The Most Absurd Explanation For Why Tom Vilsack Dropped Out Of The 2008 Presidential Race Award goes to the Washington Post, for suggesting that Vilsack’s campaign got into trouble because so much emphasis is placed on the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary.
Washington Post Staff Writer Dan Balz dashed off an instant analysis that, with sentence fragment wisdom, declared:
“Many campaign finance experts predicting that candidates will need to raise $30 million or $40 million by early next year to compete in the heavily front-loaded caucus and primary calendar. Vilsack’s projected fundraising left him struggling to compete.”
So, I’m supposed to believe that Vilsack, who gained the political prominance he had because he was Governor of Iowa, and is an expert in playing the power games inherent in the Iowa caucuses, was in trouble because he could not compete in Iowa? Come off it, Mr. Balz!
Without the early status of the Iowa caucuses, Tom Vilsack would be as well known as the Governor of Missouri. Quick test now. Fill in the blank. The Governor of Missouri is _________.
Of course you don’t know who the Governor of Missouri is. Almost nobody does, because the Missouri presidential primary is not the first presidential contest in the nation. Iowa’s caucuses are.
Tom Vilsack wouldn’t have even entered the 2008 presidential campaign if he didn’t have a substantial base of support in Iowa. Tom Vilsack was hoping to use the front-loaded nature of the presidential political primaries. He was not a victim of them.
No boo-hoos for Tom Vilsack from me. He who lives by political insider games dies by political insider games.
