Submitted by kam, Mar 26, 2007 16:55

Oh, brother -- another columnist that has to be 'put straight'.

WHY is it that you non-Iowans keep repeating the completely UNrealistic and perverse 'opinion' that former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack somehow has ANY real depth of influence over any more than a very FEW Democrats in this state? HUH??

He absolutely does NOT have very much actual 'pull' around here -- and former state party chair Gordon Fischer is just plain scamming you by averring that he's got tons and tons of county chairs and other assorted Dem poo-bahs who will 'go where he goes' -- it's just NOT so! Heck, Vilsack had to drop out of the prez race to a great extent because he COULDN'T get very much truly dedicated-to-him-only support from his own party in his own state!

WE knew that if he had continued his campaign that he'd do NO better than 4TH in the Iowa caucuses -- so WHY do you so-savvy political journalists keep insisting that he is soooo revered here, or that he had sooo much 'support' already lined up?? Sure, the arm-twisting was going on big-time -- his wife Christie, in particular, was making a LOT of folks verrry uncomfortable in having to hedge with the first lady about their intention to 'wait a while' before committing to her hubby!

But no matter -- what you east-coasters REALLY don't 'get' is that Vilsack's prez ambitions were a TOTAL 'set-up' BY the Clintonistas, from the get-go!! THEY set him up as the DLC chair, just so he COULD fly all over giving speeches and promoting himSELF. THEY got him the 'seed money' to run, and kept pushing him to run. And WHY?? GEEZ!! This is sooo E-Z! ALL so that his 'favorite son' candidacy would be the 'REASON" that Hillary lost the Iowa caucuses!! That's IT! PERIOD! Great 'cover' for HER, and a promise of at least a cabinet position in her administration for HIM. Following, now, eh?

And then when California, and eventually it is quite assured, Florida, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and a whole pile of other states move their primaries/caucuses to early February, the Clinton camp decided that it wouldn't really 'hurt' Hillary all that much if she DID lose Iowa, because she would of course win New York, etc., -- so THEY directed THEIR funders not to bother with continuing to shore up Vilsack's campaign with financial donations. And THAT'S ultimately WHY he dropped out -- because the Clinton's USE for HIM had 'expired'.

NOW do you guys 'get it'???

So continue believing that somehow his endorsement of Hillary today will in any way bring her additional support from actual caucus-going Dems in Iowa -- HA! He was NOT 'beloved' around here, he does NOT have "strong political support in his home state", he will NOT give Hillary's "ground operation ... an instantaneous boost".

But of COURSE he was going to eventually endorse HER -- he OWED her, don't you see?

Listen to what the Drake poli-sci dept. chair is telling you - - he's giving you the REAL 'skinny' on the potential outcome of Vilsack's backing of Hillary.

Look, Tom Vilsack IS a very 'nice' guy -- and he would be very well suited to become the chancellor of some elite liberal arts college somewhere. But NOT president. And he's NO kingmaker, either.

'Nuff said.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.