Party chairmanship interests governor

Gov. Tom Vilsack is seen as a candidate for the top national post.

By LYNN CAMPBELL
REGISTER STAFF WRITER
November 11, 2004



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gov. Tom Vilsack confirmed Wednesday that he's interested in the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee - a top political spot for which he's been mentioned as a leading candidate.

"If there is a role that the governor can serve that preserves the first-in-the-nation status of the Iowa caucuses and provides a stronger message for the Democratic National Committee, he would be happy to explore such a capacity," said Matt Paul, the governor's spokesman.

Democrats are searching for new leadership following a failed bid for the White House. Vilsack, who's chairman of the Democratic Governors Association, was also a finalist to be John Kerry's running mate earlier this year.

"Governor Vilsack has done a terrific job in serving as the spokesperson for governors nationally," said Nicole Harburger, spokeswoman for the Democratic Governors Association. "I think because of that, a lot of people on the national stage have noticed and been very impressed."

more: http://www.dmregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041111/NEWS09/411110402/1056

against discrimination in hiring--this was actually controversial in Iowa.

He has been an advocate for strong, well-funded public schools.

He is excellent on the enviroment--in fact I thought he might have been Kerry's EPA guy. He has been pushing wind power in Iowa.

I think he'd qualify as a progressive.

That's what got us here in the first place. I expect Mr. Vilsack
is a stalking horse to head off Mr. Dean's run for DNC chair.

On the other issue, keeping Iowas first would seem to be in my best interests--as I live there.

But I really think it does our nation a disservice to have the two whitest states selecting our president. Yes, it probably has saved either party from getting killed in the general election a time or two, but I think moving it should be experimented with. I think Michigan would be a nice representative "American" state. New Mexico could also be an interesting place to start.

I think Kerry' sloss here may in part have been that some Iowans were tired of seeing him for so long. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't know how else to explain it.

Keeping Iowa first is only in your best interests is you think
you are governed well and things are peachy. I'm not out to screw
Iowa, I like Iowa, but the primary system that allows Iowa to be
used to exclude leaders that are not compliant party hacks is bad
for all of us.

and they did well here.

I think we make good choices here...but I think it's unfair for us to KEEP making the choice first. Spread the love.

By the way there are benefits to campaigning here: it's cheap, people follow politics, and the size of the state is managable.--This is true of other states though.

I think it's perfectly clear who Mr. Kerry is now.
I reserve judgement on Mr. Edwards.
Thank you for supporting democratic change.
Share the love. :hi:

Iowa isn't the only small state.

Sort of a dry run for the main election.
Let the people decide.

We need someone that will be truly independent, and one that will not run for office in 2008.

I do agree with you that whoever it is should be someone who is not going to run for Presient in 2008.

The party is on the verge of implosion. Another tired DLC hack, eager to lead us in search of evangelical votes and fond of the war-hero-cutting-corporate-taxes line, will not do.