Vilsack: Can Competence Compete ?

Meeting Tom Vilsack is a reminder of how degraded American politics has become.

Start with his name. When the Iowa governor declared for President, even though he had been on the Democrats’ short list for VP in 2004, the universal reaction was “Huh?”

On the Daily Show, Jon Stewart superimposed the Aflac duck on his announcement, and comic Lewis Black told Larry King that Vilsack sounded like an unmentionable disease. (When Dukakis ran in 1988, his name was the least of his problems)

Less hilarious was a Des Moines political columnist’s reaction: “Polls show the governor runs badly in his own home state...and a majority of Iowans don’t think he should get into this race.”

Case closed.

Yet, at a recent Manhattan meeting with several dozen potential supporters, Vilsack was anything but the stereotype of a sure loser.

A thoughtful, plain-spoken man, Vilsack has a long, hard row to hoe, but he makes a strong case for competence in governing that may resonate with a public exhausted by the Bush years.

As an orphan with a troubled adoptive family history, Vilsack identifies with the struggles of working Americans to give their children good health care and a decent education.

Asked about his unfamiliarity with foreign affairs, he cites all the experience in the room when Bush decided to go into Iraq. “What was missing,” he says, “was judgment.”

The larger question raised by his candidacy is: Amid the 24/7 din of pundits, pollsters, standup cynics and logorrheic bloggers, can a straight-talking politician like Vilsack be heard?

In the 1990s, the Presidential process still had space for serious people like Bill Bradley, Richard Lugar and Mario Cuomo, but it was shrinking.

Bill Clinton may have been the tipping point. As the smooth governor of a small state, he broke through anonymity and leveraged Bush 41’s lack of “the vision thing” to the White House, balanced the budget and kept us out of war but also managed to get himself impeached and rendered impotent to take out Osama bin Laden by fear of “Wag the Dog” accusations.

Since then, it has been all downhill. Last month’s election was a national cry of pain, but where do we go from here?

In coming months, Vilsack's fate may offer some clues. In the Iowa caucuses, he is in a bind. If he wins, ho-hum, but he may then attract enough serious money and support to go on. If not, it’s over.

Undaunted, he welcomes all challengers and predicts he will prevail by getting through to the people of Main Street where he lives literally in Mt, Pleasant, Iowa and figuratively all over America.

Without the clout of Hillary Clinton or the high voltage of Barack Obama, Vilsack has his own quiet charm and confidence.

On December 18th, he will be interviewed by Jon Stewart on the Daily Show.

“We’re going to have some fun,” he says with a small smile.

Vindication for Vilsack

Exactly two years ago, an impressive man with an odd name started running for president. Meeting Tom Vilsack moved me to write about him under the heading, "Can Competence Compete?"

In his case, the answer turned out to be no, and Vilsack went on to back Hillary Clinton before finally falling in line behind Barack Obama, who tomorrow will name him as his Secretary of Agriculture.

The appointment of someone who opposed him twice will confirm once again that the new president values competence over personal loyalty, an important trait when the country needs all the brains and good judgment it can get.

An orphan with a troubled adoptive family history, Vilsack, the former governor of Iowa, identifies with the struggles of American families and, for a start, will empathize with them rather than the corporations who dominate farming.

He will serve Obama and the rest of us very well.

Vilsack Revisited

At this stage of the 1976 and 1992 elections, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were little-known governors of small states with infinitesimal rankings in the Presidential polls.

That’s the slim reed to which Tom Vilsack’s 2008 hopes are lashed as the just-retired governor of Iowa makes his way, in media dimness, toward next year’s primaries.

“I’m not a rock star,” he tells you, ‘but I am rock-solid.”

Since we saw him in December, he has raised over $1.1 from admirers including Warren Buffet, made a solid impression at the Democrats’ meeting last weekend as the only candidate to call for immediate withdrawal from Iraq and will soon unveil an energy plan calling for a 75 percent reduction from emissions levels of 2000.

In a small room with half a dozen suburban reporters last evening, Vilsack continued to talk sense without notes (as he did last weekend to Howard Dean’s astonishment).

“We’re at the American Idol stage of the campaign,” he told them, but is confident that voters will want answers rather than slogans while talking earnestly and persuasively of his conversation with the Prime Minister of India about the link between literacy and world hunger.

Of course, there are differences between 1992 and 2008, but if Tom Vilsack fails to emulate her husband, “the Comeback Kid,” Hillary Clinton could do a lot worse in picking a running mate to balance her own strengths.

Hillary Clinton's "Rock Solid" Endorsement

Hillary Clinton will be in Iowa tomorrow, and Tom Vilsack will endorse her.

The former governor, who was first to announce his candidacy for President last year and the first to drop out last month, has apparently been courted ever since with an all-out press from Sen. Clinton, her husband and former Democratic Chairman Terry McAuliffe.

Gov. Vilsack, a formidable man who will undoubtedly be considered as a running mate for Mrs. Clinton, has heard from Barack Obama as well. But when he was still running, Vilsack may have dropped a clue about his eventual preference.

“I’m not a rock star,” he said, “but I’m rock solid.”

Vilsack for VP

In December I asked: "Can Competence Compete?" Apparently not.

The news that Tom Vilsack is dropping out of the '08 sweepstakes is saddening, but he should be on every other candidate's short list for VP. He was on Kerry's in 2004.

Vilsack's departure leaves my record as a political kingmaker unblemished. I urged Mario Cuomo to run in 1992. I must have an unerring instinct for people who are too decent for today's political process.

Sherrod Case: Defining Decency Down

There is no Atticus Finch or Joseph Welch in all this. On the 50th anniversary of "To Kill a Mockingbird," we are back in a time when McCarthyism played on fears to spread hatred and destroy lives of people in public life.

The President, who won an election by putting the Civil Rights era behind him, will have to revisit that time before his birth and make things right not only with Shirley Sherrod but generations of Americans who have struggled for decency not only in race relations but political discourse.

In his campaign speech after the Rev. Jeremiah Wright uproar, candidate Obama offered a vision beyond "politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism," but his first year and a half in office, to his evident dismay, have been dominated by that and much more.

“We are getting used to a lot of behavior that is not good for us,” the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote in 1993 in his now-famous American Scholar article, “Defining Deviancy Down,” arguing that society keeps adjusting for the amount of unacceptable conduct it can tolerate.

The Sherrod case defines not only deviancy but decency down. It takes us from Rev. Wright's inflammatory videos, which actually existed, to a distortingly edited version of the impassioned speech of a woman who has fought for social justice to make her appear prejudiced.

Such slime would have been unworthy of passing comment if it had not triggered, in this era of debate about Tea Party racism, instant overreaction not only by the NAACP but Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, who ran briefly for President on a platform of bringing "good judgment" to government.

To their credit, Secretary Vilsack and the White House are trying to make amends to Ms. Sherrod, but who will remind all involved, in the words of Joe Welch, to recall our "sense of decency at long last" and to remember the lesson of Harper Lee's novel, that to destroy innocent life is a sin?

Punching Up the Tickets

Boredom with the ’08 candidates is so bad that speculation about running mates has already started.

Last week Maureen Dowd told us her Republican friends (how many can she have?) think Gore-Obama would be hardest to beat. Now speculation is floating around about Clinton-Vilsack.

In the spirit of this idle but harmless game, herewith a venture into the deep space of premature ticket-making: On the Blue side, former Governor Vilsack would bring judgment and experience to any nominee, not only Clinton but Obama or Edwards. John Kerry had him on his short list in 2004.

If Obama doesn’t go all the way, he could help not only Gore but Clinton or Edwards. Some combination of this handful, with Bill Richardson, Sen. Evan Bayh and former Virginia Governor Mark Warner as outside possibilities for the second spot, looks likely to be the Democratic ticket.

The Republican field is such a witch’s brew of ideological impairment, checkered personal history and leadership gaps that picking the most electable pair is close to impossible.

Giuliani needs everything--a conservative family man to offset his marriages and abortion stance, a smoothie to soften his rough edges and a Red Stater to balance his New Yorkiness. Preacher Mike Huckabee or Fred Thompson could do.

If McCain wins, he and Lindsey Graham, his certified conservative sidekick, seem joined at the hip. They even went shopping in Baghdad together.

Fred Thompson could use someone who looks good in a suit and tie. He and Mitt Romney might work, with either of them at the top of the ticket. Or if he would settle for the second spot, Giuliani would add some zing to the laid-back actor-politician.

Romney’s Mormon problem would be eased by having Huckabee or some other non-believer in evolution as his running mate.

If Clinton or Obama wins the Democratic nomination, there could be a lot of pressure on Condolezza Rice to run for VP to provide a gender and racial twofer for the Republicans.

Then again, there may be too much straining for geographic, ethnic and stylistic balance. The last couple of times, we elected two oil-company cowboys from Texas and Wyoming, and look how well that worked out.

Christmas in August for John Edwards

The ’08 campaign pace in Iowa is as intense as it was a month before Democrats chose John Kerry in 2004 with a new poll showing Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and—-surprise--John Edwards in a virtual tie.

Six months before the January 14th caucuses, Iowans have donated as much money, attended as many campaign events and received as many phone calls as they did in December 2003.

Edwards, who placed second last time, is making an all-out effort there to beat the two national front runners, with a week-long bus tour this month to pound home the message of his poverty campaign: “I want America to join us, all of us, to end the great work Bobby Kennedy started.”

Clinton and Obama are working hard too for a victory in the first ’08 test of strength. The former First Lady’s secret weapon is two-time Governor Tom Vilsack, a possible running mate, who is auditioning by playing surrogate in the spat over meeting with unfriendly foreign leaders.

Vilsack, in expressing “disappointment” with Obama’s attacks on Clinton, told voters, “It’s not the Iowa way.”

Meanwhile, Obama is showing considerable strength with potential caucus-goers expressing interest in his “new ideas and new direction.”

In a state with a reputation for being “contrary,” where caucus members stand in designated areas and yammer at one another and traditionally make up their minds at the last moment, anything can happen. John Edwards, for one, is hoping that it will.

Hillary's Next Mate

It’s been like waiting in line to get tickets for a rock concert. Yesterday the “Hillary Is 44” site promised: “Tomorrow we will address potential Vice President choices. Don’t miss it!”

So here we are with knapsacks, water bottles and eager faces, and the winner is...

James Webb, the junior senator from Virginia, who makes Barack Obama look like Robert Byrd when it comes to experience in elected office--less than six months—although he did serve as Secretary of the Navy during the Reagan years.

After considering Obama (“many questions he must answer, soon and thoroughly”), Bill Richardson (“solidifies the Latino vote for an already popular with Latinos Hillary”) Evan Bayh (“made some dumb personnel decisions for his campaign but quickly corrected them, which we found impressive”) and Tom Vilsack (“might bring in Iowa’s 7 electoral votes”), the Pink Brain Trust decided on Webb, citing “Republican David Ignatius,” a Washington Post columnist, commenting on Webb’s Wall Street Journal OpEd titled “Class Struggle”:

“’The Democrats need to embrace the fact that the greatest issue in America today is economic fairness,’ he says. He argues that if the Democrats construct a ‘fairness agenda’ that tilts toward workers and away from corporations and the rich, ‘they will win big.’ John Edwards hasn’t had much luck so far with the issue, which he has made the centerpiece of his presidential campaign. But some influential Democrats, including former Treasury secretary Lawrence Summers, share the focus on fairness.”

Senator Webb, decorated Vietnam war veteran, author of eight books and philosophically an admirer of the late Sen. Pat Moynihan, is an impressive man who, on his first Senatorial trip to the White House had a publicized run-in with the President about Iraq, where his son is serving.

Vice President? Sen. Clinton may want to wait until she wins the nomination before thinking too much about it.

The X Factor for '08

During the 1960 campaign, John Kennedy said he sometimes felt sorry for Richard Nixon: “It must be hard getting up every morning trying to decide who you’re going to be that day.”

That could be the X Factor for 2008. Since Kennedy, few politicians have seemed so comfortable in their own skins. Ronald Reagan and Mario Cuomo come to mind, but Reagan was an actor and Cuomo refused to go through the political meat grinder in 1992.

Next year, after the longest campaign ever, voters will be starved for authenticity, the sense of a real person behind all the packaging.

Thus far, prospects are poor.

In fifteen years, has anyone seen Hillary Clinton in an uncalculated public moment?

Will John McCain stop reinventing himself before or after his party’s primaries?

What, if anything, is behind John Edwards’ eager-to-please smile?

When will Mitt Romney stop tripping over his past positions?

Who will emerge as the real Rudy Giuliani from his purloined playbook? Even this early, he is repudiating versions of his former self.

As voters puzzle over the meaning of such ink-blot candidates, will they start yearning for someone who is actually there for them to see?

That desire is part of what’s behind Obama’s early surge, but even he had to tell Tim Russert with a worried smile that his wife and friends think he’s still there behind all the hype. Can he stay? On 60 Minutes last night, he said the “attempt to airbrush your life...is exhausting.”

Earnest men like Dennis Kucinich and Tom Vilsack are trying, without much luck, to be seen and heard.

In our age of super-blather, we have time for a long, hard look at the next President in debates that go beyond catch phrases and gotchas.

We can take clues from “Honest Abe,” everybody’s favorite President this month. (Obama steeped his announcement in a Lincolnesque aura, and Rudy Giuliani in New Hampshire has been comparing the Great Emancipator with, no joke, George W. Bush.)

In 2008, 150 years after the Lincoln-Douglas debates helped decide the 1860 Presidential election, we can create their equivalent for our era. Lincoln and Stephen Douglas went at it seven times for four hours each so voters could see the men behind the rhetoric.

We can insist that today’s contenders stop conning us and confront one another in comparable give-and-take.

Or will we just settle for a rerun of those “American Idol” campaigns that spewed out George W. Bush?

And Now the Ugly Olympics...

After so many hours of seeing young people compete with grace, beauty and strength in an atmosphere of human amity, Americans are back in the mean season of politicians scoring points by playing to the crowds.

The President welcomes Paul Ryan to the race telling Iowans the new VP nominee symbolizes “a vision I fundamentally disagree with” as his Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack goes for the jugular: “Take a look at the Ryan budget. Take a look at what it does to farm families. It destroys the safety net.”

The sudden shift from Greek esthetics to Roman circuses will no doubt be taken in stride by voters, although some may regret losing sight of races in which runners are going all out toward the finish line without elbowing and throwing gobs of mud at one another.

Even in the first lap of the marathon, Mitt Romney cancels an Orlando campaign stop, pleading that he is "too exhausted to make the trip," suggesting that his choice of a younger, energetic running mate may pay off in staying power, if not popularity.

Is it too “old” to be remembering the time only decades ago when voters expected national leaders to offer something approximating truth, no matter how ideologically skewed? Is it too “out of touch” to lament the time when SuperPACs weren’t spreading lies that candidates themselves would be ashamed to utter?

Those who vividly remember such times will welcome Ryan’s entry into the Big Race. He won’t be half as nimble as Romney in evading his own history and vision for the future, he will drag the Tea Party Congress into the spotlight, and he will give ideologically impaired independents a good, long look at where the country has been heading in the past two years.

They may have second thoughts about where that finish line is taking them.

There will be another benefit as well. In 1960 JFK confided he felt sorry for Nixon having to get up every morning and decide who he is going to be that day. Romney, of course, has the same problem, but Ryan does not. It will be good to have someone on the ticket who knows who he is so voters can see exactly what they would be getting.  

Screen Tests for '08

Hollywood never liked George Bush, even before he produced the “Ishtar” of American wars.

Now the movie crowd is beside itself, buzzing around Oscar candidates for ’08. The choices are delicious.

Will it be the umpteenth remake of “A Star is Born” with Barack Obama gender-bending the Streisand-Judy Garland role?

How about “Million Dollar Baby” with Hillary Clinton? But the ending of that one was a downer.

Then there’s “Cinderella Man” with Al Gore. With a nomination this year, he’s box-office again. Remember how Katharine Hepburn overcame her early bombs.

Rudy Giuliani could be another “Lethal Weapon,” but then again, maybe not.

Perhaps, after all the cynicism, it’s time to reach way back to Frank Capra. An update of “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”? Tom Vilsack is out in the boondocks auditioning for the part.

Give the man a screen test. America may be ready for a fresh face.

Clinton-Clark vs. Giuliani-Huckabee?

It's getting to be crunch time.

After ten minutes as a food fight, the Democratic debate settled into an edgy pep rally after Hillary Clinton stopped John Edwards with the magic word, mud. The rest was more or less collegial self-puffery, not Obama's best medium--he needs more time to get on an inspirational roll.

Once again, Joe Biden made a good case for becoming Secretary of State in what's beginning to look more and more like another Clinton Administration, especially if the Republicans end up with a Giuliani-Huckabee ticket.

There are a multitude of good choices for running mate--Obama, if she dares, but more likely someone who has managerial experience, former Gen. Wesley Clark or an ex-governor like Tom Vilsack or Mark Warner, if he wants to preside over rather than become a member of the Senate.

Unless a few thousand voters in Iowa or New Hampshire say otherwise, inevitability is in the air.