Vilsack's a good man, but I never saw him having a chance to win this thing. 

...now for Bill Richardson.  I tend to think the dems will nominate Hillary, but if the campaign gets really nasty there may be a desire to get someone who has experience at in the federal executive and legislative branch, state executive experience, assumed draw among a rapidly growing minority group, plus electoral success in an are where democratic presidential candidates ahve not typically done well.

At the very least, it puts him in the front row for the VP nod...

and Tom Harkin are now uncommitted to a candidate running for President. Vilsack has more power and influence now then when he was a candidate.

Watch for Edwards to gain now in Iowa. He's had the best infrastructure and has constantly polled atop the media favorites of Obama and Hillary.
A Vilsack endorsement would put him at a very strong advantage in Iowa, and could possibly move the target on his back and away from the one Obama-Hillary have placed on each other.

The former chair of the DLC? 

Even the former chair is no match for their Queen. Former Republican Hilary Clinton.

When all the starry-eyed, first-woman-president types are done spending their wad, and she is ripped to pieces by the coming scrutiny of her weak positions on the war against al-Qu'ada...there will be no money coming from the Democratic base, because they know that the Whitehouse is theirs to give away.  And Hillary would be a gift to the Republicants. And so would Obama.  The next president will be a former military officer.

When the media ignores you.  The media, unfortunately, is deciding this election.

 
Dear -----,
I am very fortunate -- blessed in love, family, friends, job, and by this campaign.

I have the boldest plan to get us out of Iraq and a long-term policy for energy security to keep us out of future oil wars. Our campaign has built the strongest organization here in Iowa, with almost 3,000 supporters among Democratic caucus goers. We are organizationally positioned to win the caucuses in January 2008. We have everything to win the nomination and general election.
Everything except money.

That is why this morning after discussing with my wife Christie and our sons Jess and Doug we have decided to end our campaign for the presidency.

Thousands of you have given so generously of your time, energy and money. And together, we've built a campaign that has stood up and taken courageous stands on the issues that our country must face. In just the past few weeks, we've shaped the debate on the Iraq War and laid out an aggressive plan to achieve energy independence and security.

I firmly believe that our leadership on these issues ¬ -- the defining issues of our time ¬ -- will be recognized for years to come.

In recent weeks, just as our message has begun to resonate with voters and pundits alike, our fundraising has suffered. The fact is, each hour I spend with voters, press and policy experts is an hour taken away from our campaign paying bills.

More than any other race in history, this presidential campaign will require candidates to commit more time, energy and influence raising money than developing ideas. I worry that this process, involving hundreds of millions of dollars, holds our democracy hostage to insiders, influence and establishment when we are so in need of just the opposite.

But this is a fact I cannot change with this campaign.
I am leaving one campaign, but I am not saying goodbye. I will continue to fight for outsiders and underdogs who are the backbone of the Democratic Party and our country. Our work is far from over. Because here in Iowa ¬where the first caucus will be held in less than 11 months ¬ and all across this great country, voters are longing for bold leadership, big ideas and courage from our elected officials.

We want the war to end ¬ -- today.
We want a real plan to provide universal access to healthcare ¬ -- today.

And we want policies to keep us secure and environmentally sound by ending our addiction to oil, both foreign and domestic.

Again, thank you for everything you've done. It has been an inspiring few months and I know that, with your continued support, our work is not over.

With great appreciation,
Tom Vilsack

Everyone complains about the money chase, and the election should reflect ideas more than it does. But if you don't have the money, you probably don't have the ideas either.

The question is, who does teacherken now support?

To hear who he's supporting now and his thoughts on Vilsack's departure. He was the first person I thought of when I heard the news.

:(

Agree drmontoya.  Sorry, Ken. 

first, I did do a diary on this at dailykos, which you can read here

While I am disappointed, I am not surprised.  I always knew it was a longshot.  And as you can see in the diary, I knew the money could well be an issue, and had talked with people about it at the DNC Winter Meeting.

Despite what you were seeing in polling, it was still possible for Tom to win Iowa, because he was doing the ground up building - he had over 3,000 people who had already signed caucus commitment cards, unheard of at this point, and he had 7 functioning offices.  But he was unable to raise sufficient money, and let's face it, the media oxygen was being sucked up by horse race stuff between Obama and Clinton.

I am not planning on endorsing anyone else.  Heck, I had not planned to endorse anyone now, because of my commitment to Virginia in 2007.  But Tom is a friend, and when he told me he was coming out against reauthorization of NCLB, I decided it was worth making the commitment.  So far none of the other candidates has made that commitment, and I do not have a personal relationship with any.  I have previously tried to do outreach to two campaigns on education, to Edwards through Matt Gross and to Clark through David Montoya, and never heard back on either front. 

For me to even consider committing to someone else would require (a) an acceptable position on Iraq (which eliminates Clinton), (b) a willingness to oppose NCLB reauthorization (which might be possible with Clark, but so far I have not heard it from the others, and (c) some ability to work with staff on other elements of educational policy - and I don't see that happening with any of the campaigns.

Here I would note that there was a letter signed by 10 senators raising real questions about NCLB, organized by Russ Feingold.  A friend of mine nationally known in educational policy noted that there was a very similar letter sent in 2006.  One difference is that in 2006 Obama signed the letter, this time he did not, which bothers me a great deal.  Lowell was concerned about what he heard on energy in the JJ speech, I have been concerned about what I read in the book and heards (and did not hear) in the JJ speech.  My wife is drawn to Obama, me, I'm more interested in Chap Peterson and some of the Delegate races.

I need to get to sleep.  Peace.

about the "Brazil model" and corn-based ethanol from LOTS of politicians.  I just wish they would all cut this nonsense out and stop pandering, when everyone knows what the real solutions are (energy efficiency, wind, solar, geothermal, maybe nuclear power).

Don't necessarily go together.  In fact, I'd contend that a lack of money or access to money keeps a lot of good public servants with fantastic ideas and abilities out of races all the way from the local level to the highest office. 

I didn't even see what his positions are, his policy positions.

I'm sorry I'm not liking the way this is shaping up so far.

Ralph Nader on CNN just mentioned having Bill Moyers run and I thought, oo, ah, I mean he does have deep political experience, has ethics, understands media and from what I can tell from his reporting/writing...
has positions I can endorse.

I wanna choice, I wanna choice...I don't want another Corpocrat busy raising 300M dollars and being more of the same problem (corporate corruption/influence).