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.
March 13th, 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
