Tom Vilsack

Today my wife and I had the opportunity to sit in on a taping of "Texas Monthly Talks," an extended interview show produced by the local PBS affiliate, where the guest was former Iowa governor, and current Democratic presidential candidate Tom Vilsack. This post is not an endorsement of Vilsack; since some people still have their holiday lights up from '06, it's probably too early in the '08 race to start placing bets. But he was pragmatic and articulate, and I think a handful of his comments are worth relaying. (Of course, if you're in Texas, you can always watch him for yourself, check local listings and all that.)

If you don't know who Tom Vilsack is, you're not alone. This short article from "The Des Moines Register" (1 February) cites a poll where 81 percent of respondents "hadn't heard enough" about him. But during the interview, Vilsack claimed he isn't concerned about being overshadowed, in either notoriety or finances, by presumptive Democratic primary favorites Clinton and Obama, despite their, apparently non-meteoric, first-name-only cachet. Vilsack called himself "electable," offering what he considers a successful track record of accountability and assistance as governor in a Republican-controlled state. * I'll let you peruse his record for yourself, most of it focused on ethanol and healthcare access. He asserted his capability to win-over marginally red states like Ohio, especially given the potential challenges facing Clinton and Obama when they dive into 'middle America' to ask for votes.

The above article, however, suggests that he may be overstating things a bit. Perhaps those poll numbers are simply a function of a still-pullulating POTUS08 election slate, but they may also be harbingers of the fact that, without more money **, Vilsack's days may be numbered. Plus, as the hometown hero playing on his hometurf, it should be safe to assume that he will get a substantial boost in cashflow and media coverage coming out of next year's Iowa caucus, except for the fact that electorate-rich states like California (55), Florida (27), Illinois (21), and even Texas (34), are contemplating--trust me, it's a done deal--plans to leapfrog Iowa (7) and New Hampshire (4) on the primary calendar. If that happens, it will be a de facto nationwide primary election day, where all the money's spent, and all the dark horses taken behind the barn, before mid-February. We can discuss in the comments whether or not a single primary day is a good thing, though after the interview I asked him why it benefits Iowans in particular, and Americans in general, to have 'small' states host the country's first primaries. I found his answer responsible, though ultimately I'm unsure if I'm persauded: because of the geographic and population size of large states, he postulated, candidates cannot genuinely and intimately interface with the people in order to deliver their campaign messages. They can't "get into church basements." What you see candidates do in Iowa, what you hear them say to Iowans is, Vilsack suggested, an accurate portrait of who they are and where they stand.

Certainly Vilsack has some good things to say. The bulk of his interview, and the subsequent Q&A, was focused, unsurprisingly, on Iraq. Again, I'll let you judge for yourself whether or not his call for immediate withdrawal of American soldiers, forcing Iraqi self-governance to sink or swim, is appropriate, but his response to a question about his lack of geopolitical experience, and Beltway experience in general, is worth repeating: experience is not essential. What's required, he asserted is "judgment." As I understand him, being president is a job that no one is ever really experienced enough to take on, but that there are definite characteristics that help someone do the job more effectively, intelligently, and compassionately. Making circumspect decisions based on rational analysis of multiple sources of input--wink and nudge--is crucial, he said. Unsurprisingly, but perhaps rightly, Vilsack does not think that Washington is making good decisions for its constituency these days (by which, one assumes, he means before November '06): post-9/11 legislation is rooted in "fear," resulting in policies which ask people to turn "inward" for self-realized, self-maintained security and survival, instead of turning outward toward collective solutions. He may not go the distance, but that one comment articulated, for me at least, an understanding of the indispensable need to hybridize pathos and pragmatism in policymaking.
---
* It was Republican controlled while he was governor, but flipped Democratic last November.

** If the article asks for a login and password, use Bug Me Not to bypass the process. Works for most nonpay sites, esp. online newspapers.

 

Comments

[Marco]

Hats off to Vilsack if he thinks he can break through in spite of being little known outside his home state. Frankly, I'm surprised anyone is still trying to get on board seeing as how Clinton and Obama are the clear front-runners. Of course, a lot could change between now and the primaries.

Clinton definitely has the experience and connections to be a viable candidate. My only concern is that she is such a polarizing figure and may very well dissuade potential swing voters. As many conservatives dislike Bill, they absolutely despise Hillary and probably wouldn't piss on her if she was on fire.

Personally, I'm not convinced that Obama is ready for 2008. He's still a junior senator after all. He'll make a stronger candidate in the future once he's established a track record and hopefully authored some meaningful legislation.

On the other hand, it's doubtful he'll ever look as promising as he does now. Time in Washington tends to add some wear and tear to one's image.