Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign sent supporters an email last night calling attention to a recent blog entry by a key backer of hers, former Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa, describing “Hillary’s strong organization in Iowa and office openings across the Hawkeye State.” But the e-mail did not say this: At a meeting of 200 Clinton donors and supporters in Washington last Tuesday, Mr. Vilsack warned that the campaign had a lot of work to do in order to win the first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses in Iowa next January. “We’re not winning Iowa today,” Mr. Vilsack told the audience, according to two people who attended.

• Dan Fairs On Twitter: Ok Fed Up With Tweetie For Machines
• Dan Fairs On Twitter: Ok Fed Up With Tweetie For Mac Free
• Dan Fairs On Twitter: Ok Fed Up With Tweetie For Machine

Vilsack did not return phone messages requesting an interview. Clinton campaign advisers, however, did not deny the comment attributed to Mr. Galaxy online 2.

Dan Fairs On Twitter: Ok Fed Up With Tweetie For Machines

Vilsack, who spoke at a “major supporters briefing” that the campaign held last Tuesday. Clinton’s senior advisers, as well as several fundraising bundlers and outside advisers to her campaign, briefed the audience on the campaign’s political strategy, communications plans, polling, and other issues.

Vilsack made clear that he believes the Clinton campaign can (and will) win Iowa when the time comes. But, in light of some polls showing that former Senator John Edwards has a lead over her in Iowa, Mr. Vilsack said that Iowa cannot be taken for granted. County-by-county organizational strength is essential for victory — building a machine in each county that will turn undecided voters into supporters, and then pull them out on the winter night of the caucuses to vote. Vilsack’s “guest blog” entry on Iowa from Mrs. Clinton’s Web site. I was about to smarmily correct Vilsack by saying Iowa was the Buckeye, not Hawkeye state, before remembering that Ohio is.

So I looked up Iowa and found out its tree is the Oak, flower the Wild Rose (not the Tame Rose), rock the Geode, etc. But the craziest thing was that its estimated population is less than 3 million. So with all this effort into not taking Iowa for granted, has anyone realized that with a total pop. Of less than L.A., less than half of NYC, Iowa is nearly completely unimportant? OK, that’s realistically speaking, ignoring the electoral college and all, but it still bugs me that people pay so much attention to the Hawkeye state.

And just what the heck is a Hawkeye other than Alan Alda? Iowa websites were vague on the subject. Well, of course John Edwards has a lead over Hillary Clinton in Iowa — John Edwards is the more electable democratic candidate, and the smart and savvy folk of Iowa apparently recognize this unavoidable fact. No matter how one might feel about the opportunities for a referendum on Ms.

Clinton’s husband’s presidency, the nation would be expected to prefer a new face and the opportunity for new leadership — i.e. John Edwards — over the baggage a Clinton II presidency (and campaign) necessarily entails. This is nothing more than reporting on advertising, and it doesn’t even do an adequate job at that. It’s the equivalent of a hypothetical story reporting McDonald’s findings that the Big Mac will be determined to be the most popular burger after future testing, but it’s still too early to tell.

The importance of Vilsack’s blog, if any, is what it demonstrates about the campaign strategy. Unfortunately, the fact that the campaign is simply talking out of both sides of its mouth to both goad and reassure its supporters is not as interesting as the proffered inference that something is rotten in the state of Iowa.

The Dems have to understand that while their nominee going into the general is going to have the fed-up-with-the-Republicans-and-their-war vote, their nominee does in fact have to be electable. Is John Edwards the right guy to get real Americans to really pay attention to the fact that they really don’t have health insurance, but ought to? Still, this in my judgment will be the next great turning point in American politics – the day the voters understand that they are a force, and can elect a guy or gal who will really help them in sensible ways – like health care, public transportation, and education. The things that truly impact their lives, and the lives of their children. Here’s to hoping that the myopic Bush years unintentionally bring us a new age in American politics where folks participate, and our democracy is revitalized. If John Edwards can be the first to strike that chord, God Bless him.

Slightly off the topic, but To Mr. Stackhouse (Post #2), Hawk Eye was a Souix Indian Chief. My hometown was actually named for him, but the name was “run together” by a clerk in the Postal Service in the latter 1800’s. Although I am from Hawkeye, Iowa, I couldn’t tell you how it became the Hawkeye State or how the University of Iowa chose the name for their sports teams. (It’s back to Google for me.) As to Iowa’s nearly complete lack of importance, I trust you’d be willing to apply the same judgement to Vermont (623,000), New Hampshire (1,310,000), Utah (2,470,000), Nevada (2,415,000), and quite a few other states in the untion smaller than Iowa.

So tell me, just how big does a state have to be before you would consider it important? I fear your “big state provincialism” is showing. To Eunice who wrote, “Clinton enthusiastically supported the Iraq war and now will not take responsibility.” If you read the speech Clinton made on the floor of the Senate before voting for the authorization to use military force, you will understand that your comment is fundamentally incorrect on two levels.

First, Clinton pointedly admonished President Bush not to rush into war. She told him to let the inspectors do their job. Her rationale for voting for the authorization was simple: By sending a clear and unified message to the UN and Hussein that the United States was committed to disarming Iraq, it would DECREASE the likelihood that war would be necessary.

BUSH pulled the inspectors and invaded Iraq. Clinton did NOT vote for that. Second, she is the ONLY candidate who HAS taken responsibility for her vote. If she apologizes for her vote, she’ll lose my support. Ohone other thing.

I opposed the war from the outset. Clinton is on a downswing? Are you kidding? She made the best presentation at the Dem debate in South Carolina. Her numbers are steady, if not rising, while it is Obama who has topped out at 22%.

And none of the “progress” made in polling by any of the Dem rivals seems to come at her expense. No matter how the numbers move for Obama and the others, Hillary’s numbers stay the same or go up. Face it, Clinton haters.

Hillary Clinton is the BEST candidate running in either party and she will be the next president. Get over it and stop the same old recycling garbage about how arrogant she is. I have seen NO evidence that this is the case at all, at any stage of this campaign. It’s just sour grapes that keep getting regurgitated by Clinton haters.

Wel, i believe in one all dems have to wake up and vote, even if you hate her or love, just remember on election day hate wont help anyone but votes will,i say this to say that dems dont to have to lose this election coz they hate clinton.that what you should of kerry, then he was won, so think twice, vote clinton, she has a big chance to be president than any other candidate. Again its not issues of who voted what,its dems winning,we talk about other issues when she is president, good advice, if you dont win this time you never win any electon forever dems. Wow, Obama supporters have plenty of time on their hands. Enough to be trolling the blogs and regurgitating well-worn talking points designed to undermine the competition. Wasn’t that the same technique employed by the kiddies who formed the Dean Defense Forces? That worked out well. Of course, the Obama folks learned from 2004 and are more sophisticated.

Dan Fairs On Twitter: Ok Fed Up With Tweetie For Mac Free

Take, for example, this gem: “People like myself, a military family member, will not forget that Clinton enthusiastically supported the Iraq war” Right. It stings more when it comes from a “military family.” Clever. Kinda like missing work and using the “my grandmother died” excuse, despite the fact that she’s living well in Fort Lauderdale. For Joe Williams: Rigged polls? Um, did you bother to notice that in the last elections the GOP took a big fall, and Iraq was the reason why? Actually, I suspect people are going to vote against the GOP because they feel exactly the opposite, that they don’t believe the GOP will protect them.

Dan Fairs On Twitter: Ok Fed Up With Tweetie For Machine

Almost everyone realizes that the war in Iraq was a gigantic mistake, that instead of making us more safe has in fact made us more in danger due to Iraq being a casus belli for extremists and also diverting badly needed resources to that civil war. Other then McCain, everyone else is running away from Bush.

As far as the original entry point of this blog, it doesn’t really matter as such. I don’t know who will win Iowa, or NY, or NJ, the point is that it is a long campaign until then and there are a lot bigger fry to fish then Iowa. And now, with all the states moving their primaries up to Feb, there isn’t time for Iowa to become a trendsetter because the other primaries are almost right after it. I don’t know who ultimately will win this whole thing, though deep in my guy I suspect it will not be Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, I just think the powerbrokers in the party won’t allow that.

There are just too many racists and misogynists in this country to give either of them a fair shot with hoi polloi in this country. Add on to that Clinton’s other baggage and the hate the religious wrong brings to bear on her and I don’t think the party will allow that.