I think we have to have a real debate about public financing and the ability to enable the primary and the caucus process to be about ideas, about moving and challenging the nation and challenging the people of this country, not simply about a money primary.I'm genuinely disappointed. I liked this guy. Felt the same about Evan Bayh, to a lesser extent. As much as I'm rooting for the "superstars" of this marathon campaign, there's something wrong with a system where guys like these don't even have a chance.
That's the game that's being played today, and it's a game that, obviously, I was unable to play as successfully as I wanted to. That's one piece of advice.
And to those who remain in this race, you know, you're going to come to Iowa. And here's my hope and my prayer: that you understand that it isn't just about large crowds. It isn't just about the cameras. It's about ordinary folks in living rooms and kitchens and church basements, who genuinely care about this country, who need to be listened to, and who need to have an opportunity to interact with candidates.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Vilsack's Swan Song
From his early concession speech today:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Money follows message, not vice versa. Complaints about money in politics are usually from those who don't have a message that attracts money.
The invisible hand of the market? Fair enough, I guess, in this case.
Quasi-Libertarian Dem candidate Mike Gravel claimed at the forum in Nevada that he can win with $10,000, since that's all he expects to get. And he's crazy enough (in a good way, I think) to stay in the game until the bitter end, even if that's really all he gets.
Post a Comment