Harkin won't pick gubernatorial favorite, pushes Vilsack

[Debi]

Will Vilsack's running for President make Iowa irrelevant in the primary process??? Just wondering



DES MOINES (AP) --- U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, arguably the most successful Democratic politician in the state, won't pick a favorite in the party's race for governor before next June's primary.

But Harkin said he would sign on to Gov. Tom Vilsack's presidential campaign if he should seek the nomination.

"If Tom Vilsack runs, I will support him," Harkin said in an interview with reporters and editors from The Associated Press. "I can see him being a very viable candidate for president."

<snip>

Harkin sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 1992, when his presence in the field rendered Iowa's caucuses meaningless as other candidates ceded the state to him. That likely won't happen again should Vilsack run, Harkin said.

"I think it might be different now, I really do," he said. "A lot of people in '92 said after that they wished they'd come to Iowa.

"Even if Vilsack runs and Iowa is first, you'll see people playing here, maybe not to beat him, but to come in a healthy second."

<snip>



http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2005/10/03/news/politics/d76de3e984d535338625708f003a8f91.prt

[IA_Seth]

1. I think it will...

And I just said so in your other thread.

Ugh. I read this article and just get a sick feeling in my stomach when thinking about Vilsack taking Iowa out of the primary phase in 08.

I don't have anything against Vilsack, but I HATE being force fed a candidate. If Vilsack runs, every central committee will be pushing him down our throats and touting him as "our" candidate. I prefer choice.

I am pretty bitter. I hope Vilsack decides against running, but I dont think he will.

[Debi]

3. I'm arm in arm with you on this Seth

I think it ruins Iowa's chances of having any relevance in 2008 and will seal our fate (losing the First in the Nation status) in 2012 if Vilsack doesn't become President or whoever the nominee didn't win Iowa (both of which I think will happen).

Now I know what New Jersey and Montana feel like - their primaries are held in June (or at least were in 2004 - NJ moved theirs up for 2008). Before the polls even opened the nominee was selected. Why even caucus in 2008 if the winner is pre-determined?

Anyone got a clue of what Harkin was thinking making that kind of pitch in 2005? Unless he knows something we don't (about Vilsack NOT running) and we don't lose a thing while he looks like a darn nice guy.

[IA_Seth]

5. Agreed

And Harkin's shpeel about having other candidate's "play here for a healthy second" seems to be his acknowledgement that we will be screwed in '08 (and really screwed in 2012).

This will kill the passion for national politics of many Iowans. I think the majority of people will agree, why show up to caucus when the decision is already made?

[Debi]

7. Unless the Healthy Second meme can be sold

but having two other states for the candidates to compete in hurts us as well.

I mean Clinton did place second in Iowa in 1992 (when Harkin ran for President and locked Iowa up)and went on to place second in New Hampshire and went on to...well, you know.

If the calendar was Iowa First Caucus, New Hampshire First Primary and then the rest of the states in whichever order a second place behind Vilsack would be a great finish in Iowa.

Now the candidates would be wise to focus on New Hampshire and the other two states leaving Iowa to hear Tom Vilsack's vision for the future of the country (over and over and over again) while we wonder why Hillary doesn't come around (and why the NY Times doesn't come around and why ABC/NBC/CBS doesn't come around........)

[rurallib]

2. Considering how much weight Harkin's endorsement carries

if I were Vilsack, I'd get out now. I thought it was a good thing when he backed Dean.

[Debi]

4. The article states that very thing

Maybe he's re-thinking his strategy and getting in early so he can bail if necessary? Beats me.

[DU9598]

6. Vilsack in Iowa

Who here in Iowa actually thinks Vilsack would win the Iowa caucus? I guess he could just because he is the hometown guy and it would be neat to have an Iowan as President again. But, Vilsack screwed labor and the trial lawyer lobby with his values fund agenda. Having burned bridges with the two of the top Democrat constituencies cannot help his cause. He has a lot of fence mending before he could get my support.

However, that said, I think his running will not make Iowa irrelevant. It already is less so. I see a few people coming here to get the attention that the news cycle provides. Free media and cheaper media in Iowa is not lost on a lot of candidates.

[Debi]

8. It's not just Harkin's endorsement and it's not just the extra two states

going early. It's the two combined that hurt Iowa. (see my post above because I'm too lazy to retype it here).

I understand Vilsack burned bridges, but what candidate would waste their money coming to a state that is 90% sure to go to Vilsack? Especially when there are three other states in play? (and the whole 'this is new and exciting' will be eating up the media attention - those stories will be on C-SPAN nightly coming from the two new states).

The only reason to come to Iowa right now is because the commission has not made a recommendation yet, Iowa is still first. But come December, when the recommendation is made and Dean makes the final decision, it may be the end of Iowa's reign. Then we'll see how many reporters, hopeful candidates and political consultants come around. (And with no one else running in Iowa who do you think will win?)