate mistake but you know what really is unfortunate is that we’re talking about this instead of the fact that 105 American soldiers lost their lives in Iraq in October in one of the deadliest months in that war.”
One can only hope that Democrats everywhere will adopt this reasoned response, and keep the focus on the job that Bush and the Republicans have done in office, because their record pretty much speaks for itself.
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.
