|
Tom Vilsack's withdrawal from the 2008 race for president is bad news:
- For governors and ex-governors in this contest. (Voters may not put such a high premium on their skills.)
- For those offering the most strident anti-war messages. (They also didn't go the distance for Howard Dean four years ago.)
- For candidates without money. (Not only are the living-room campaigns of the Jimmy Carter era dead, so is the way he raised money.)
The former Iowa governor quit his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination last week, citing a lack of cash.
Why didn't he take off? The answer may be that in 2008, voters are not be looking for the skills in domestic policy a governor brings to a presidential campaign. It's the first election since 9/11 in which the country must select a new president, and Americans seem to be be looking for a president with experience in national security or on a broader world stage - not a state capitol.
That's contrary to the conventional wisdom that says governors do well in presidential races because they have executive experience and decisive images while senators do poorly because they merely talk for a living and are weighted down by their voting records in Congress.
Look who leads in the early polls. On the Republican side, it's former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Not a governor in the lot.
While former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is making progress, he had a poor announcement tour and is bogged down in accusations that he flip-flops on issues. (So much for an image of decisiveness.)
Former governors Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin, Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Jim Gilmore of Virginia are in low single digits. George Pataki of New York has opted out of the race.
On the Democratic side, the frontrunners are New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards. Again, not a former governor in the lot.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson is also at about 1 percent in most polls. But he's just getting started, so the jury's out on whether his candidacy can gain altitude. He's also not just a governor. He's a former diplomat, congressman, energy secretary and is currently a leading Hispanic political figure.
That means he's got a few other things besides Santa Fe in his portfolio. If he does gain traction, it will be by talking about those things, not what he's done for New Mexico.
Vilsack's departure is also evidence a strong anti-war message isn't enough. Today, everybody wants out of Iraq and bashes the war. The question is finding a credible way to do it, and Democrats are having trouble agreeing on a plan.
Vilsack's departure is also a bad omen for other candidates without money. In an earlier era, a candidate could scrape together enough to compete in Iowa, do well, and raise more off the strength of that win. Those new dollars then gave a candidate the ability to compete in New Hampshire, where another good showing could be parlayed into the cash needed to compete in later contests.
Now, with so many states jumbled together, a candidate is forced to compete in four early states at once - plus have the ability to move into several more bigger ones a week later. Guys like Vilsack - or a Jimmy Carter - can't do that. Today, big money must be raised up front.
Which is why Vilsack may be the first of many of these single-digit candidates who fold.
We've all noted the record early start to this campaign. We may now see a record early number of departures, and by Labor Day, there may be only three or four viable candidates in each party.
Which is another change. I used to say Iowa culled the field of candidates and that there were only three tickets for presidential candidates out of here to New Hampshire - first class, coach and standby.
Now there may be only three tickets into Iowa - Gulfstream, Citation and Cessna.
|
|
