Cross-posted at Daily Kos and Bleeding Heartland.

With this post I'm likely to become a fairly unpopular member of the liberal blogosphere, or at least the segment of bloggers like Markos who take pride in bashing Iowa's first-in-the-nation status.  But as I wrote about on Bleeding Heartland yesterday and today on Political Forecast, the South Carolina GOP's decision to move up their primary has created huge problems in the national calendar for selecting a nominee for president--and this is the case in both parties.

This morning I had the privilege of going to the Statehouse and witnessing the final condition of the state address by outgoing Governor Tom Vilsack.  The speech lasted only about 40 minutes but will be remembered for a long time because of Vilsack's candor in calling on the Legislature to draft and pass a resolution condemning an escalation of the situation in Iraq:

"As governor and as the commander in chief, I have an obligation to speak out and to urge the president and congress not to put more Iowans and Americans in harm's way in Iraq.

But I have another obligation. One that extends beyond my role as governor and commander in chief. It is as an Iowan and as an American. And I use that obligation to ask you, the members of the General Assembly, to speak out as well. I ask you to use your collective voice to pass a resolution urging our president and our congress not to make this tragic mistake for those who will unnecessarily die. This may not be part of the agenda, this may not be part of what you plan to do, but I ask you today and throughout this General Assembly to look down deep inside your heart and ask yourself if you're doing all you can do to make sure we do not make a big mistake even bigger."

You can read the full text of the Governor's remarks here.  For more on the resolutions, see this part of his campaign site.

While clearly it was a piece of his positioning for his presidential campaign, it also an even bigger step as a Governor and representative of all Iowans in asking the legislature to take this monumental step.  The Register's Tom Beaumont asked Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal if the resolution might come up in the Senate, but Gronstal was hesitant to reply.  However, he did say that many Democrats would likely be open to the discussion and the debate.  Truth be told, it may not be a wise move in terms of business in the House, but it is definitely something I would like to see happen.  And soon.

However, Vilsack's speech shouldn't just be remembered for his stance on escalation in Iraq, but also for his calls for universal preschool in Iowa (living up to a call that David Yepsen made for Vilsack to challenge us to do better) and calling for universal health care coverage in Iowa.

"And so my challenge to you and the challenge that change presents is simply this: Let Iowa, let our state be the first, let this General Assembly and this new administration be the first not just to promise universal access to healthcare but to deliver on that promise to every singled child and every single adult and every single citizen of this state. We can do this.  And for those who may be doubtful, for those who may wonder whether we can afford it, let me simply say I believe we cannot afford not to."

Vilsack noted that over 92% of Iowans already have healthcare coverage to some degree, so it is logistically feasible as well as the right decision.

Anyway, I thought it was a fantastic final speech from Vilsack that did challenge Iowans to do more and to even push aside some of the agenda to really put Iowa's families and citizens at the forefront of our thoughts.  While the speech was both itself a reflection of his work over these last 8 years, it also offered a vision into some of the things he would fight for and advocate as a presidential candidate and as president, were he to be elected.  Energy security and renewable fuels, ending the war in Iraq, paving the way for world class education, and helping all Americans achieve their dreams with their families and communities -- these would be his priorities.  This is not an endorsement of his candidacy by any means, but there is a certain reason why I respect the man and why he's on my hot list of presidential candidates.  Do not underestimate Governor Vilsack and his ability to lead.

David Yepsen offers some of his early commentary here on his blog.  I'm sure others will have more soon as well and I'll update this space throughout the day.

From this morning's Des Moines Register:

"A national Republican committee's spending against Democrat Bruce Braley in Iowa's 1st Congressional District plummeted last week, a review of Federal Election Commission reports shows.

The National Republican Congressional Committee, which had spent an average of $366,192 per week in opposition to Braley since mid-September, spent only $59,524 from Oct. 16 to 23. In addition, the NRCC spent no money on television advertising opposing Braley last week, even though the Nov. 7 general election campaign is entering its final phase."

[...]A review of FEC reports reflecting independent spending by the NRCC and the DCCC against their party's opponents in the two Iowa congressional races also disclosed:

- NRCC spending against Braley last week not only declined 84 percent compared with the average spending over the previous four weeks, but also took place when the Republican committee spent its largest sum of the campaign - $190,489 - on television advertising in opposition to Boswell in Iowa's 3rd District.

[...]- DCCC spending in opposition to Whalen's candidacy has averaged $84,500 over the last six weeks and now totals $595,694 during the period. By comparison, the GOP congressional campaign committee has reported spending a total of $1.5 million against Braley since mid-September."

Now, we know the NRCC is still thinking the IA-03 is competitive, and it likely is more so than the IA-01.  Could this be prioritizing of one race over the other?  The NRCC spokesperson wouldn't comment, which usually isn't a good sign.  If they weren't changing strategy, they'd quickly respond saying they're doing the same thing they've been doing for the past few weeks.  This isn't a good sign for the Whalen Campaign at all.

Looking over the most recent independent expenditure reports (the last 500 can be found here), it looks like the only recent NRCC purchase in the race was on Oct. 23rd -- yesterday -- for phone banks at an investment of $1,535.  That's a pretty meager investment.  I'll try to keep track of the expenditures this week, but things don't look good for Whalen.

In general, some of the down-ticket races in states across the country are ignored.  As we've seen in 2000 and 2004, Secretary of State positions have become critical and now we see the launch of SoSProject.com to help elect progressive secretary of states who will support paper trails and expand enfranchisement of all citizens.  But not every state has a secretary of agriculture so they don't necessarily get any attention and the issues get pushed aside -- but the issues are crtical and will have long-lasting implications.  In Iowa, the race is critical and it got some deserved attention.

Today, the New York Times has an editorial in the paper about the Secretary of Agriculture race in Iowa and just how fundamental and reprsentative the race is for those involved in agriculture across the country.  I'll reproduce the editorial in full below:

"There is a governor's race going on in Iowa -- Culver vs. Nussle, a tossup -- but the race to watch is the one for secretary of agriculture. Both candidates support ethanol production, and who wouldn't when ethanol has given Iowa the lowest fuel prices in the nation? But otherwise they are about as different as it is possible to be and still be an Iowan for agriculture. Bill Northey, a Republican, farms corn and soybeans and has been endorsed by the Farm Bureau. His Democratic opponent is Denise O'Brien, who raises poultry, apples and strawberries. She and her husband farm organically, and her campaign vehicle is a green biodiesel school bus.

The candidates capture a real split in the farm world -- in Iowa and the nation as a whole. Mr. Northey proudly represents the industrial vision of farming that has turned Iowa into the land of the two-crop, corn-soybean rotation, a place where the chance to produce corn-based ethanol looks like diversity. Ms. O'Brien has been unfairly accused of belonging to "fringe" groups, and she is clearly not the Farm Bureau candidate. "Organic" is anathema to the Farm Bureau. But she is a reminder that Iowa would be better off with greater agricultural diversity, stronger communities and a greater emphasis on the health of its natural resources.

The sharpest difference between these two candidates concerns the ability of counties and towns to restrict the siting of feedlots and farm operations that concentrate huge numbers of animals. Mr. Northey believes in a single set of regulations across all of Iowa's 99 counties. Ms. O'Brien argues that factory farms should be regulated by the state but that communities should be able to voice their concerns too. After all, they are the ones who have to live downwind."

It is short, sweet, and to the point.  I wouldn't call it an endorsement for either candidate, but there seems to be a bit more positives for O'Brien than Northey (but as most conservatives would argue, what would you expect from the Times?).

I'm glad the Times covered the race because it will bring national attention to a highly competitive race -- and one that many Democrats figured would basically be thrown to the Republicans after watching Dusky Terry (the party's choice, essentially) be defeated in the primary.  I'll admit that at first I was not excited about O'Brien or the Ag race right after the primary.  Call me a sore loser, but it was true.  And as the summer progressed I became much more excited as I saw her on the stump and as I saw the way she communicated with the voters -- both rural and urban.

I'm excited for Denise O'Brien's chances right now -- she's outraising her Republican opponent even though he smeared her during a fundraising appeal a few weeks ago.  Now, we all should expect the Farm Bureau to drop some quick and substantial cash in the next few weeks to keep Northey competitive.  But we can help keep Denise competitive by going to my ActBlue page and donating a quick bit of cash to keep her campaign going strong.

October 15 is the last big filing deadline for the campaigns across the state to talk about their monetary advantages on their opponents and to get the last feel of the race in terms of cash (which can be critical in some races).  Let's help Denise out and drop her a few bucks.

At an event in Des Moines today with Congressman Leonard Boswell announcing his new college affordability legislation  the Universal College Credit Act (H.R. 5982), Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi was asked about the primary race in Connecticut.  She said:

"The voters will decided...the Democratic nominee will have the support of the Democratic Party."

That was, of course, after saying that if the election is going to be all about Iraq then it doesn't fare well for Senator Lieberman.  If they look beyond Iraq and at his leadership in "things like civil rights" then it will be a better outcome for the Senator.

I'm generally concerned of Democrats who carry a message of massive Social Security reform because I'm an ardent believer in small fixes for a Social Security system that is generally functioning fine and will continue to function fine if it isn't fucked with.  But Tom Vilsack is making me worried with things like this:

"During an appearance on statewide public television last (Friday) night, Vilsack -- a Democrat -- said he'd be willing to talk about making significant changes in the Social Security system. "I'm willing to talk to the American people about the challenges that we face and the need for us, all of us, to understand what we're up against and to encourage Americans to participate in building this country into a strong and innovative and creative economy that can sustain a better future for our children," Vilsack said. "That's going to require heavy lifting."

Heavy lifting is perhaps an understatement, as current President George Bush had to abandon his own Social Security reforms in the face of strong opposition from fellow Republicans and Democrats. "There are a lot of things that need to be done in Social Security that we need to have a conversation about," Vilsack said. That could, Vilsack suggested, include raising the age at which Social Security payments start not for Baby Boomers like himself but for younger people, like his 20-something sons. "

That's from a report by Kay Henderson of Radio Iowa last Saturday.  You can find the transcript from his Iowa Press interview here and listen to the audio here.

Making significant changes to Social Security isn't necessary.  Small things need to be done, like rising the income cap on Social Security contributors as well as possibly raising the retirement age -- for future generations, as Vilsack mentions.  That isn't a major reform though, at least not in my book.  Those articulating a message of significant changes (granted, they're the words of Kay Henderson and not from Vilsack's mouth) usually end up using the phraseology as a kind of bamboozlement (stealing a term from Josh Marshall) with regards to Social Security and ultimately mean privatization or personal accounts, whatever you want to call it.  However, I would argue that privatization is the right word and the only word.

Does Vilsack support privatization?  It really is hard to tell.  In 1999 or 2000 he signed the DLC's Hyde Park Declaration which included this lovely little tid-bit:

"Create Retirement Savings Accounts to enable low-income Americans to save for their own retirement."

That was listed as one of their goals for 2010.  Funny that George W. Bush and his Republican cronies grabbed the privatization euphemism of 'retirement savings accounts' straight from the mouths of the DLC.  Retirement savings accounts are essentially the same thing as private accounts, all that is different is the terminology.

But here's what Vilsack said in 2004 while helping with the Democratic rapid response to the Republican Convention:

"Vilsack is helping Democratic national Chairman Terry McAuliffe run the effort to get the Democratic message out during the Republican National Convention that begins Monday at Madison Square Garden. Democrats hope the Iowa governor can provide the perspective of voters in the heartland.

[...]President Bush is expected to talk about his plans for another term when he addresses the GOP convention Thursday night, including a proposal to partially privatize Social Security and his continuing efforts in the campaign against terrorism.

"I suspect the president will trot out worn-out ideas like privatizing Social Security," Vilsack said, suggesting that would get a cool reception "just like his prescription drug plan and his 'leave no child behind' plan.""

From his statements, it seems like in 2004 he was against privatization because Bush was for it and the Democrats were the anti-Bush's.

So what is it Governor Vilsack?  You were for it before you were against it and now you say there needs to be change.  Will you make a committment not to privatize Social Security if you are selected as the Democratic nominee for 2008?  Actually, will you make a committment to never support the full or privatization of Social Security?  The American people and Congress blocked privatization once already.  Don't make us do it again and bring you down with the rest of them.

So, I just got home (at about 7:30) from the event at Harry Bookey and Pamela Bass-Bookey's place here in Des Moines.  It was a great turnout of about 75 folks or so, so it was also pretty packed.  Some of the notable guests included Patty Judge, Mike Blouin, Andy McGuire, Ako Abdul-Samad, Tom Miller, Neil Hamilton, Jack Hatch, Matt McCoy, Jo Oldson, and many others.  I wasn't able to talk to Governor Warner too much beyond the niceties of meeting in person, getting a picture with a couple of my fellow Drake Democrats who were there with me, and getting introduced to some of the other folks as one of the "leading bloggers in the community."  Boswell's speech was moving, as he had invited his doctor there as well to make sure we all heard his proclamation that Boswell was back to 100% and ready to campaign.

I wasn't able to ask the tough questions, but I'm hoping that in the next few weeks, I can get a Q & A session with Gov. Warner as a way to let you, my readers, pose some questions and then let him answer them.  Whether I'll do this here, on MyDD, or on dKos I haven't decided, but count on there being some cross-posting.

Gov. Warner's speech was enthusiastic and very appealing to the crowd.  He spoke on the three reasons why we must re-elect Leonard Boswell back to the House.  The other important messgae that came across in his speech is the difference between Republicans and Democrats must be shown by Democrats posing the situation like this: same-old Republicans or Democrats who look to the future.  Now, I'm paraphrasing here a bit, but that was his message.  Democrats are the party Americans should elect if they're looking for change and a focus on the future--on bringing back America's image abroad, dealing with domestic policy issues, and dealing with the fiscal problems our nation faces.  He and Boswell are focused on their children and beyond.  It was a call to make a difference.

Gov. Warner then highlighted his career as Virginia's "his excellence, the governor of the commonwealth" (the official title of the governor in VA) on three important issues: 1) dealing with the deficit, 2) reforming education, and 3) bringing in 21st century jobs.  In the end, he recognized his biggest complaint against George W. Bush isn't something that he has done but rather what he hasn't done.  He hasn't called for a time of national sacrifice or for unity.  He hasn't been straight with the American people.  Now is a time for compassion and reform and unity.  He would've done anything after 9/11 but Bush politicized everything and turned people against him.  There are real problems that need to be dealt with and Americans should come together to fix them.

That's about all I've got for now.  It's been a long day, but I hope this has given you some more insight on Gov. Warner and I hope it makes you interested in learning some more.

[Cross-posted at Political Forecast]

I have to bump this. Chris is now a kingmaker. :) Matt

Just a little bit ago I got off the phone with former Governor of Virginia Mark Warner.  He called to introduce himself and just talk in general about some Democratic issues in general, where the Democratic party is going and what they can do for November, and what he'll be talking about tomorrow at Leonard Boswell's fundraiser, where he is the special guest.  Let me just say how thoroughly impressed I was with Governor Warner.  Like I said before, I've got no particular horse in 2008 yet (beyond Al Gore who has said he won't run).  Warner is largely believed to be a potential 2008 candidate and his Forward Together PAC is just one example of the desire to get his name out there and help other Democrats across the nation.