How in the hell can their be a case against any candidate willing to throw their had into the ring at this early stage; especially when you present nothing about his capability or his ideas.

There should be a case against the blog.

www.enewsreference.com

Well, now that Vilsack hired Roy Behr, his chances went from minimal to dead.

Kevin,

I don't know that too many people know enough about Tom Vilsack to have something personal against him. The reason for the coverage I think is pretty plain; he's only the second Democrat to have declared so far. If the Post is guilty of anything it's probably in overestimating the so-called front-runners. You know, a bit of elitism.

The genuine problem for Vilsack (for any candidate from Iowa) is that in order to be viable he not only has to win Iowa in a blowout, it's unlikely he'd garner any inertia from doing so. This is because if he shows ANY strength in his home state, most, if not all, other Democrats would vacate the Caucuses there.

It's not fair. It's just the dynamic as it works for, "favorite Son," candidates.

I think the case against him goes like this:

1) Could he beat McCain?

2) As a governor, does he have the international experience to take on multiple foreign policy challenges in North Korea, China, Russia, Palestine/Israel, Iran, Afghanistan, and, of course, Iraq? Clinton and Bush W, both governors, had fairly unsuccessful and bumpy starts in foreign policy in their presidencies, to say the least. This is not '92 or 2000. The country needs a hardcore foreign policy expert starting on inauguration day.

Youngster Obama's peaked too early.
Hillary can't run away from the Left
Coast.
McCain schmoozes the crowd that tarred
him in Carolina.
Kerry smiles and we read "Gucci".
Richardson doesn't sound "South of the
Border".
Lieberman? Israel already has an
ambassador at the UN.
Not enough about Hagel.

Over thirty thousand people signed up at www TomVilsack08 dot com by Thanksgiving. The number could well be over one hundred thousand by the New Year. Tom Vilsack is already a strong candidate. Once the silly name recognition polls end, perhaps we can begin to debate the REAL issues that decide elections.

WWW TomVilsack08 dot com

So WaPo, where is the case against him? I see nothing in your obvious propagana piece that indicates Vilsack is not a viable candidate for the presidency. Why are you so afraid of him? Could it be that he is the only candidate that gets it?

Why not let the voters decide for themselves about Tom Vilsack?

ATTENTION VOTERS: Are you going to beleive what Tom Vilsack says, or are you going to believe the propaganda crap that the MSM tells you to believe?

WWW TomVilsack08 dot com.

JimD and Drindl-

I guess I wasn't clear on what I meant by "leadership"/Executive resume. I was thinking more along the lines of "where would this person take the country?", what are the issues he takes the lead on, what is his/her experience in juggling issues(executive resume). Such was my thinking on that characteristic.

You'll notice that I didn't really give anybody a plus solely for the issues. All the plusses were for executive resume except Gore who I felt as VP was probably involved with (or at least observed) how one juggles the issues. I don't really think any of the candidates have truly led on any issue except Gore on the environment and Clark on Iraq/military. You'll notice I gave them each a plus for this in the "Incidental" category rather than the leadership category mainly because I was thinking that leadership on issues means you also get results. I'd have to know much more about Clark to know if he actually achieved results in the military as opposed to being just a guy in the chain of command. I think many would agree that some of our military leaders in Iraq haven't truly led in this war. High rank doesn't necessarily equate to leadership. Also, I don't accept the notion that military experience=executive experience as you noted. Military is top-down chain of command. Executive experience involves negotiation with other legislative bodies who can shelve ideas they don't agree with. In addition, one might note that with the executive, the buck stops there. In the military, there always seems to be somebody higher up who can be(but usually ISN'T) held accountable.

As for Foreign Policy, I'm not sure I buy the notion that being big in the military makes one good on foreign policy. If pushed I might give a .5 for that.

I, too, heard Vilsack's speech, and he has the charisma of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, which is to say, none. And there wasn't a lot of substance either. I'm sorry he was an orphan, but that and ethanol don't qualify you to be president. Obama might have less experience, but he oozes substance and presence.

Is competency and experience a factor in the case for or against a candidate? Vilsack is still an unknown commodity in the presidential sweepstakes and there is plenty of time for him to make his case. If people like him, money and success will follow.

I'm interested in the references to DLC as a fund-raising base. The numbers from 2004 don't seem to support that. Californians gave about $66.3 million to Presidential candidates, followed by New Yorkers ($45.7 million), Texans ($26.4 million with $23.6 of that going to Bush) and Floridians ($21 million with $16.4 of it to Bush). For Democrats, the fund-raising action is clearly in California and New York, hardly hotbeds of DLC types.

Harkin's run in '88 and Vilsack's in '08 are fundamentally different because the former is a legislator and the latter an executive. Legislative positions are about as close to jobs for life as our system offers; legislators are re-elected with metronomic regularity. Executives are subject to a different rule: "Friends come and go, but enemies accumulate." (I can't remember who first said that, but I added the quotation marks to acknowledge that it was not I.)

It would be amazing if Vilsack won in Iowa and even more amazing if the large number of representatives of Conventional Wisdom would stifle this nonsense about people "running for Vice President." Nobody runs for Vice President. Nobody would be able to make themselves do the necessary phone begging absent a belief that they can be nominated and elected. Sane people wonder how some of the candidates could possibly think such a thing, but I believe they honestly do--each of them. There are much smarter strategies for would-be Vice Presidential candidates than running for President and losing to the eventual nominee. Ask Bob Kerrey.

Forget Vilsack, Bayh, or anyone else. Obama is THE Dem rock star, and will aoon be engaged in an epic battle with the ice queen: Hillary.

http://polibuzz.blogspot.com/2006/12/2008-update-obama.html

Never mind, he's a hypocrite:

Republicans are anxious to stir the sh** with one last push for Sam Brownback's paeleolithic "Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act," based on wingnut-pandering junk science:

'Proposed federal legislation would require doctors to provide fetal pain information to women seeking abortions when fetuses are at least 20 weeks old, and to offer women fetal anesthesia at that stage of the pregnancy. A handful of states have enacted similar measures.

The review says medical evidence shows that brain structures involved in feeling pain begin forming earlier but likely do not function until around the seventh month, when fetuses are about 28 weeks old.

Offering fetal pain relief in the fifth or sixth month, when brains are too immature to feel pain, is misguided and might result in unacceptable health risks to women, the authors said.

So basically, the bill forces doctors to provide pregnant women with misinformation that could result in them taking unnecessary actions that could jeopardize their health.'

Look, let's be realistic. For all of the merits of Sen. Clinton that her supporters may admire, a Senator from the Northeast is not going to be elected in the near future. The last one was JAck Kennedy and with all due repect to Sen. Clinton, "You're no Jack Kennedy." I know it's entertaining to imagine her, Secretary Rice or Mayor Guliani and some of the household names running and competing, but when the reality sets in, it's going to require many more factors that are easy to overlook from a distance. You look at the last 2 Presidents-neither was a household topic 2 yrs prior to their 1st election (Clinton around 1990 and Bush around 1998). There are other names not surfacing right now that will get the same attention once they raise adequate $$ and get their name and face out there.

There is a huge percentage of the country absolutely unwilling to support Sen. Clinton which already gives her a low ceiling for the vote. And it's not like they're unfamiliar with her that she can change her image. As a matter of fact, if you look back to the periods when her popularity took an uptick, they were allperiods in which she kept a low profile. Unfortunately for her, unlike President Clinton, when she speaks publicly, her popularity goes down-just doesn't have that gravitas. That combined with the factors already mentioned makes it unrealistic to mention her so often when thinking who our next commander-in chief will be.

And if it's a female candidate you're looking for, the best chance is for Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas. From the GOP side, I can't think of any female right at this moment who's in good position to run and be competitive. Senator Dole would again have the Senator's problem of votes coming back to bite her, especially some of her protectionist votes, not very popular withthe American Chamber of Commerce.

"Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), a favorite of social conservatives, announced Monday that he was taking the first step toward a 2008 White House run by setting up an exploratory committee," says the L.A. Times."

Okay Chris, time to do a piece on Brownback... here's mine

Downside [to a libertarian]

'He opposes homosexuality, [1], and pornography.[2] He favors teaching intelligent design alongside evolution, is strongly pro-life, having referred to the amount of abortions in the United States since Roe v. Wade as "a holocaust" [3] and believes there is no inherent right to privacy in the Constitution.'

Good luck on getting rid of pornography, guy-- like it or not, it's america's biggest industry. All of the above a little more government interference in my private life than I like. Also, 'intelligent design' is pure anti-science fairy tale nonsense.

[Upside}

'Brownback visited refugee camps in Sudan in 2004 and returned to write a resolution labeling the Darfur conflict as genocide, and has been active on attempting to increase U.S. efforts to resolve the situation.[10] He is an endorser of the Genocide Intervention Network, which called him a "champion of Darfur" in its Darfur scorecard, primarily for his early advocacy of the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act.[11]'

Seems consistent, possibly not a hypocrit.

'And her connection to the peace and prosperity of the Bill years also means that Whitewater, billing records and the failure to get Osama can be dredged up and recycled against her.'

Someone should tell the pathetic lackey Howie Kurtz that Hilary Clinton was not in charge of 'getting osama' and if anybody should be tainted by that, it would be any republican that is part of this administration -- which has managed not to 'get osama' for 6 years now.

Where were all these Clark supporters in 2004? His campaign went absolutely nowhere. What has he done in the last 4 years to make him a more viable candidate now than he was then?

Despite the work piling up, the Army's depots have been operating at about half their capacity because of a lack of funding for repairs. In the spring, a funding gap caused Anniston and other depots to lose about a month's worth of work, said Brig. Gen. Robert Radin, deputy chief of staff for operations at the Army Materiel Command at Fort Belvoir.

Q. where are the uncounted billions the pentagon is consuming going to?

A. secret, no-bid crony contracts--in other words--gone, gone, gone.

The Shameful Legacy of Rumsfeld:

'Field upon field of more than 1,000 battered M1 tanks, howitzers and other armored vehicles sit amid weeds here at the 15,000-acre Anniston Army Depot -- the idle, hulking formations symbolic of an Army that is wearing out faster than it is being rebuilt.

The Army and Marine Corps have sunk more than 40 percent of their ground combat equipment into the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to government data. An estimated $17 billion-plus worth of military equipment is destroyed or worn out each year, blasted by bombs, ground down by desert sand and used up to nine times the rate in times of peace. The gear is piling up at depots such as Anniston, waiting to be repaired.

Buy This Photo

At Anniston Army Depot in Alabama, broken-down tanks and other armored vehicles have created a huge backlog. (Photos By Ann Scott Tyson -- The Washington Post)
Special Report

Washington Post stories and multimedia reports about Iraq, Afghanistan, the War on Terror and more.
• Faces of the Fallen
• Veterans: In Their Own Words
• Afghan Reconstruction
» FULL COVERAGE
Save & Share Article What's This?
Digg
Google

del.icio.us
Yahoo!

Reddit
Facebook

The depletion of major equipment such as tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and especially helicopters and armored Humvees has left many military units in the United States without adequate training gear, officials say. Partly as a result of the shortages, many U.S. units are rated "unready" to deploy, officials say, raising alarm in Congress and concern among military leaders at a time when Iraq strategy is under review by the White House and the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.

Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army's chief of staff, is lobbying hard for more money to repair what he calls the "holes" in his force, saying current war funding is inadequate to make the Army "well." Asked in a congressional hearing this past summer whether he was comfortable with the readiness levels of non-deployed Army units, Schoomaker replied: "No."

Agree with your analysis on that, JimD. What is Clark up to these days? I haven't heard much about him. It seems like the media has already decided they want to see a catfight between Hillary and McCain [with a shot of obama and maybe condi thrown in] --and while i admit that would be an interesting script and very telegenic, they sometimes forget that it's up to the voters.

So Chris, how about a piece on Clark or Richardson?

DKinUT

That was an interesting analysis. I would take issue with where you score Clark on two fronts - Leadership and Foreign Policy. Anyone who rose to be a four star officer has demonstrated leadership. Clark was the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe - the man in charge of NATO forces in Europe. He held a number of extremely responsible executive level positions inthe Army. I would argue that he has far more real executive experience than any other candidate by virtue of his military career.

Foreign Policy is conducted through a myriad of channels. High level military officers responsible for allied and overseas commands are key players in the foreign policy field. Not only was Clark the commander of NATO forces in Europe- an assignment which the Allies must concur in, (some US generals and admirals have been blackballed by the allies when nominated for important NATO commands) he was also the US Southern Command Commander responsible for US forces in South America. A vital part of these positions is maintaining good relations with allied military leaders and allied governments. Clark's tenure at Southern Command and NATO give him hands on foreign policy experience that only Richardson and Gore can match.

Vilsack fits the formula for winning better than th eother candidates b/c he is a Governor/Executive and doen't have a complicated voting record to defend as others do. He's also head of teh DLC, one of the few bastions of the Dem party that still supports trade. The case that I see against him is a superficial matter but unfortunately real: he's just not that attractive and unfortunately that does play a role in elections. Whereas Edwards for all his other weaknesses IS attractive, even though he has no substance and is a staunch protectionist.

I believe that the most effective Dem. candidate is somebody no one has bee mentioning in the press but some blogs have tried to draft: Governor Phil Bredesen of Tennessee. Imagine a Dem winning by a landslide that was never in doubt in a state that has been trending (R) for the past decade or so. And this guy was one of the first to articulate what was wrong w/the Dems and why the R's have been so successful back in January of 2005. So if you are a Dem, keep an eye on this fellow-he's your only ticket to victory (the other ticket-Warner is not running). If you're an R, you'd better hope that Gov. Bredesen doesn't enter the race.

'A number of readers have sent in tips to help the folks at Powerline, who recently admitted trouble remembering administration officials who had been accused of corruption or resigned in the face of scandal.

How could you foresake us, cry our old pals Claude Allen, David Safavian, Brian Doyle. Who could forget former FDA commissioner, Lester Crawford? After the jump, you'll find our partial (but fast-growing) list. If we're missing a name, please send it along!

* Lester Crawford - Commissioner, FDA - resigned after only two months on the job. Pleaded guilty to conflict of interest and making false statements.

* Carl Truscott - Director, Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Bureau - resigned. A report by the ATF's Inspector General found that Truscott wasted tens of thousands of dollars on luxuries, wasted millions on whimsical management decisions and violated ethics rules by ordering employees to help his nephew with a high school video project.

* Joseph Schmitz - Inspector General, Defense - Resigned amid charges he personally intervened to protect top political appointees.

* Brian Doyle - Deputy Press Secretary, DHS - Resigned in wake of child sex scandal. Pleaded no contest to 32 criminal counts.

* Claude Allen - Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy- resigned, pleaded guilty to shoplifting from Target stores.

* David Safavian - former head of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy at the Office of Management and Budget.- convicted of lying to ethics officials and Senate investigators about his ties to lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

* Steven Griles - Deputy Secretary at the Interior Department - resigned, currently under investigation by the Justice Department for his ties to Jack Abramoff.

* Susan Ralston - assistant, White House - resigned amidst revelations that she had accepted thousands of dollars in gifts from Abramoff without compensating him, counter to White House ethics rules.

* Dusty Foggo - Executive Director, CIA - stepped down following accusations of corruption in connection to the Duke Cunningham scandal. Under investigation.

* Larry Franklin - intelligence officer, Defense - resigned, pleaded guilty to passing secrets to Israel.

* Janet Rehnquist - Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services - resigned in the face of allegations she blocked a politically dangerous probe on behalf of the Bush family.

* Roger Stillwell - desk officer, Interior Department - pleaded guilty to failing to report Redskins tickets and free dinners from Jack Abramoff.

* Ken Tomlinson, Board Chairman, Corporation for Public Broadcasting; member, Broadcasting Board of Governors - resigned at the release of an inspector general report concluding he had broken laws in spending CPB money to hire politically connected consultants to search for "bias" without consulting the board. At BBG, a separate investigation found he was running a "horse racing operation" out of his office, and continuing to hire politically-wired individuals to do "consulting" work for him. He's still there.

* George Deutsch - press aide, NASA - resigned amid allegations he prevented the agency's top climate scientist from speaking publicly about global warming.

* Richard Perle - Chairman, Defense Policy Board - resigned from Pentagon advisory panel amid conflict-of-interest charges.

* Frank Figueroa - senior DHS official, former head of anti-sex-crime Operation Predator - pleaded no contest to exposing himself to 16-year-old girl in Florida mall. Girl says he fondled himself for ten minutes. Figueroa forfeited his badge, gun, and access to databases; employment status pending internal DHS review.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002075.php

In reading the previous posts several common themes needed by candidates emerges:

Personal appeal/gravitas/likability

Financial ability

Leadership/resume

Foreign Policy

Name recognition

Geographic appeal

Backlash factors

Other incidentals

So, here's how I'd break down the candidates in each area:

Personal appeal/gravitas/likability-Obama, Edwards, and Clark get plusses here. Negatives for Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Vilsack(if most posts here are right). Neutral scores for Bayh, Richardson, others

Financial ability-Plusses for Clinton, Kerry, Bayh. Negatives for Vilsack, Clark,Richardson. Neutral scores for Gore, Obama,Edwards, others

Leadership/executive resume-Plusses for Gore, Richardson, Bayh, Vilsack. Negatives for Kerry, Clark(don't go off here...he led on Iraq, otherwise he's had no forum to lead). Neutral scores for Clinton(could give a .5 for first lady, I suppose), Edwards,Obama and others

Foreign Policy-Plusses for Clinton, Richardson, Gore. No negatives.Neutral for Vilsack, Obama, Clark, Edwards, Kerry, Bayh, others.

Name recognition-Plusses for Gore, Clinton, Kerry, Obama(barely but climbing fast), Clark,Edwards and Richardson. Negative none. Neutral for Vilsack, Bayh and others.

Geographical appeal-Plusses for Bayh, Vilsack, Richardson, possibly Edwards. Negatives for Clinton, Kerry. Neutral scores for Gore, Clark,Obama and others.

Backlash factor-NOTE: there is no positive score here only neutral or negative. Negatives for Clinton, Kerry, possibly Obama in the South. Neutrals for Bayh, Vilsack, Edwards, Gore, Clark, and Richardson(sorry, I don't buy that he does bad in the South as somebody noted)

Other incidentals- Plusses for Clinton(woman), Obama(Black American...not all blacks are African descended BTW), Richardson(hispanic), Clark(military),Gore(environmental), Bayh(Red State). Negatives for Kerry(most recent verbal gaffe and most recent presidential loser). Neutral scores for Edwards, Vilsack.

So, let's give a score of 1 for a plus, a 0 for neutral, and a -1 for negative. This is a bit unfair as some positives are "more positive" than others and some negatives are "more negative". Still, this gives us a basic framework.

The scores:

Bayh: 4-0=4
Clark: 3-2=1
Clinton: 4.5-3=1.5
Edwards: 3-0=3
Gore: 4-1=3
Kerry: 2-5=-3
Obama: 3-1=2
Richardson: 5-1=4
Vilsack: 2-2=0

These are my estimates, others may see it differently but by my scores I go with Richarson/Bayh. I realize they both score the same but Richardson scores one more on plusses and his negative is money which is only in play for the primaries, not the general. Money will be available either way for that. Plus, I think Richardson's plusses are of the kind that might be worth more than 1 point.

Having said this, I realize that Clinton is the front-runner. I see this race as a 4-way run between Clinton(front-runner), Bayh(media favorite), Edwards(liberal/progressive pick), and Richardson(dark horse). I don't expect the following to actually be in it at primary time:Gore,Kerry,Clark,Obama

I see the first caucuses/primaries shaking out as:
Iowa:1st-Edwards, then Clinton, Vilsack, Bayh, Richardson[Vilsack drops bid here]
Nevada:1st-Richardson,then Edwards, Clinton, Bayh
New Hampshire-1st-Clinton, then Bayh, Edwards, Richardson
South Carolina-1st-Edwards, Richardson, Bayh, Clinton

This gives Edwards 2 wins, a second and a third. Clinton gets 1 win,a second, a third, and a fourth. Richardson gets 1 win, a second, no thirds, a fourth, and a fifth. Bayh gets no wins, 1 second, 1 third, and 2 fourths. What happens next depends on what states go next. If it's northeastern or midwest, then Bayh does well and Richardson likely drops out. If it's southern or west then Richardson probably does better and Bayh drops out. It's possible that both stay in if it's a mixed record. The longer these two can stay in, the more likely that Edwards drops out because he has no natural geographic appeal as he's too liberal for the south to fully support and the other 3 have the other geographical support... Hillary in the Northeast(this would be Edwards territory if Clinton wasn't running), Bayh in the Midwest, and Richardson in the West and to a lesser degree in the South(Texas...next door,and Florida...Hispanic/elderly vote...figure in here).

Or, I could be completely whacked... ;)

'USAT fronts news that the IRS was warned about potentially "catastrophic" problems that could result from a new computer two months before it began paying out approximately $200 million in "fraudulent or erroneous 2006 tax season refunds." Now, as the 2007 tax season is set to start, the IRS will be using the old computer, because the new one is still not ready. The IRS commissioner said blame "lies both within the IRS and the contractor." DynCorp, which was later acquired by Computer Sciences Corp., won the contract. And, yes, that's the same company that was awarded contracts to train security forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Speaking of contractors, the WP reveals in its business pages that a new census shows there are approximately 100,000 government contractors working in Iraq, not counting subcontractors. There are about 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq right now.'

Having just returned from a two-week visit to Iowa, all I can say is that the Edwards grassroots movement is up and running even before the candidate is.

They starting building a website for him, at www.iowaforedwards.com, my son Michael volunteered to build that web banner for them, he was so intent on getting involved while we were there for a long Thanksgiving visit.

To see this kind of groundswell so early for anyone in Iowa should be very encouraging to Edwards supporters all across the country.

I wouldn't call it a professional poll, but everyone I talked to about Edwards was at least respectful (which is not the case for either Vilsack or Hillary, lots of strong negatives tacked onto any opinion, and even the good opinions always had 'qualifier" addendums about electability.

With Edwards it is much different, no one seems to openly dislike him, and those who support him are adamant and determined, and are champing at the bit to get his Iowa campaign rolling full steam, when it becomes official.

And it is quite true, Vilsack was constantly betting on the wrong horses in the process leading up to the Iowa Primaries, he left a trail of serious political mistakes that even our intrepid WaPo pundits could follow through these dark and distant political woods.

One of Vilsack's strongest political assets is a very ambitious and savvy spouse as one his closest advisor. Christy Vilsack single-handedly shopehorned Kerry into the narrow caucus win in Iowa in 2004. She has a political dynamism all her own, and at times she shines brighter than her somewhat laid-back hubby.

Vilsack/Vilsack?

Now that would be a real Iowa team...

But who would be in charge?

Agreed.

Agreed.

I think that Tom Vilsack is a dreamer and I hope he knows that dreams dont always come true.

I think that Tom Vilsack is a dream and I am sorry for him because dreams dont always come true

Something maybe forgotten about Kerry's win in the Iowa caucuses in 2004, he wasn't endorsed by Vilsack but by Vilsack's quite popular wife, Christie. She is the communicator in the family although seemingly off-key lately. After Christie's endorsement for Kerry he gained traction in Iowa. It was Christie, not Tom, that made a difference. Now it has to be Tom.

The only president Iowa can "boast" of is Herbert "Great Depression" Hoover.... while not a bad fellow, his timing was terrible. Eight months after being elected the bottom fell out of the economy, and he wasn't sure-footed enough to respond forcefully.

Vilsack isn't a bad fellow either, just depressingly "earnest." He had the good luck to run against truly terrible GOP candidates and that is partly why he won twice.

Iowa is becoming, if not blue, then deep purple, thanks to mega-ag buyouts. The conservative-farmer base is eroding faster than a sand castle caught in a tsunami.

Vilsack is a moderate and that is the place to be in the emerging Dem party.
Despite whatever good omens one might unearth to breath life into a Vilsack caucus win, it just won't be enough. For good or ill, Vilsack just doesn't have "it."

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

sometimes it is best to be unknown. the better to fool you with pablum. Remember Jimmy carter, came out of no where. the downside is - remember Jimmy carter, messed up everything for decades. Obama take note.

Gov. Vilsack is a unifying figure in our state whose approval rating has consistently been over 60% for much of the last two years. He has worked to pass common sense legislation in our state that has increased the number of those insured in our state, reduced class sizes in schools, increased our wind energy production, increased our ethanol production, and made Iowa's economy one of the ten-fastest growing in the country. He is very intelligent and knows his policy inside and out. Tom Vilsack is anything but a "stalking horse" and a far stronger candidate than some give him credit for being.

The expectations of the Caucuses will be a tough thing to overcome, but, if anyone can, it is Tom Vilsack. Do not underestimate him. He is a tenacious politician who came behind from a twenty-point deficit on Labor Day in his first gubernatorial campaign to be the first Democratic governor of the state in twenty years.

Vilsack showed the way and Iowa Democrats have followed, resulting in Democratic majorities in both the Iowa House and Iowa Senate on top of a newly-elected Democratic governor to follow Gov. Vilsack. This is the first time Iowa has a Dem governor and Statehouse in four decades.

America would do well to patiently get to know the candidates, their stances, their strengths and their weaknesses before writing any off or lining up behind one or the other.

you forgot the spaniards, the germans (not as much), the french, the italians and the americans - all voted left last time around. a death wish? collective guilt? self-centered latte life-style? something is certainly amiss.

wearing the DLC label? - you mean like Ned Lamont? you need to broaden your horizons. the only chance of a national Dem win is to go clinton and steal R agendas, if there are any left. this is symptomatic in observing many of the victorious Dem congressmen - R light. the voters are done with big-spending, government-growing lawmakers.

The Federal contribution limit is $2100, not $2000, per person per cycle.

Reuben Askew ('84) and Bruce Babbit ('88) were great governors who weren't good candidiates. Vilsack is a good governor who doesn't seem to be a very good canididate. He is too laid back to break out fo the pack and seems to be too hell bent on wearing the DLC label, which is a liablilty among activists.

'Hugo Chavez was overwhelmingly re-elected yesterday as Venezuela's President.... Over the last two years, the Palestinians democratically elected Hamas leaders. The Lebanese have democratically elected Hezbollah to play a major role in their parliamentary government. The Iranian-allied militias in Iraq are led by factions with substantial representation in the democratically elected Iraqi Government. And the Iranian Hitler himself was democratically elected (just like Hitler the First was, long before the parade of all the new Hitlers). If the leaders whom we are supposed to hate so much -- even the ones who are The Terrorists -- keep getting elected democratically, doesn't that negate the ostensible premise of our foreign policy?'

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/12/fruits-of-democracy.html

s the President not only losing Iraq, but losing his grip on reality?
'Anyone who has watched George Bush over the past weeks must wonder if the President of the U.S. has any semblance of sanity left. Frank Rich, in that brilliant way that of his, asks and answers the question of whether our President is losing it. This is a serious piece and must be read. These are frightening times and our leader is delusional: As Mr. Bush has ricocheted from Vietnam to Latvia to Jordan in recent weeks, we've witnessed the troubling behavior of a president who isn't merely in a state of denial but is completely untethered from reality.'

Dean definitely not dull. Love him but a loose cannon.

I never found Dean to be dull. quite the contrary. Maybe he was rejected for not being dull enough.

Rmill I can see Richardson as a VP but I just don't see the gravitas that you guys speak of. I have seen him twice on TV giving speaches and he is good but not nearly as telegenic as you someone like Obama, or Edwards. As a VP he could help in places like florida, colorado, and the southwest, but as the Presidential nominee he kills you in the South, and Upper midwest.
Also Star11 if we voted on resume then Clinton would have never been voted in and Bush would still be picking brush in Texas. Oh wait that is what he is doing.

I wrote a while back, months ago in fact, that the only things that I know about are:

1. That he is from Iowa
2. That he is an apparent moderate

This from a guy who was mentioned as a possible VP candidate in 2004? Amazingly, despite the fact that I pay a lot more attention to politics than your average Joe, I STILL barely know anything about him. In fact, I'd be hard pressed to name anything other than the two things already mentioned. I've learned from reading the blog posts:

1. He apparently gives a dull stump speech
2. He is comfortable talking about his faith

All this and he is having trouble raising money? Yeah, he's got no shot whatsoever. And frankly, I kind of think that is a good thing. Our last couple of presidential candidates have been dull and too focus-group driven. (Kerry and Gore.)

Maybe this is crazy, but an Obama-Vilsack tickets sounds interesting to me. While Vilsack certainly isn't as exciting as Obama, the two are similar in the sense that both are very comfortable in authentically talking about how faith informs their progressive beliefs. The last two Dem candidates elected -- Clinton and Carter -- possessed similar abilities.

Also, a mid-west based ticket -- while not as ideal as one centered in the mountain west or south -- is still preferable to a northeast based set of nominees. Anyway, just a thought.

Ben Rudolf:

Vilsack is not the only non-senatorial candidate. Richardson and Bayh - both are excellent choices. I think it was Rmill who stated the case for Richardson - very well done. He is the obvious choice - all needs to do is present his resume in bullet points and he should win easily, regardless of the Republican candidate. There isn't anyone else with his credentials.
He was my choice last time and will be this time - if he throws his hat in and the Dems do not select him as the candidate, I think it would be a costly mistake.

Gephardt was never a shoo-in (or a shoe-in, presumably). He was thought to have a good chance in Iowa, but someone too boring to have eyebrows isn't a shoo-in anywhere.

I think the facts that he's from Iowa and will have great difficulty raising the necessary dosh to make a serious run for the nom are secondary to Vilsack's big problem: he seems to have the personality of a brick. He's not just FROM Iowa, he IS Iowa.

I am remembering Gephardt who was also supposed to be a shoe-in.

Your absolutely correct Chris.

In fact, SOME people think that Vilsack's entry is a "stalking horse," for Hillary Clinton, i.e. a way to short-circuit Iowa so John Edwards doesn't benefit from it.

That would be pretty manipulative of her, and for that matter, Vilsack.

But the effect would be the same as in 1992 with Sen. Harkin (D-IA), effectively nullifying the Caucuses and opening the race in contests after N.H.

Or maybe elevating Nevada???? Can't really know this far ahead.

But I've been saying this all year, it makes NO SENSE to me for MOST presidential candidates to actively target BOTH N.H. and Iowa in ANY Presidential year. Except for the frontrunners, it makes alot more sense for someone like Edwards to run straight for S.C. after Iowa. Sure New Hampshirites will balk, but what did they give HIM in '04, but 4th place behind Wesley Clark?

Presidential primaries are simply the opportunity for a candidate to show that they can outperform expectations. They're not going to do that everywhere, are they? So better to pick two or three OPTIMUM states for your candidate. As long as they come out on top in two of the three they can give the "front-runner," a run for her money.

Had Edwards skipped N.H. in '04 he'd have done about as well there without expending ANY money there and could have spent it instead on Missouri and Oklahoma on the same day as S.C.. Without blowing expectations on N.H. he'd have been a golden boy down while Kerry had to expend more energy dispatching Gov. Dean.

As it was Clark, Dean, and Edwards all kind of cancelled each other out and gave Kerry a clear path to the Democratic nomination.

VILSACK NEEDS TO BRING SOME IOWA BEEF TO THE DEMOCRATIC 'POTLUCK'

He's a good man with an American success story, but he needs to define the dish that he brings to the party.

http://politicalbrandwagon.blogspot.com/2006/12/potluck-announcement-vilsack-spins.html

John McCain is too short to win the White House. He's a half inch shorter than Hillary, even without her heels on.

Andy R
Why is everyone so stoked about Richardson?

Gravitas- Young and energetic isn't enough. Good for a VP maybe.

Richardson is personable as well.

His resume is unmatched.

He has executive experience as well as legislative.

Extensive foreign policy background.

Head of the DGA.

New Mexico is a purple state.

The Hispanic vote is key in Florida, Nevada and Colorado, states we have come close but missed on.

Coupled with a Bayh or Edwards packs quite a geogrpahic wallop.

Also, with a name like Richardson, he can play both angles of his heritage.

Ben Rudolf

I don't think enough attention has been paid to the fact that Vilsack is the only Democratic contender who is NOT a senator.

Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico

John Edwards, former US Senator

The knock is it is considered a struggle for a sitting US Senator to maintain Senatorial schedule while campaigning.

Besides Vilsack's compelling life story, what's he got? A midwestern governor-- Bayh's got all of the above, plus national security experience, and he's building to compete in Iowa. I just don't see what Vilsack offers over a possible Evan Bayh candidacy-- his niche is far from unique.

We should encourage politicians who support the Millennium Development Goals to run for presidency. According to the Borgen Project, 37 million Americans and 3 billion people in the world live in poverty!

I don't think enough attention has been paid to the fact that Vilsack is the only Democratic contender who is NOT a senator. Senators are at a distinct disadvantage running for president. This is more than a superstition, as the presidential campaigns from 1976 on have demonstrated. Voters instinctively respect governors more, as executives who can govern above the petty partisan squabbles that dominate Congress.

In this respect, Vilsack stands in a position similar to that of Clinton in '92. He's a centrist governor from a state people like to make fun of. That gives him enormous clout among voters, even primary voters, because he will be seen as a sensible, "real" person in contrast with elite media allstars like Hillary and Obama. It's true that he doesn't have a fifth of the charisma Bill Clinton had, but he's likeable because he's down to earth and will surely be popular with voters in New England as well as the Midwest.

Why is everyone so stoked about Richardson? I understand he has a great resume, but he won't win in the south or the mid west. And if McCain runs he won't win Arizona. Can you see Michigan voting for a hispanic? No way. Now you can call it racism (which it is) but the south is more likely to vote in a Black man then the industrial mid-west does of electing a hispanic.
The fact of the matter is that McCain will be the republican nominee. He is the only republican that has a snowball's chance of winning the general election, and the powers that be know that. To beat McCain you need a young (Edwards, Clark, or Bayh) white male on the top of the ticket. And a woman or minority in the VP slot (Hillary, Obama, or Richardson).

I don't think enough attention has been paid to the fact that Vilsack is the only Democratic contender who is NOT a senator. Senators are at a distinct disadvantage running for president. This is more than a superstition, as the presidential campaigns from 1976 on have demonstrated. Voters instinctively respect governors more, as executives who can govern above the petty partisan squabbles that dominate Congress.

In this respect, Vilsack stands in a position similar to that of Clinton in '92. He's a centrist governor from a state people like to make fun of. That gives him enormous clout among voters, even primary voters, because he will be seen as a sensible, "real" person in contrast with elite media allstars like Hillary and Obama. It's true that he doesn't have a fifth of the charisma Bill Clinton had, but he's likeable because he's down to earth and will surely be popular with voters in New England as well as the Midwest.

'the wacko progressives' -- d'ya want to tell me why you think clean government is wacko, ace?

I agree with you RMill about a Mountain West-Midwest being best strategy but how about Montana's gov? He's really strong --not so lackluster as a lot of these other guys.

I like richardson-bayh, but i don't love them. you've got to have charisma too.

Has Vilsack put forth a single idea on Iraq? I know he's attacked McCain, but it seemed as if he did so without saying what he would do to assuage the "big problem." How can he present himself as a serious candidate when he has yet to put forth any sort of plan for Iraq? Isn't this the absolute bare minimum we will be expecting from every '08 candidate?

Tom Vilsack is not guaranteed to win the Iowa Caucus. Although he has the homefield advantate, many Iowan democrats are upset with Vilsack's moderate positions and will be open to viable alternatives. Vilsack alienated many within his party with his moderate positions on issues such as his support for a bill that made english the official language of Iowa. Revenue shortfalls also forced Vilsack to implement unpopular spending cuts to key areas such as higher education when he was governor. Also, Vilsack is rumored to not get along well personaly with newly elected Governor Culver. A highly visible and viable candidate has room to finish well in the Iowa democratic caucus. Unfortuently for Vilsack, his position in Iowa will do little to help his campaign nationally. He will get little credit for a strong win, but will doom his campaign with a loss. I think his goals for the campaign are to keep himself politically relevant for the next two years so he can position himself for Vice President or a cabinent position in a democratic administration.

Vilsack will lose Iowa, and then endorse someone in the vague hope that he gets to be VP, or the better chance that he may become Secretary of Agriculture. Vilsack would be better dropping out now, and endorsing Evan Bayh(My preferred candidate) or John Edwards(My fallback guy in case Bayh isn't on the ticket). That way, Vilsack can use what influence he has, and help kick Hillary out of the race.

So, Vilsack will have over $1M by Jan. 1? I take this to mean that he will have tapped out his Iowa big donors...

How much would Obama or Clinton have be then if they announced the day after the election? $20M? $25M?

I spent some time analyzing 2000 and 2004 Presidential numbers and then the 2006 midterms to see what geographic mathmatics might tell me.

A Mountain West-Midwestern strategy seems to be the strongest ticket.

Richarson-Bayh, Vilsack or Obama

Southern-Midwest was second:

Edwards-Bayh, Vilsack or Obama
Bayh-Bredesen or Edwards

When looking at possible permutations of opposing tickets, Mountain West-Midwest still stacked up best in match ups with Giulianni and McCain.

I think the Richardson-Bayh ticket is the most dynamic, with good geographic indicators, strong foreign policy/intelligence experience and great fund raising networks.

You are forgetting "Vilsack Fatigue" in Iowa. His implicit candidate of choice for the Democratic gubernatorial nominee lost in the primary to the Governor-elect Chet Culver and the only candiate he has ever explicitly endorsed in a primary, Dusky Terry, for Sec. of Agriculture, lost by an overwhelming margin in the Democratic primary. Vilsack even did an auto-call on Terry's behalf. Not good indicators of a strong pro-Vilsack sentiment amongst the Caucus-going Iowa Democrats...

If anything, I think that Chris is being rather charitable here. Vilsack is dull, dull, dull. He is a boring man who gives boring speeches from what many people think of as the dullest place in America. The name is a little too easy to make fun of. Vilsack's entire candidacy consists of 'hi, I'm from Iowa!' Yeah, you and a few million other people.

This guy is dead in the water. He exists in this race solely for the purpose of providing one day's worth of blog fodder when he drops out and endorses not-Hillary. You look at some of these guys and wonder why they bother putting themselves through this when they are so obviously going nowhere. Everyone who ever found himself Governor or Senator always likes to kid himself that he is just what America has been waiting for and that his big moment to become President is just around the corner. Well, no. There's 150 other guys out there, just looking at those currently in office, who are no less qualified or interesting a candidate than Tom Vilsack is. You've got to do a lot better than be from Iowa if you want to be President of the United States.

Vilsak could be the real deal for three reasons:

1. He's a scrapper Govenor (senator's lose agains govenors) who knows how to win - his story is far more like the average American's (as Bill Clinton's was)than they usual beltway types'
2. He's a moderate - like Bill Clinton - who can triangulate agianst the wacko progressives and wacko neo-cons
3. He's not one of the usual suspects - and has a chance to win, unlike Hillary
4. He's already out in front and not paying attention to the horserace- he's just getting after it...and he comes across like that on the radio.

It's interesting to me how far the corporate media will go to paint any democrat who stands up to bush as crazy. The Post so far has run at least 3 totally differently edited versions of what WWebb said in an effort to make him look bad. Not a single one of them was complete or accurate.

' I'm watching some "Democratic strategist" named Rich Masters agree with Joe Scarborough that Jim Webb had made a rookie mistake by failing to kiss George W. Bush's ass when the jerk got snippy with him. Scarborough and whichever GOPbot they have on there agrees that it really reflects badly on the democratic party as a whole and Webb should apologise.

When these Democrats go on TV and fail to correct the record they turn these ridiculous manufactured flaps into news stories for the benefit of of the kewl kidz and the Republicans alike. I don't know what it will take to get them to stop doing it. They are making Jim Webb into one of the "crazy" guys like they made Gore and they made Dean. Don't they get that whenever a Democrats stands up to a republicans the establishment turns around and says they are nuts. Why are they helping them?

Who is Rich Masters? Who cares who Rich Masters is? Who cares what Rich Masters has to say about anything? No one. But who cares what the Democratic strategist on national televised show says? Far too many people.

What matters is that Rich Masters was on with Scarborough being the "Democratic strategist." How hard is it for these idiots who go on teevee to be the Democrat to be the gawddamned Democrat? Your job, Rich Masters, or whoever the hell else is appearing before more than three people in any room at any given time, designated as the Democrat, to act like a Democrat?

If you can't go on teevee and stand up for the Democrats, if you can't go on teevee and shoot down the lies of the GOP, then just don't go. Rich Masters, I hope your career as a "Democratic strategist" comes to a merciful and immediate end with that little performance.'

why we need to get rid of all 'Democratic strategists' -- they all suck.

I will say this for Vilsak: he sounds more sure footed on foreign policy than Mark Warner did when he was considering a candidacy. Ultimately he's aiming for VP or a cabinet post.

http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

The DLC is partly responsible for the execrable bankruptiy bill, which allows banks and credit card companies even more leverage to prey on people in trouble.

That's your so-called 'centrism' pandering to transnational corporations at the expense of american citizens. And you bet activists don't like it.

Lieberman to the UN? Disgusting. He's a de facto R, as bad as Bolton on foreign policy. Just a total mindless hawk. Sure it'd be jgood for bush -- but not for anyone who would like to see rationality and reason prevail for a change.

Terry, the only reason Vilsack has any chance is that he is from Iowa. If he were the governor of Missouri for example he wouldn't have a prayer. The guy is a good governor but doesn't have the gravitas you need to raise the money, appease the activists, and unite the factions of the democratic party.
Also with Bayh in the race there isn't room for one more mid-america white male centrist. He might get the VP but I doubt it. I see him as more of a Secretary of Agriculture.

Also watch for a Liebermann for UN Representative move. Would allow Bush to show "bipartisanship" and allow the Republican governor of Connecticut to apoint a Republican in the senate a win-win for the white house

I see Vilsack's DLC chairmanship as a potential liablity, more than a benefit. While it will give him access to a fundraising network, there won't be much there for reasons the fix mentioned. The liability is that the DLC is not exactly the most well thought of organization among the increasingly vocal activisist base of the party.

As for today's events, President Bush meets with the lead of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq at 1:15 pm ET at the White House.

Being from Iowa is definitely a liability, as it will make that state's caucuses an everything-to-lose-nothing-to-gain proposition for him. Even if he gets 76% of the vote, like Harkin did, it will practically be meaningless, other than the fact that he survived his home state. I also think that being from Iowa is seen as a negative by the voters in New Hampshire and other early primary states. Poor Vilsack -- if only he were from some other state, he would have a shot at the nomination.

http://commenterry.blogs.com

'Undereducated Note readers can get bogged down on Iraq this week (or this month), or they can move to where the political action is: 2008.'

Could anything be smarmier for more juvenile than ABC's The Note? I would bring back the draft just to see MARK HALPERIN shipped off to Iraq.

You know, because only the 'undereducated' [by this I guess he means our troops] are 'bogged down' in Iraq.

Sen. Evan Bayh in...Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton leaning in.

This will eat up a lot of financial committments, even from the DLC, of which both BHRC and Bayh are popular and known quantities with.

Where is the Case Against John McCain?

I heard his stump speech on C-Span radio - Vilsack has no presence. He is running for VP, and he has to know that.