The Ready for Hillary PAC was active in Iowa over the weekend, and they are trying to figure out how to help Clinton’s campaign even before she announces that she’s a candidate. It’s probably helpful that she has people making an effort to get organized this far out from the caucuses, but it is an unusual circumstance. Iowans are accustomed to candidates asking them for their support, not asking candidates to run for office.
Clinton ran a disappointing third in the 2008 caucuses, and there are some bad feelings to clean up. An internal memo leaked suggesting that she blow off the caucuses entirely, and a lot of people feel that she didn’t pay due respect to the state with her above-the-fray campaign.
It’s not clear, yet, whether someone else will get on the ground in Iowa’s 99 counties and really try to beat Clinton. But it’s still doable. The caucus system was Hillary’s achilles heel in 2008, and it could be a real weakness for her again if a progressive alternative emerges.
Unfortunately for anyone hoping to derail Clinton’s candidacy, she will not be following Mark Penn’s advice the next time around.
What has Mark Penn been up to these days, after his demoralizing loss with the “inevitable nominee” that year?
He had a hard landing as Executive Vice President of Advertising and Strategy for Microsoft. He’s slumming it in Davos.
Microsoft, huh. Now i understand why they did windows 8.
I think he’s working on the Oscar campaign for Grown Ups 2.
Most interesting part of that story for me was the dog that didn’t bark – no one else is organizing, not a single Democratic candidate came up.
True. It wasn’t mentioned that Schweitzer was on the ground last month and intends to visit all 99 counties.
Funny, Schweitzer is the first name that popped into my head as someone who might “get on the ground in Iowa’s 99 counties”. I imagine he would do quite well if he tries.
And I have no idea where he would play anywhere else, but that down home country boy schtick would probably play pretty well in Oklahoma if he makes it this far. Even if he is a damned hippy socialist Democrat.
…no idea how he would play anywhere else…
Not sure what Schweitzer’s game plan is – strange case really – relentlessly pro-gun chairman of a mining company who rips President Obama every change he gets.
He’s either running:
1.To Hillary’s right
2. Or as a pure gender play
Don’t think either will work.
His record is quite a mix. He has a lot of progressive support among organizers, but not much in terms of raw numbers. However, someone will rally anti-DLC anti-war support, and it could be Schweitzer. Clinton has plenty to work with, as you point out, to fight back.
Probably right, though I wouldn’t pin a “DLC” label on it now since it no longer exists – I’d probably go with “rank and file” or “regular” Democrats, at this point. The party machinery (from liberals to blue dogs) has its candidate, if she’ll do it.
I would think that the peace candidate would do better if he/she was also environmentalist and on board with a few other basic progressive themes too…might be some actual voting blocs available.
why do you say relentlessly pro-gun. from what I’ve read I’d say nuanced pro-gun in the way that any congresscritter from a predominantly rural state is pro-gun, Patrick Leahy, for example. I thought Schweitzer’s Montana gun move was very interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Firearms_Freedom_Act
or how about Schweitzer on single-payer HC?
That’s just the thing. Is “Mad” Max Baucus any better on guns than Schweitzer? And if he’s not, we’d still be expected to get behind his re-election if he wasn’t retiring.
not sure I’m getting what you mean – I first heard about Schweitzer from a progressive who spent a lot of time in Montana and was impressed with his environmental record. The Montana gun move was brilliant, it only applies to guns manufactured in Montana, and the guns must stay in the state. So it supports gun ownership for hunting, ranchers’ use of guns and the like, but does not “support” [not sure what the right word is here] the problematic gun use [ assault rifles in schools and movie theaters etc] He supported single payer for Montana, and was, successfully, an “education” governor
The unique and indisputable horror of the Iowa caucuses is merely a special case. Nominees for all offices must be selected by the parties by processes that are opaque and unaccountable. Caucuses, primaries, or whatever means are employed to give the appearance of transparency or involvement, only lead to a false, incoherent, and unworkable scattering of responsibility and authority. Parties do not exist to be transparent or accountable. The purpose of a party is to make a pseudophilosophy actionable. The identity of an individual candidate is never significant. No one votes for a candidate. Everyone votes party-label.