Given the fact that Tom was a) chairman of the DLC, and b) has lost several Iowa straw polls by double digits, I don't think his support is make or break. He may be able to deliver three or four extra percentage points to someone (Sen. Clinton could use them in Iowa), but for some reason he doesn't seem to resonate in his own state. From what I can gather, he's been a pretty medicore Governor, but whatdoIknow? Can someone from Iowa weigh in on this?

I agree -- I think Vilsack has never commanded much excitement among Iowa Dems and his "centrist" policies tend to put him to the right of the active party types. While he's been handicapped by a Republican-controlled legislature, he hasn't been able to do much for Iowa. Finally, his bungling of the Wellmark/Board of Regents scandal at the exact moment he was announcing his candidacy meant that he entered the presidential race just as he lost almost anyone affiliated with the state universities or the U-I hospital system -- which, given the lack of other employers in the state, means that he was dead in the water with many progressives and/or party activists. The Des Moines Register and David Yepsen understate discontent with Vilsack. People here run the gamut from indifferent or embarrassed to furious with him. I don't think he was a good candidate unfairly skewered by the money-centric campaign system; I think he was trying to capitalize on being Iowan, and Iowans weren't ready to go along with it. The 3rd or 4th place showing in most IA polls (where you CAN'T argue it was lack of national name recognition) doomed the attempt to bring in money. Not vice versa, imho.