[quote]Harkin predicts Vilsack will be DNC chairman
By Todd Dorman
DES MOINES: U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin predicted Wednesday that Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack will be picked to lead the Democratic National Committee, citing what he contends is growing support for Vilsack among party leaders.
Harkin, `D-Iowa`, said Vilsack has the support of U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, `D-Ill`., House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, `D-Calif`., and U.S. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the party's 2004 presidential nominee. Earlier this week Vilsack received strong backing from newly elected Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, `D-Nevada`.
"He's getting more and more support as the days go by," Harkin told Iowa reporters on a conference call. "And I think he's going to be our next Democratic national chair."
Vilsack is on a lengthy list of prominent Democrats maneuvering to win the post, including former Vermont governor and presidential hopeful Howard Dean, former labor secretary Alexis Herman, former New Hampshire Gov. Jeanne Shaheen and U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York.
So far, Vilsack has declined to comment about his place in the race.
Party leaders will pick a leader in February to succeed outgoing DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe.
http://www.qctimes.com/internal.php?story_...id=1039689&l=... [/quote]
Full Version: Harkin predicts Vilsack will be DNC chairman
I hope not, I like the guy but he just isn't charasmatic enough to do the DNC job
The ONLY reason Vilsack wants this job is a narrow one- - he wants to keep Iowa in the early primaries. This denied larger states i.e.; MI from having a real say in who our Democratic nominee was in 2004. I think we should oppose this move any way we can!!
He is selfish. The Democrats need a Chairman who will llook out for the best interest of the entire party, not the SPecial interests of Iowa and New Hampshire.
Oh good. What the Democrats need are more wooden white guys with no personality. We'll surely win now. I have no idea why this Vlsack guy gets so many props from the party guys. He seems to me to be a governor of a small, rather inconsequential state that only gets so much play because of the caucus. The entirety of the Democratic primary system itself should be under review so what happened in 2004 (picking the wrong guy) will not be allowed to happen again.
I agree that from what I've seen Vilsack does not seem to be the type of person we need leading our party. Why don't registered Democrats get to vote on this, by the way? Why should it be the party leadership of a party whose leadership has seemed to be floundering for so long?
Anyway, back to Vilsack. I'm not convinced he's a good choice, in fact, I'm thinking he's not, and I certainly don't think we should be choosing someone from Iowa if the idea is to keep Iowa in its oddly inappropriate position of excessive power in the nominating process. But, I would like to know who JRE thinks should be the DNC chairman. If JRE came out in support of someone, I would want to support that person too.
Then again, if the DNC continues its current pattern of inappropriate and gutless leadership, maybe JRE will form his own party. I think, for example, that he wanted to fight for this election and he seems to have been overruled. Yet another reason that JRE is the best hope the Democratic party has had in a long time and, IMO, if they're too thick to realize it, it really will be time for a new third party.
I'm sorry if I sound angry here. I am. I simply cannot believe that the Democratic party seems to have walked away from yet another important fight that was vital to the health of our nation when Kerry conceded. I want the Democrats to stand up and fight.
I feel very badly about being so angry at my party. I would very much like to support them. But we need leadership that doesn't cave in to pressure at every opportunity, IMO.
Anyway, back to Vilsack. I'm not convinced he's a good choice, in fact, I'm thinking he's not, and I certainly don't think we should be choosing someone from Iowa if the idea is to keep Iowa in its oddly inappropriate position of excessive power in the nominating process. But, I would like to know who JRE thinks should be the DNC chairman. If JRE came out in support of someone, I would want to support that person too.
Then again, if the DNC continues its current pattern of inappropriate and gutless leadership, maybe JRE will form his own party. I think, for example, that he wanted to fight for this election and he seems to have been overruled. Yet another reason that JRE is the best hope the Democratic party has had in a long time and, IMO, if they're too thick to realize it, it really will be time for a new third party.
I'm sorry if I sound angry here. I am. I simply cannot believe that the Democratic party seems to have walked away from yet another important fight that was vital to the health of our nation when Kerry conceded. I want the Democrats to stand up and fight.
I feel very badly about being so angry at my party. I would very much like to support them. But we need leadership that doesn't cave in to pressure at every opportunity, IMO.
What was it Mae West said about not imitating other people? You can only ever be a `second-rate` someone else, but you can always be a `first-rate` you. We need to work on highlighting what makes the Democratic Party different, not on creating a backup religious party.
I like Sen. Harkin just fine--I think he's a good man--but I think he's got an inflated sense of importance (see the Dean endorsement).
I'm opposed to Vilsack's nomination because I think he supports (though I might be wrong), the frontloading of the primary slate and I think this election proved what a detriment that is to the eventual Democratic nominee. But...I like where the Democratic leadership seems to be going with their thought process...
The Republicans have a policy wonk as their national chairman now, so the charisma issue is not as paramount as it once was. This needs to be a political decision and that seems to be how the Party is looking at it. With Vilsack as DNC Chair, we can carry Iowa in 2008, while our ticket works to secure support in other areas. He's the chair of the Democratic Governor's Association, so he's got a built in support system across the country.
Plus, I think that Vilsack's got a great story of overcoming serious hardships in his life, which I think will be a create basis for changing the face of the Democratic Party.
I'm opposed to Vilsack's nomination because I think he supports (though I might be wrong), the frontloading of the primary slate and I think this election proved what a detriment that is to the eventual Democratic nominee. But...I like where the Democratic leadership seems to be going with their thought process...
The Republicans have a policy wonk as their national chairman now, so the charisma issue is not as paramount as it once was. This needs to be a political decision and that seems to be how the Party is looking at it. With Vilsack as DNC Chair, we can carry Iowa in 2008, while our ticket works to secure support in other areas. He's the chair of the Democratic Governor's Association, so he's got a built in support system across the country.
Plus, I think that Vilsack's got a great story of overcoming serious hardships in his life, which I think will be a create basis for changing the face of the Democratic Party.
[quote=JRE Intern]With Vilsack as DNC Chair, we can carry Iowa in 2008, while our ticket works to secure support in other areas. He's the chair of the Democratic Governor's Association, so he's got a built in support system across the country.[/quote]
I could care less about carrying Iowa. We need a party chair that can inspire our base as well as creating bridges between the `old-line` Dems and the new wave of supporters shown by but not fully capitalized upon by Howard Dean. I don't believe that person is a `non-entity` Governor from a tiny state. If we were serious about these "other areas," why not consider a prominent Dem from Ohio or Florida? Bob Graham? He's wonkish with a bit of charisma, popular and will be free for the next few years.
My vote? George Lakoff, author of "Don't Think of an Elephant" and "Moral Politics" and celebtarted expert on frames and the social sciences. Now there's a chair that could show us how to win.
I could care less about carrying Iowa. We need a party chair that can inspire our base as well as creating bridges between the `old-line` Dems and the new wave of supporters shown by but not fully capitalized upon by Howard Dean. I don't believe that person is a `non-entity` Governor from a tiny state. If we were serious about these "other areas," why not consider a prominent Dem from Ohio or Florida? Bob Graham? He's wonkish with a bit of charisma, popular and will be free for the next few years.
My vote? George Lakoff, author of "Don't Think of an Elephant" and "Moral Politics" and celebtarted expert on frames and the social sciences. Now there's a chair that could show us how to win.
The next chairman of the DNC should be someone supportive of John Edwards, IMHO! 
[quote=Tank in Texas]I could care less about carrying Iowa. We need a party chair that can inspire our base as well as creating bridges between the `old-line` Dems and the new wave of supporters shown by but not fully capitalized upon by Howard Dean. I don't believe that person is a `non-entity` Governor from a tiny state. If we were serious about these "other areas," why not consider a prominent Dem from Ohio or Florida? Bob Graham? He's wonkish with a bit of charisma, popular and will be free for the next few years. [/quote]
A `non-entity` Governor from a tiny state? You mean, like Bill Clinton, the former `non-entity` Governor from Arkansas, in 1992? He, like Vilsack, was once chair of the DGA.
Ohio has no prominent Democrats to speak of. The state's governor and two senators are Republicans and the Republicans have a 2:1 margin for their Congressional seats. Heck, the best known Democrat from Ohio is Dennis Kucinich and well...I don't think I need to say any more about that.
Florida's a different consideration all together. I wouldn't say Bob Graham has charisma, but he certainly is intelligent and extremely knowledgeable about foreign policy. The problem with Graham are `two-fold`: first, he's old; and second, his run for president didn't really gain much traction. He didn't raise enough money to make it to the Iowa caucuses and since one of the principle functions of the DNC chair is to raise money, that obviously precludes his candidacy.
I'm skeptical of the notion that we can win by appealing to old school Democrats and the new wave of supporters brought in by the Dean campaign. I don't understand why people give that group so much credit, quite frankly...is it because they won Vermont? I think we need to broaden and simplify our message.
I think a lot of Democrats have walked away from this election with a lot of different sentiments--my sentiment is pretty simple: I want to win. I care about doing what we can to carry states because I want to win. Iowa's important in that regard.
A `non-entity` Governor from a tiny state? You mean, like Bill Clinton, the former `non-entity` Governor from Arkansas, in 1992? He, like Vilsack, was once chair of the DGA.
Ohio has no prominent Democrats to speak of. The state's governor and two senators are Republicans and the Republicans have a 2:1 margin for their Congressional seats. Heck, the best known Democrat from Ohio is Dennis Kucinich and well...I don't think I need to say any more about that.
Florida's a different consideration all together. I wouldn't say Bob Graham has charisma, but he certainly is intelligent and extremely knowledgeable about foreign policy. The problem with Graham are `two-fold`: first, he's old; and second, his run for president didn't really gain much traction. He didn't raise enough money to make it to the Iowa caucuses and since one of the principle functions of the DNC chair is to raise money, that obviously precludes his candidacy.
I'm skeptical of the notion that we can win by appealing to old school Democrats and the new wave of supporters brought in by the Dean campaign. I don't understand why people give that group so much credit, quite frankly...is it because they won Vermont? I think we need to broaden and simplify our message.
I think a lot of Democrats have walked away from this election with a lot of different sentiments--my sentiment is pretty simple: I want to win. I care about doing what we can to carry states because I want to win. Iowa's important in that regard.
I THINK NEW BLOOD IS EXACTLY WHAT IS NEEDED. GOV. VILSACK IS A WARM, CARING PERSON. QUIET AND DIGNIFIED IN MY OPINION AND NOT A SCREAMER LIKE DEAN. VILSACK IS FAR FROM BEING A DUMMY I ASSURE YOU! WHAT IS WRONG WITH WANYING ENGLISH TO BE THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE IN IOWA? OUR STATE IS BEING OVER RUN WITH LATINO'S. VIET NAM PEOPLE. I WOULD EXPECT TO LEARN THE NATIVE TONGUE IF I WANTED TO LIVE IN ANOTHER COUNTRY. IOWA MAY BE SMALL BUT WE HAVE HEART. JRE SAW THAT AND WENT TO ALL 99 COUNTIES AS HE SO PROUDLY STATES. VILSACK IS BUT ONE OF SEVERAL INTERESTED, BUT VILSACK HAS SOME IMPORTANT BACKERS AND NOT JUST SENATOR HARKIN'S. I, FOR ONE, LIKE VILSACK AND THINK HE HAS DONE A GOOD JOB AS GOVERNOR OF OUR STATE. I WISH HIM EVERY SUCCESS. I THINK JRE WILL APPROVE OF HIM ALSO.
First JRE Intern - I have to tell you that Kerry was the DNC choice ALL along. My girlfriend was at the JJ dinner in Milwaukee where Kerry was met cooly. JRE came on and the room exploded. She overheard Kerry tell an aide not to worry about JRE as he (Kerry) had the nomination all swed up and JRE was just 'hot air.' She was furious but couldn't get close again to Kerry to tell him off....then the WI primary came and we all know what happened there. The primaries were 'rigged' for Kerry and YES, I proudly am wearing my little tinfoil thursday hat.
Second of all, I don't care WHO is the choice as long as it is NOT Donna Brazile! I would prefer Dean becuase he knows how to raise money and motivate people......all Mcawful could do was motivate me to change channels.
Second of all, I don't care WHO is the choice as long as it is NOT Donna Brazile! I would prefer Dean becuase he knows how to raise money and motivate people......all Mcawful could do was motivate me to change channels.
[quote=JRote]I THINK NEW BLOOD IS EXACTLY WHAT IS NEEDED. GOV. VILSACK IS A WARM, CARING PERSON. QUIET AND DIGNIFIED IN MY OPINION AND NOT A SCREAMER LIKE DEAN. VILSACK IS FAR FROM BEING A DUMMY I ASSURE YOU! WHAT IS WRONG WITH WANYING ENGLISH TO BE THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE IN IOWA? OUR STATE IS BEING OVER RUN WITH LATINO'S. VIET NAM PEOPLE. I WOULD EXPECT TO LEARN THE NATIVE TONGUE IF I WANTED TO LIVE IN ANOTHER COUNTRY. IOWA MAY BE SMALL BUT WE HAVE HEART. JRE SAW THAT AND WENT TO ALL 99 COUNTIES AS HE SO PROUDLY STATES. VILSACK IS BUT ONE OF SEVERAL INTERESTED, BUT VILSACK HAS SOME IMPORTANT BACKERS AND NOT JUST SENATOR HARKIN'S. I, FOR ONE, LIKE VILSACK AND THINK HE HAS DONE A GOOD JOB AS GOVERNOR OF OUR STATE. I WISH HIM EVERY SUCCESS. I THINK JRE WILL APPROVE OF HIM ALSO.[/quote]
I meant no respect to Gov. Vilsack. I was mentioning things that occured that could be a liability on such a national stage. I really hanve no problem with the law, it just wasn't politically smart. I com from the experience of living in a very large city (Chicago) which is extremely diverse. I think that they should learn English as well. I have no problem with the Iowans and agree that they have large hearts. I was in Iowa for the Caucus and got sick. Everyone: staff, volunteers, and local residents of DesMoines were wonderful. Making sure I had eveything I needed that Monday. I was Ok by afternoon. I am sorry if I said anything that offended you.
I meant no respect to Gov. Vilsack. I was mentioning things that occured that could be a liability on such a national stage. I really hanve no problem with the law, it just wasn't politically smart. I com from the experience of living in a very large city (Chicago) which is extremely diverse. I think that they should learn English as well. I have no problem with the Iowans and agree that they have large hearts. I was in Iowa for the Caucus and got sick. Everyone: staff, volunteers, and local residents of DesMoines were wonderful. Making sure I had eveything I needed that Monday. I was Ok by afternoon. I am sorry if I said anything that offended you.
[quote=JRE Intern]A `non-entity` Governor from a tiny state? You mean, like Bill Clinton, the former `non-entity` Governor from Arkansas, in 1992? He, like Vilsack, was once chair of the DGA.[/quote]
I'll give you that. He's like Clinton without the political savvy or the sex drive!
[quote=JRE Intern]I'm skeptical of the notion that we can win by appealing to old school Democrats and the new wave of supporters brought in by the Dean campaign. I don't understand why people give that group so much credit, quite frankly...is it because they won Vermont? I think we need to broaden and simplify our message.[/quote]
Which `old-line` loved Tom Vilsack will not do. Nor will he inspire. I see a huge opportunity when I see that way Dean reached so many previously uninterested people by SIMPLIFYING THE MESSAGES and using framing techniques. I also see, even at the local level here in central Texas, a large gap between the `old-line` people and the new Dean Democrats- people that could be more properly managed for the next election. Vilsack ain't gonna excite that group.
[quote=JRE Intern]Iowa's important in that regard.[/quote]
Every state is important in that regard. Iowa is far more important to `old-line` Dems wanting to preserve their stranglehold on the party.
I'll give you that. He's like Clinton without the political savvy or the sex drive!
[quote=JRE Intern]I'm skeptical of the notion that we can win by appealing to old school Democrats and the new wave of supporters brought in by the Dean campaign. I don't understand why people give that group so much credit, quite frankly...is it because they won Vermont? I think we need to broaden and simplify our message.[/quote]
Which `old-line` loved Tom Vilsack will not do. Nor will he inspire. I see a huge opportunity when I see that way Dean reached so many previously uninterested people by SIMPLIFYING THE MESSAGES and using framing techniques. I also see, even at the local level here in central Texas, a large gap between the `old-line` people and the new Dean Democrats- people that could be more properly managed for the next election. Vilsack ain't gonna excite that group.
[quote=JRE Intern]Iowa's important in that regard.[/quote]
Every state is important in that regard. Iowa is far more important to `old-line` Dems wanting to preserve their stranglehold on the party.
[quote=judykratochvil]I was in Iowa for the Caucus and got sick. Everyone: staff, volunteers, and local residents of DesMoines were wonderful. Making sure I had eveything I needed that Monday. I was Ok by afternoon. I am sorry if I said anything that offended you.[/quote]
I meant Davenport. oops :oops:
I meant Davenport. oops :oops:
[quote=JRote]I THINK NEW BLOOD IS EXACTLY WHAT IS NEEDED. GOV. VILSACK IS A WARM, CARING PERSON. QUIET AND DIGNIFIED IN MY OPINION AND NOT A SCREAMER LIKE DEAN.[/quote]
Oh good. Nice and quiet. That sure did well for us a couple of weeks ago, eh?
Turn off your CAPS lock man. You're hard on the eyes.
Oh good. Nice and quiet. That sure did well for us a couple of weeks ago, eh?
Turn off your CAPS lock man. You're hard on the eyes.
Well, not me . . . . . I think Howard Dean is exactly the right person for DNC Chair, and the only right person for it. I was never a Dean fan during the primaries, but no denying this man is a visionary who understands exactly how a democracy should work - in the hands of the people. He empowered millions of people and made them feel as though they could make a difference and they had every right to participate in their government. Apathy has always been a problem, but I suspect after this election, even moreso. Dean is a revivalist and he can motivate people like no one else can.
[quote=Alexa]Apathy has always been a problem, but I suspect after this election, even moreso. Dean is a revivalist and he can motivate people like no one else can.[/quote]
I agree that Dean is an inspiring person. I wouldn't mind seeing him in some position of power somewhere in our party.
I agree that Dean is an inspiring person. I wouldn't mind seeing him in some position of power somewhere in our party.
Just read over on CSCG... Max Cleland for party chair. WOW! Now that is some real thinking and a way to help out in the South and with veterans. Tremendously popular, inspiring and a man around which to rally.
I'm really rooting for Simon Rosenberg. He seems like the perfect choice to me. He'll make the Democratic party into a winning party.
Here is Kos' endorsement:http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/11/192758/09
Although he is a centrist, he seems to have a lot of support from the left.
I tried to find his views on Edwards. This is from the Arizona Daily Star about Edwards as VP pick:
"Simon Rosenberg, head of the New Democrat Network, a `Democratic-aligned` advocacy group, called Kerry's selection of Edwards "a strong, bold move," arguing that he will help Democrats reach independents, aid the party in underscoring its claim that Bush is not in tune with the middle class and help counter the GOP's criticism of Kerry as overly pessimistic.
Edwards' choice "is reinforcing where the party wanted to go anyway," said Rosenberg."
http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/related...icles/29000.php
Here is Kos' endorsement:http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/11/192758/09
Although he is a centrist, he seems to have a lot of support from the left.
I tried to find his views on Edwards. This is from the Arizona Daily Star about Edwards as VP pick:
"Simon Rosenberg, head of the New Democrat Network, a `Democratic-aligned` advocacy group, called Kerry's selection of Edwards "a strong, bold move," arguing that he will help Democrats reach independents, aid the party in underscoring its claim that Bush is not in tune with the middle class and help counter the GOP's criticism of Kerry as overly pessimistic.
Edwards' choice "is reinforcing where the party wanted to go anyway," said Rosenberg."
http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/related...icles/29000.php
[quote=Tago45]I'm really rooting for Simon Rosenberg. He seems like the perfect choice to me. He'll make the Democratic party into a winning party.
Here is Kos' endorsement:http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/11/192758/09
Although he is a centrist, he seems to have a lot of support from the left.
I tried to find his views on Edwards. This is from the Arizona Daily Star about Edwards as VP pick:
"Simon Rosenberg, head of the New Democrat Network, a `Democratic-aligned` advocacy group, called Kerry's selection of Edwards "a strong, bold move," arguing that he will help Democrats reach independents, aid the party in underscoring its claim that Bush is not in tune with the middle class and help counter the GOP's criticism of Kerry as overly pessimistic.
Edwards' choice "is reinforcing where the party wanted to go anyway," said Rosenberg."
http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/relatedarticles/29000.php[/quote]
Tago, he's got my vote!
Here is Kos' endorsement:http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/11/192758/09
Although he is a centrist, he seems to have a lot of support from the left.
I tried to find his views on Edwards. This is from the Arizona Daily Star about Edwards as VP pick:
"Simon Rosenberg, head of the New Democrat Network, a `Democratic-aligned` advocacy group, called Kerry's selection of Edwards "a strong, bold move," arguing that he will help Democrats reach independents, aid the party in underscoring its claim that Bush is not in tune with the middle class and help counter the GOP's criticism of Kerry as overly pessimistic.
Edwards' choice "is reinforcing where the party wanted to go anyway," said Rosenberg."
http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/relatedarticles/29000.php[/quote]
Tago, he's got my vote!
You have GOT to be kidding!
He would hold the entire party up to ridicule. That's the LAST thing we need.
I am fed up with his cultish following, because they have distorted what Dean stood for.
He's not a progressive and as governor was to the right of Lieberman of a lot of issues, yet the birdbrains who worship Dean tear down Lieberman every chance they get.
I am tired of the "`anti-establishment`" types who back people who simply aren't the best we could field.
Leave Dean behind the scenes, where he is most effective.
Edwards is by far the best choice as DNC chairman, not some nothing like Vilsack.
He would hold the entire party up to ridicule. That's the LAST thing we need.
I am fed up with his cultish following, because they have distorted what Dean stood for.
He's not a progressive and as governor was to the right of Lieberman of a lot of issues, yet the birdbrains who worship Dean tear down Lieberman every chance they get.
I am tired of the "`anti-establishment`" types who back people who simply aren't the best we could field.
Leave Dean behind the scenes, where he is most effective.
Edwards is by far the best choice as DNC chairman, not some nothing like Vilsack.
[quote=Tank in Texas]Which `old-line` loved Tom Vilsack will not do. Nor will he inspire. I see a huge opportunity when I see that way Dean reached so many previously uninterested people by SIMPLIFYING THE MESSAGES and using framing techniques. I also see, even at the local level here in central Texas, a large gap between the `old-line` people and the new Dean Democrats- people that could be more properly managed for the next election. Vilsack ain't gonna excite that group[/quote]
Well, first, I think it's important to note that I'm not endorsing Vilsack, but simply saying that I understand the reasoning behind selecting him.
I think the Dean phenomenon is highly overrated. If he was so successful at simplifying the message and framing, then he would've done a lot better in the presidential primaries, in my opinion.
It's the difference between social movement politics and electoral politics--social movement politics raises money and organizes people, electoral politics gets people elected. We need a great combination of two (which I think we can have by splitting the responsibilities of the DNC chair), but if you want to choose one or another, I'm choosing electoral politics.
I think Vilsack (or someone like him) gives us is an electoral advantage. Not only in Iowa in 2008, but also in other states where we'll be trying to capture House and Senate seats in 2006. If you look at places where Democrats are vulnerable or where Democrats can potentially pick up seats, Vilsack's presence in Democratic Leadership will play well.
I realize that there's a reaction against the "`Republican-lite`" candidates among many liberals and I suppose that's understandable, but I'm not convinced that it'll help us win in 2006/2008.
Whatever the case, I think candidates should excite and inspire people, not Party leadership.
Well, first, I think it's important to note that I'm not endorsing Vilsack, but simply saying that I understand the reasoning behind selecting him.
I think the Dean phenomenon is highly overrated. If he was so successful at simplifying the message and framing, then he would've done a lot better in the presidential primaries, in my opinion.
It's the difference between social movement politics and electoral politics--social movement politics raises money and organizes people, electoral politics gets people elected. We need a great combination of two (which I think we can have by splitting the responsibilities of the DNC chair), but if you want to choose one or another, I'm choosing electoral politics.
I think Vilsack (or someone like him) gives us is an electoral advantage. Not only in Iowa in 2008, but also in other states where we'll be trying to capture House and Senate seats in 2006. If you look at places where Democrats are vulnerable or where Democrats can potentially pick up seats, Vilsack's presence in Democratic Leadership will play well.
I realize that there's a reaction against the "`Republican-lite`" candidates among many liberals and I suppose that's understandable, but I'm not convinced that it'll help us win in 2006/2008.
Whatever the case, I think candidates should excite and inspire people, not Party leadership.
[quote=SusanNunes]I am fed up with his cultish following, because they have distorted what Dean stood for.
He's not a progressive and as governor was to the right of Lieberman of a lot of issues, yet the birdbrains who worship Dean tear down Lieberman every chance they get.
I am tired of the "`anti-establishment`" types who back people who simply aren't the best we could field.
Leave Dean behind the scenes, where he is most effective.[/quote]
I agree completely.
He's not a progressive and as governor was to the right of Lieberman of a lot of issues, yet the birdbrains who worship Dean tear down Lieberman every chance they get.
I am tired of the "`anti-establishment`" types who back people who simply aren't the best we could field.
Leave Dean behind the scenes, where he is most effective.[/quote]
I agree completely.
Remember...this is not our candidate for President...just chairman of the party. I'm not sure that what state they are from has anything to do with their ability to do what the party needs to do to be more viable.
I think there is merit to all of those in the running...as well as drawbacks. I don't think we want a Howard Dean who very well might prove to be almost competitive with a candidate. The same could be said for Vilsack, I suppose. You don't see the Republicans putting their politicians in these positions, do you? They're looking for people who know how to ORGANIZE a campaign, not run in it.
I personally would like to see and hear a little more of Rosenberg...what little I've seen looks promising. I also would not count out Donna Brazille...I know she's been around for awhile, but I think she understands the rural and southern aspect...and she wants to put the south back into play for the democrats. I would also consider Trippi...whoever it is has to have structure buidling and organizing as their main skill.
I think there is merit to all of those in the running...as well as drawbacks. I don't think we want a Howard Dean who very well might prove to be almost competitive with a candidate. The same could be said for Vilsack, I suppose. You don't see the Republicans putting their politicians in these positions, do you? They're looking for people who know how to ORGANIZE a campaign, not run in it.
I personally would like to see and hear a little more of Rosenberg...what little I've seen looks promising. I also would not count out Donna Brazille...I know she's been around for awhile, but I think she understands the rural and southern aspect...and she wants to put the south back into play for the democrats. I would also consider Trippi...whoever it is has to have structure buidling and organizing as their main skill.
Trippi would be perfect, but I'm not sure he would even take the job.
How about former Texas Governor Ann Richards, or James Carville, or former Ambassador Carol Moseley Braun? Gov. Richards is a great speaker, and she understands Texas and the South. She has a practical, `plain-spokenness` that would make her a good choice, in my opinion. James Carville is a great strategist, also understands the South, and knows how to light a fire under democrats--his solicitation letters on behalf of the DNC were some of the best! And even though Carol Moseley Braun's presidential run didn't gain much traction, she has a very impressive record of service, she's an effective speaker, has Midwestern roots, and her selection would send a message of inclusiveness.
[quote=ncMindy]Trippi would be perfect, but I'm not sure he would even take the job.[/quote]
Yes, Trippi would be wonderful. I don't think he is interested, though.
Yes, Trippi would be wonderful. I don't think he is interested, though.
[quote=JRE4US]How about former Texas Governor Ann Richards, or James Carville, or former Ambassador Carol Moseley Braun? Gov. Richards is a great speaker, and she understands Texas and the South. She has a practical, `plain-spokenness` that would make her a good choice, in my opinion. James Carville is a great strategist, also understands the South, and knows how to light a fire under democrats--his solicitation letters on behalf of the DNC were some of the best! And even though Carol Moseley Braun's presidential run didn't gain much traction, she has a very impressive record of service, she's an effective speaker, has Midwestern roots, and her selection would send a message of inclusiveness.[/quote]
`Mosley-Braun` would be good. Ann Richards is a positively inspired choice.
I don't know what to think of Carville nowadays, but I've always liked him until his ventures with the Kerry campaign.
`Mosley-Braun` would be good. Ann Richards is a positively inspired choice.
I don't know what to think of Carville nowadays, but I've always liked him until his ventures with the Kerry campaign.
[quote=Tank in Texas]Just read over on CSCG... Max Cleland for party chair. WOW! Now that is some real thinking and a way to help out in the South and with veterans. Tremendously popular, inspiring and a man around which to rally.[/quote]
He'd be fantastic.
He'd be fantastic.
[quote=JRE Intern][quote=SusanNunes]I am fed up with his cultish following, because they have distorted what Dean stood for.
He's not a progressive and as governor was to the right of Lieberman of a lot of issues, yet the birdbrains who worship Dean tear down Lieberman every chance they get.
I am tired of the "`anti-establishment`" types who back people who simply aren't the best we could field.
Leave Dean behind the scenes, where he is most effective.[/quote]
I agree completely.[/quote]
I understand what you mean about Dean's followers. This is one reason I couldn't take him seriously in the primaries or muster up any real support for him as a presidential candidate. After reading Trippi's The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, I have a different opinion of Dean.
He's not a progressive and as governor was to the right of Lieberman of a lot of issues, yet the birdbrains who worship Dean tear down Lieberman every chance they get.
I am tired of the "`anti-establishment`" types who back people who simply aren't the best we could field.
Leave Dean behind the scenes, where he is most effective.[/quote]
I agree completely.[/quote]
I understand what you mean about Dean's followers. This is one reason I couldn't take him seriously in the primaries or muster up any real support for him as a presidential candidate. After reading Trippi's The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, I have a different opinion of Dean.
I think we need someone who will bridge the divide between the Deaniac wing and the more moderate wing. Otherwise, we will be consigned to loser status for the next generation.
There was always a disconnect for me in the primaries regarding Howard Dean. He had a centrist record, yet his supporters were mostly flaming leftists. He seemed like a bit of a demagogue to me.
I want a principled statesman for president, but for DNC chair I want a political hack that will lead the party to victory!
James Carville and Donna Brazile would be fine choices, but I'm still for Rosenberg.
There is a great ad that Rosenberg's organization put together. I disagree with it, but it is one of the best ads I've seen all year. It is the one that starts with a picture of Bush with a flag behind him: http://www.newdem.org/memorable/bush.php
No to Vilsack! It is too important to give to him at this time. He wants it to keep Iowa's first in the nation caucuses? Bah! My state also has a bland but generally popular Democratic governor. I don't think Vilsack would even help to swing Iowa into the Democratic column as DNC chair.
I would also be opposed to Cleland. I have seen no evidence that he is qualified enough to do this job. I just don't think he has the political skills or the vision. He lost his job in Georgia not because of some evil campaign trick but because Georgians didn't agree with him on the issues. The VFW even backed his opponent! He seems like a "professional victim" to me. Even though he lost three limbs in an accident in Vietnam, this does not entitle him to the DNC chairmanship. The Republicans would eat him alive!
There was always a disconnect for me in the primaries regarding Howard Dean. He had a centrist record, yet his supporters were mostly flaming leftists. He seemed like a bit of a demagogue to me.
I want a principled statesman for president, but for DNC chair I want a political hack that will lead the party to victory!
James Carville and Donna Brazile would be fine choices, but I'm still for Rosenberg.
There is a great ad that Rosenberg's organization put together. I disagree with it, but it is one of the best ads I've seen all year. It is the one that starts with a picture of Bush with a flag behind him: http://www.newdem.org/memorable/bush.php
No to Vilsack! It is too important to give to him at this time. He wants it to keep Iowa's first in the nation caucuses? Bah! My state also has a bland but generally popular Democratic governor. I don't think Vilsack would even help to swing Iowa into the Democratic column as DNC chair.
I would also be opposed to Cleland. I have seen no evidence that he is qualified enough to do this job. I just don't think he has the political skills or the vision. He lost his job in Georgia not because of some evil campaign trick but because Georgians didn't agree with him on the issues. The VFW even backed his opponent! He seems like a "professional victim" to me. Even though he lost three limbs in an accident in Vietnam, this does not entitle him to the DNC chairmanship. The Republicans would eat him alive!
Tago...you hit the nail on the head...we need a "good political hack"! Part of our problem is we think we can put someone out there with what are no doubt admirable qualities and that will be enough to win the day....it isn't! If there is one thing we should have learned in the past election its that its not about appealing to the "thinking" crowd...we already have them! We need someone who understands how to appeal to the gut...not someone who believes we can just appeal to the "better instincts" of human beings.
Someone could be a great person...or possibly make a great candidate...but candidates don't hire other candidates to run their campaigns! Successful ones hire the "political hacks" for a reason.
Someone could be a great person...or possibly make a great candidate...but candidates don't hire other candidates to run their campaigns! Successful ones hire the "political hacks" for a reason.
[quote]Then again, if the DNC continues its current pattern of inappropriate and gutless leadership, maybe JRE will form his own party. I think, for example, that he wanted to fight for this election and he seems to have been overruled. Yet another reason that JRE is the best hope the Democratic party has had in a long time and, IMO, if they're too thick to realize it, it really will be time for a new third party. [/quote]
That's a wonderful idea Sirius! JRE's certainly not one of the "party leader" clique either, otherwise, he'd have been the nominee!
I think everybody who donated money to the DNC should have a vote in this matter, like shareholders
That's a wonderful idea Sirius! JRE's certainly not one of the "party leader" clique either, otherwise, he'd have been the nominee!
I think everybody who donated money to the DNC should have a vote in this matter, like shareholders
[quote=Alexa]`Mosley-Braun` would be good. Ann Richards is a positively inspired choice.
I don't know what to think of Carville nowadays, but I've always liked him until his ventures with the Kerry campaign.[/quote]
As impressive as I find her most of the time, `Mosley-Braun` has a `scandal-ridden` past that would cast a lot of dispersions on the Democratic Party (see her BOP profile for more specifics). I'm not sure what Ann Richards is up to these days, but I agree, she'd be a great choice.
Carville didn't have nearly enough involvement in the Kerry campaign for my tastes. He thought really highly of JRE and could have made the campaign's use of Edwards more effective.[/url]
I don't know what to think of Carville nowadays, but I've always liked him until his ventures with the Kerry campaign.[/quote]
As impressive as I find her most of the time, `Mosley-Braun` has a `scandal-ridden` past that would cast a lot of dispersions on the Democratic Party (see her BOP profile for more specifics). I'm not sure what Ann Richards is up to these days, but I agree, she'd be a great choice.
Carville didn't have nearly enough involvement in the Kerry campaign for my tastes. He thought really highly of JRE and could have made the campaign's use of Edwards more effective.[/url]
I just heard on Crossfire that Howard Dean clinched the Chairman spot, is that true?
I don't have cable, so I don't know, but I haven't thus far seen anything.
Tom Vilsack took himself out of the running for DNC chair, and Dean has expressed his desire for the job.
I am not that opposed to Dean taking it, but I think JRE would be far, far better.
Tom Vilsack took himself out of the running for DNC chair, and Dean has expressed his desire for the job.
I am not that opposed to Dean taking it, but I think JRE would be far, far better.
[quote=SusanNunes]
I am not that opposed to Dean taking it, but I think JRE would be far, far better.[/quote]
If JRE became DNC head, he can't run for president in 2008. The head of the party is ineligible to run for office while he or she holds that position. But it would definitely keep him in the political spotlight, and it would give him influence over the direction of the party.
I've heard that the new frontrunner is Simon Rosenberg, of the New Democrat Network. I think I saw it mentioned on DKos earlier today.
I am not that opposed to Dean taking it, but I think JRE would be far, far better.[/quote]
If JRE became DNC head, he can't run for president in 2008. The head of the party is ineligible to run for office while he or she holds that position. But it would definitely keep him in the political spotlight, and it would give him influence over the direction of the party.
I've heard that the new frontrunner is Simon Rosenberg, of the New Democrat Network. I think I saw it mentioned on DKos earlier today.
Dean has my vote, if I had one. I want to see the party go in a new, more progressive and activist direction (and quite frankly a more honest direction, given that I think that much of the party's recent activities have been centered around trying to be `Republican-lite`, which we're not). I think we need new blood running the DNC and Dean seems to me like a good candidate.
I would support JRE if he wanted the job, but I'd rather see him be President and anyway, he's already said he doesn't want to be DNC chair (which is a pretty good sign he wants to be President, too!)
I would support JRE if he wanted the job, but I'd rather see him be President and anyway, he's already said he doesn't want to be DNC chair (which is a pretty good sign he wants to be President, too!)
I like the suggestions best of James Carville or Max Cleland. Both are southerners and tremendously charismatic individuals who speak their passion boldly. I always felt like Carol `Mosely-Braun` had something against JRE on a personal level in the primiaries because he is a southern white male. Reverse racism isn't any better than the regular kind.
I think what we need now is a screamer, not someone who is quiet and will let the Republicans have whatever it is they want. You aren't going to beat a Republican with a `Republican-lite` and until we Democrats learn this, we're going to keep losing elections.
JRE can't run for president if he becomes head of the DNC?
Isn't the chairman's term for two years?
If not, he could always quit to run for president.
Isn't the chairman's term for two years?
If not, he could always quit to run for president.
is he tends to shoot his mouth off without thinking, and, frankly, he is wildly overrated by `self-described` progressives.
Dean was NEVER any `lefty-left` politician, despite his `Trippi-inspired` pandering to the antiwar faction. He was to the RIGHT of the despised Joe Lieberman on a lot of issues, but that never mattered to the naive who followed Dean, painting him as something he never was.
He's done fine in organizing the grassroots, and I would prefer he be behind the scenes doing just that.
Dean was NEVER any `lefty-left` politician, despite his `Trippi-inspired` pandering to the antiwar faction. He was to the RIGHT of the despised Joe Lieberman on a lot of issues, but that never mattered to the naive who followed Dean, painting him as something he never was.
He's done fine in organizing the grassroots, and I would prefer he be behind the scenes doing just that.
[quote=SusanNunes]JRE can't run for president if he becomes head of the DNC?
Isn't the chairman's term for two years?
If not, he could always quit to run for president.[/quote]
Nope. The chairman's job is for four years and they have to pledge to complete the term to get the job. I've seen several articles mentioning that whoever gets the job can't run for President in '08. We're not just making this up.
Isn't the chairman's term for two years?
If not, he could always quit to run for president.[/quote]
Nope. The chairman's job is for four years and they have to pledge to complete the term to get the job. I've seen several articles mentioning that whoever gets the job can't run for President in '08. We're not just making this up.
No actually, the war position was Dean's and not Trippi's. He was the geniune `anti-war` candidate, unlike Kerry.
[quote=ms9816]Who do you fellow Edwards supporters want to be DNC Chairmen?
I think we need some one from the south or midwest that is a moderate and can bring the party together. That why I have pick either Tom Dashle or Richard Gephart what do you all think.[/quote]
I think we need some one from the south or midwest that is a moderate and can bring the party together. That why I have pick either Tom Dashle or Richard Gephart what do you all think.[/quote]
[quote=Tago45]I've said this quite a few times, but my pick is Simon Rosenberg! He has the energy, talent, experience, honesty and vision needed to lead the party to victory.
I'm not so sure about Gephardt or Daschle. First, didn't the Democrats lose seats when these two were the leaders? That doesn't look good on a resume!
When I was canvassing for Edwards in Iowa, a very common perception of Gephardt was that he was "old, boring, and tired but a good guy." I'm not sure if that what we want to put forward. I couldn't get excited by Gephardt as a presidential candidate and I can't get excited by him as a DNC chair candidate.
As for `Daschle-I` think it might be better to find a fresh `face-someone` who hasn't been thoroughly caricatured by the right. Although he is from a "red state" the perception is that he was voted out for being too liberal. I don't think that would help the DNC! And I kind of want someone who is capable of sounding excited or angry. Daschle's got this weird `half-soothing`, `half-creepy` voice.[/quote]
I'm not so sure about Gephardt or Daschle. First, didn't the Democrats lose seats when these two were the leaders? That doesn't look good on a resume!
When I was canvassing for Edwards in Iowa, a very common perception of Gephardt was that he was "old, boring, and tired but a good guy." I'm not sure if that what we want to put forward. I couldn't get excited by Gephardt as a presidential candidate and I can't get excited by him as a DNC chair candidate.
As for `Daschle-I` think it might be better to find a fresh `face-someone` who hasn't been thoroughly caricatured by the right. Although he is from a "red state" the perception is that he was voted out for being too liberal. I don't think that would help the DNC! And I kind of want someone who is capable of sounding excited or angry. Daschle's got this weird `half-soothing`, `half-creepy` voice.[/quote]
Kerry was the nominee all along. He was the nominee I think from the very beginning, and JRE was never a contender... which I fault our party leadership for. All this was, is a chance for a weak Democrat like Kerry to get the nominee so that '08 could be reserved for one person... Hillary Clinton.
Which is why I oppose Vilsack for DNC Chairman. We need a Moderate to run our party.. A moderate who will take our pary down the moderate way and embrace the ideas of the moderate wing of our party.. For so long, us Democrats have fallen away from the principles of what got us to the White House back in '92. We need to get that back folks, and fight the fight for John Edwards and Co.
Which is why I oppose Vilsack for DNC Chairman. We need a Moderate to run our party.. A moderate who will take our pary down the moderate way and embrace the ideas of the moderate wing of our party.. For so long, us Democrats have fallen away from the principles of what got us to the White House back in '92. We need to get that back folks, and fight the fight for John Edwards and Co.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.