Vilsack to Endorse Hillary
Henry C. Jackson reports for the Associated Press that former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack will announce his endorsement of Hillary Clinton coming monday. Iowa is, as Jackson notes, “the first test in the presidential primary with caucuses on Jan. 14, 2008, and backing from both Vilsacks is certain to boost the Democratic front-runner. A win in Iowa provides critical momentum, especially with a spate of primaries and caucuses early in the nomination calendar.”
This is, quite obviously, great news for Hillary Clinton – it improves her chances, and they weren’t that bad to begin with of course.
Good news for Hillary, a blow for Obama? Obama says no:
“Obviously he’s got credibility in Iowa and I think highly of him as a former governor. But my sense is this race will ultimately not be won, probably, on endorsements, but it will be more on who gives voice to the real hunger that the American people have for change right now,” Obama said in a telephone interview.
“The Clintons have been on the national scene for a real long time,” he said. “I think the surprise would be if they didn’t garner a lot of endorsements from well-established political figures.”
He handles it well – mr. cool…
Obviously, good news for Hillary automatically means bad news for Obama. Obama could have used Vilsack’s support. The race between Obama and Hillary might become very, very close. Both can use all the support they can get, let alone in Iowa.
Something I’ve been wondering about: has anyone here read The Audacity of Hope? If so, what did you think of it?
Same for Hillary Clinton’s Living History. Who of you read it?
As for me: I read Living History and found it to be well written, and quite insightful. I already respected Hillary greatly, after reading Living History I respect her even more. She’s ambitious, yes, but every single person who runs for president is… per definition.
7 Responses to “Vilsack to Endorse Hillary”
Obama’s first book was better but then I really enjoy autobiographies and this one was a doozy. Audacity of Hope offers a broad sweep on the issues and concerns facing Americans today and in the years ahead. Since I was not interested in every i being dotted or every t being crossed in the “issues” arena, I found the reasoning and logic that Obama used to make his points to be compelling. In some places, the rhetoric was a struggle but none of the reasoning was unclear.
cube, ok, that sounds good. A must read, or merely a good read?
Obama is still headed for the VP slot, provided he and Hillary can stand each other.
(What if Obama tried to make Al Gore his Vice President?)
Michael.
I’ve struggled to read Obama’s writing. There just wasn’t anything truly insightful or compelling to me. Yes, it was well written. Yes, it addresses some of the problems facing our nation… But no, it really doesn’t offer up anything new that would give you any additional reason to support him. I see it as a good expression of what the Democratic Party should stand for, but, to me, the person leading that change doesn’t need to be Obama, based upon that book.
Just my $.02 about the book.
I hate to veer off topic, but since everyone else seems to want to make this a discussion about Obama…
I read a portion of Obama’s book (the second one, not the first) about a week ago. I enjoyed the chapter entitled “Republicans and Democrats” (or was it “Democrats and Republicans?) in which he recounted the history of both parties going back to Roosevelt and the Great Depression. It was refreshing that instead of simply making this a chapter about an us-versus-them account of the two parties, he actually talked about the competing wings within each party, discussing the rise of the libertarian wing of the Republican Party as espoused by Goldwater and the fall of the liberal wing of the Republican Party as expoused by Rockefeller and also the disparate groups that formed the New Deal Coalition which ultimately collapsed in the late 60′s/early 70′s following the Vietnam War and the rise of social liberalism (or radicalism, if you want to call it that) within the Democratic Party.
However, towards the end of this chapter, he fell into the same trap that many liberals/progressives seem to fall into by ultimately characterizing the difference between Republicans and Democrats along the lines of fiscal/economic policy–pitting the fiscally conservative Republicans against the economically populist Democrats.
For one thing, it fails to recognize the pervasiveness of Big Government types in both parties in recent years–thereby minimizing the differences between Republicans and Democrats on fiscal/economic policy (So what the Republicans give tax cuts? That hardly makes them free market capitalists). And for another, it seemed to represent the pervasive attitude among Democrats that economicaly populist voters are still in their camp, when, in reality, a large segment of voters are economically populist & socially conservative–a segment that was once solidly Democratic but has tended to tilt Republican in recent years since, in light of the Culture War, many of these voters have put their social beliefs before their economic beliefs.
everyone knew Vilsack was going to endorse Hillary. He’s a close DLCer. Obama is a progressive. DLC being republican lite (and Hillary’s baby) is not going to endorse a progressive but, another center right dem.
I disagree with DLS about VP. No way. obama is looking for the top spot and is not looking for VP. And never with Hillary. Hillary and him are far apart on issues. That’s what Vilsack is gunning for. VP with Hillary. Problem is, she won’t get the nomination. obama will.
But, I was thinking Webb for Obama’s vp…
VW Cat said:
> I disagree with DLS about VP. No way.
> obama is looking for the top spot and
> is not looking for VP.
Fair enough. I suspect many Dems are actually aiming for the VP slot (could be true with GOP candidates as well), trying to go as far as they can so they fall less farther behind than the next guy.
> And never with Hillary. Hillary and him
> are far apart on issues.
Well, they seem to be antagonistic currently, though it could all be just a stunt meant to draw interest to both wings of the party.
It’s ironic, because Hillary is disguising her past-track-record-proven farther-left self, while Obama is posturing as a Fresh New Face and left of Hillary, when in practice he’s simply a Chicago-area Dem Party typical machine-like politician with no real new ideas to offer anybody.
> That’s what Vilsack is gunning for.
> VP with Hillary.
It makes sense, though to me it seems he’s weaker than, say, even (yuck) Chris Dodd or anyone else who stays in the race longer. Many have probably never heard of Vilsack before. (At least if you’ve seen or heard C-SPAN in past years you may have encountered Dodd and his big mouth.)
> Problem is, she won’t
> get the nomination. obama will.
I heavily favor Hillary as well as (especially given the weak GOP field and dissatisfaction with GOP as Dems Lite in DC plus dissatisfaction with Bush admin ineptitude and some blatant misconduct, plus the war in Iraq) already more than 50% chance Hillary will be our next President.
Where on earth is the Natural (for VP), Evan Bayh?