Vilsack to drop out

February 23, 2007

As further proof that the entire 2008 presidential race is accelerating at a stunning pace, we’re poised to have our first major withdrawal.

CNN, AP, and National Journal are all reporting that former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, who was the first candidate to enter the race, will be the first candidate to leave the race.

Democrat Tom Vilsack is abandoning his bid for the presidency after struggling against better-known, better-financed rivals, a senior campaign official told The Associated Press on Friday.

Vilsack left office in January and traveled through states holding early tests of strength. He had faced a tough challenge from rivals such as New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and John Edwards, who have had more success raising money and attracting attention — even in Vilsack’s home state of Iowa.

Vilsack was scheduled to make a formal announcement later in the day. The official spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity to avoid pre-empting the Democrat’s statement.

Vilsack was always a long shot — he liked to tell audiences, “I’m not a rock star, but I’m rock solid” — but I didn’t expect him to drop out this quickly. I can’t help but wonder if this week’s trouble over his proposal to add price indexing to Social Security, which, to put it mildly, was not well received, might have had something to do with the decision.

For real fun, watch every Democratic contender in the field sing Vilsack’s praises today, as they all seek his endorsement, which might carry some weight in Iowa.

Who wins and who loses by Vilsack’s departure? At the risk of being rude, his campaign hadn’t really built up enough support to matter that much, but I’d say New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson probably gains the most from this. At this point, he’s the only Democratic candidate in the race with executive experience, and as the media never tires of telling us, governors tend to do fairly well in presidential races.

No great loss

  • Agree that if anyone gains it would be Richardson. I’m not sure if it is possible for Richardson to break into the top tier, but this might help. There’s just too many candidates for the average person to keep track of and the media to cover, with the big names dominating the news. One less midwest/western governor makes it easier for him to get notice as a former governor from a red state with more experience than most of those running.

  • The trouble, both for Vilsack and still for Richardson, is that the overwhelming mass of Americans are increasingly limited by TeeVee perception. Unless you’re a “celebrity” capable of stimulating the occipital lobes, you haven’t got a snowball’s chance with the boobocracy.

  • It’s a little disconcerting that Vilsack dropped out so suddenly (he did look good on The Daily Show, anyway).

    At the same time, though, he showed more prudence than if he’d stayed in knowing he had no chance to win. An admirable quality in this day of political prima donnas who are only in it to stroke their own egos (“Hello, Mr. Nader!”)

    Ralph did not look good on The Daily Show, by the way. He looked almost mummified and spoke the same way, always looking at the audience like he was a standup comic fishing for a laugh.

    For Vilsack, this will spare him the pain of an impossible competition with powerful celebrity opponents. And I guess he could always decide to jump back in later, although I doubt that would be very plausible at this stage.

  • He knew his name was “Vilsack” from the start didn’t he? The question is- Why’d he get in the race to begin with? C’mon! You can’t win with a name like “Vilsack.” His candidacy for president was over the day his birth certificate was printed. Duh.

  • I didn’t think he looked so good on The Daily Show either. He was blaming the Iraqi people for the Mess 0’potamia. The following night Jon was making jokes about it without mentioning him. Besides, Haik is right–no one named Vilsack can be president. Especially with those duck commercials. But even without them. I think he just wanted to be considered for veep, but I don’t see what he adds for anyone there either.

  • “His candidacy for president was over the day his birth certificate was printed. Duh.”

    Not so much. Vilsack wasn’t the name on his birth certificate. He was an orphan who was adopted by the Vilsacks.

    Vilsack is a decent guy and was an above-average governor, but was in over his head in the Pres race. My guess is he hoped to stick around long enough to be taken seriously as Veep or a cabinet secretary, but the celeb candidates took all of the oxygen out of the race for the rest of the candidates.

    Vilsack had three real problems aside from running against bona fide celebs.

    First, he entered the race as the DLC candidate. For those who ask why he ran in the first place, from Vilsack’s shoes his resume looked a lot like another underestimated small state midwestern Governor who was DGA and DLC chair that went on to preside for 8 years. The real death knell was when DLC and DGA didn’t solidly back him. But when he couldn’t get any attention, he switched midstream from being the DLC, anti-left candidate to doing a Dr. Dean impersonation. It didn’t work, and worse it left him wholly undefined as a candidate.

    Second, and I say this with all respect as a former Dukakis campaigner, he is a lot like Dukakis. Successful governor, compelling personal story (immigrant family vs. orphan), but a real technocrat who is very good at governing but has a hard time working up convincing passion. Issues are mathematical equations, not something you rally people behind. He is a policy wonk who, unlike Clinton, doesn’t wonk naturally or fluidly, but is the student who gets good grades by studying really really hard. After Dukakis, I am convinced that is a hard sell to the public.

    Third, and I know I’ve told this story here before, his wife as Iowa’s First Lady spearheaded a great, noble and successful children’s literacy campaign that included an annual themed festival on the lawn of the governor’s mansion. Vilsack was a great sport about this; too good for his own political well-being. They would dress up in costumes for the kids. As a result, there are numerous photos of Vilsack dressed in a Winnie-the-Pooh costume, a Friar Tuck costume, etc. The negative ads to go with those phots all but write themselves.

    So I am sad to see an Iowan, a good guy, a bright man and a successful governor go out so early and with so little fanfare, but I cannot say it is a surprise, nor can I begin to suggest it isn’t the right decision. But I do hate to see people gloat over it. Hurts my poor little Iowa pride.

  • I have to believe that Richardson is keeping his powder dry and waiting for Hillary/Obama fatigue to set in. At this point, his strategy likely is to raise money behind the scenes, do just enough visible stuff to stay viable, and hope to get traction later this year.

    It’s actually not a bad plan, and I still think he has a real shot at this thing. Richardson also probably has the electability primary won: Hispanic descent, hugely popular in a swing state, both executive and legislative experience, serious expertise on foreign policy and energy, lots of personality but clearly smart and hard-working.

    Obama is my choice right now, of those in the race, but Richardson is a fairly close #2.

  • I find it extremely interesting the Villsack was widely roasted over the coals on liberal blogs this week (Atrios, Yglasias, etc) over his ideas to change Social Security by indexing to prices rather than wages – basically the only attention he seemed to have gotten his entire campaign — he immediately drops out – but I’ve seen very little linkage of the two. Shouldn’t someone, somewhere be crowing or bitching about the power of the liberal blogs getting Vilsack’s scalp?

  • At this point, he’s the only Democratic candidate in the race with executive experience,

    I respectfully disagree. General Clark served as the Sumpreme Allied Commander of NATO which is clearly executive experience. Arguably more so than being Governor of a fairly small (population wise) state. Furthermore, I’d argue that that role gives more foreign relations credibility than does Ambassador to the UN; admittedly this point is debatable.

    • Comments are closed.