The other day, the Iowa State Senate voted by a margin of 47-2 to close the Fallon Loophole that allows candidates to pay themselves with campaign funds. The issue of candidates paying themselves salaries with campaign funds came to the fore after it was revealed that Fallon paid himself nearly $14,000 in campaign funds after losing his 2006 bid for Governor. While Fallon attacked this initiative as “status quo politics at its worst” and described the bill as a “silly bill.” However, it is no different than legislation passed by Barack Obama in the Illinois State Senate which prevented candidates from paying themselves with campaign funds in that state. While Fallon, after being paid by John Edwards during the caucuses, is now an enthusiastic supporter of Obama, it seems Fallon does not share Obama’s zeal for change in this aspect of campaign finance reform.
It’s also worth noting that the only two Senators who wanted to keep the Fallon Loophole opened were Jack Hatch, who represents Fallon’s former district and has to kowtow to Fallon’s base and Mary Lundby, the former Republican leader in the Senate who openly displayed her contempt for organized labor last year.
There was a time when Ed Fallon would have proud that any campaign finance reform bill passed by a margin of 47-2. Now he calls it silly and displays open disdain for a small step forward for good government and honest politicians. It’s sad that once again, as with I’M For Iowa, Fallon values his own personal gain over campaign finance reform.
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):
Frankly, none of us here at IowaProgress have any reason to believe that this rumor is true, but we wanted to report that, after Edwards cancelled an appearance in Indianola, Iowa on Tuesday night to fly home to North Carolina, rumors in campaign circles that Edwards may be dropping out began to make the rounds (we first heard rumblings yesterday morning). We want to stress that this is a wholly unverified rumor, but enough people have been repeating it that it seemed worthwhile to report that it’s out there among Iowa politicos.
The story from the Edwards campaign is that the Senator flew home to support his wife at a medical checkup appointment. This diary from Edwards’s online community reflects what Edwards’s supporters are thinking, and we will echo the good wishes written there. We sincerely hope that Elizabeth Edwards’s health is OK and that this rumor and the Senator’s unexpected event cancellation will turn out to be much ado about nothing.
That said, the Edwards campaign’s Events Page has only two upcoming events scheduled, both of which will take place in the next 10 days. Moreover, it is not clear that either of the two events listed will require the Senator’s attendance (one is a nation-wide day of house parties, and the other is a concert featuring a member of Dave Matthews Band other than Dave Matthews).
John and Elizabeth Edwards have scheduled a press conference in Chapel Hill at noon today, and it’s being characterized as “something major.” We hope it isn’t bad news.
I just want to stress that the decision to post a story about this unverified rumor was not made lightly. After hearing about it early Wednesday, we spent a full day deliberating before posting. Reporting on rumors has a tendency to perpetuate stories that are false and potentially damaging, and we didn’t want to do that. But the rumor is significant enough that we felt that the very fact that it was circulating, regardless of its truth or falsity, was worth reporting.
Today John Edwards announced that his presidential campaign will aim to be carbon neutral. As the email the campaign sent out explains, “In February, Governor Tom Vilsack announced he would be the first presidential candidate to plan a carbon neutral campaign. Edwards shares his commitment to protecting our environment and reducing our carbon footprint.”
Edwards is angling to fill the “Vilsack Vacuum,” only weeks after Vilsack announced he would drop out of the campaign. He is trying to recruit as many former Vilsack supporters as possible at this point, and this was one of the Vilsack campaign’s more novel ideas — although the Vilsack folks seemed to want to use it more for fund raising than anything else.
Exactly one week ago, the Edwards campaign sent out another press release claiming “more than 100 Iowa Democrats who were formerly supporting Governor Tom Vilsack’s presidential bid are now supporting Senator John Edwards for President” (it provides the list of 100 names to prove it). 100 activists isn’t exactly a lot considering Vilsack released the names of over 1,100 of his supporters a while back, but Edwards’s list does contain a few big names.
At this point, although other candidates have certainly paid lip service to Vilsack’s service as our governor, etc., Edwards is the only candidate making explicit attempts at recruiting former Vilsack supporters — at least through the press. Whether this will make much of a difference, I don’t know; but frankly I’m surprised that we haven’t seen more attempts at the same sort of thing from other candidates. Maybe outside Iowa few appreciate the level of support Vilsack had here. He has been our governor for a while, and even those Democrats who weren’t supporting his presidential campaign like him.
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.
