I'm really looking for an alternative candidate for President who can build upon the electoral votes of the last 2 elections. I really want to be for Vilsack, but I haven't read anything that he has said that makes me say, "He/she's the candidate that can win in November. I have probably agreed with Al Gore more than anyone in the past on a wide range of issues, and Gore really does have GREAT command of the issues, but I don't know for SURE that he can win in November. I thought his nomination speech at the Democratic Convention in 2000 was not effective enough. There are some things I like about Kerry. Mrs. Clinton speaks effectively about the Fedral deficit, but I'm not SURE she can win in November. And then there are the ALSO candidates and the ones I don't know enough about yet.

Oops. November '04.

I'm with Vic about Vilsack and Warner. As I sat and sank into depression on election night in November '05, I became convinced that the Dems cannot get a northeastern Senator elected. GWB - former governor. WJC - former governor. Reagan - former governor. Carter - former governor. I did a little research that day and hit on Vilsack right away. I think he says all the right things on defense, his record on education is excellent, and here's a big one in my opinion: instability in the Middle East and high gas prices should make alternative fuels a big issue in the next election. Who can more credibly address that than the Iowa governor.

Nobody likes him? BS. Speak for yourself and your two friends.

I was hoping to speak to any one that might be able to help a free lance journalist break a story concerning a west coast law enforcement backed porn ring any suggestions.

reach me , David cooney, at

2067 16th ave.
San Francisco, ca 94116
415-504-6520
runbigdmcrun@netscape.net
or kron4pawn@yahoo.com

yupo

I really like Vilsack's talk of community, and how he's able to connect policy solutions to this idea of community. He may find it smart to also talk about how we're all members of a "global community" and all the things that come with that (work to solve AIDS, tsunami rebuilding, trade, human rights, climate change, etc). Either way, this is a great start on finding the right message.

Who can claim that "No one likes Tom Vilsack"? Hasn't he won two statewide elections? Wasn't he almost chosen by Kerry to be his running mate? Doesn't he have one of the highest approval ratings of midwest governors? Doesn't he have the respect of many of the nation's leaders?

Governor Vilsack has done great work for my state and I know that he would make a great president. It seems that people forget the importance of the candidate once they are elected. Some candidates can charisma the hell out of a campaign, but they will flop when they get to office. Governor Vilsack is a great executive and manager and thats what will matter. There is no speaker more eloquent and knowledgable than my great governor. This counrty needs a leader not a candidate. Vilsack and other governors who are possible 2008ers can win in more states than Clinton or Edwards, who did little if any to help the 2004 ticket. Vilsack can win the ideas war.
Check out the Governor's PAC at www.heartlandpac.org. His assistance in 2006 Gubernatorial races may give him the boost he needs if he decides to run.
VILSACK 2008.

The comment by scootmandubious are to the point. The Republicans claim to stand for values. They stand for the WRONG VALUES.
The democrats can carry the day by stressing true compassion for the average American who struggles with higher health care and education costs which are not properly represented in the Consumer Price Index. A new index of inflation is needed. The newest proposed tax cuts amount to Welfare for the Rich. Senior citizens are particularly not valued by the Republican agenda that includes a Byzantine complex Medicare and a partial dismantling of Social Security designed to financially reward campaign contributions from pharmaceutical interests and Wall Street brokers. We cannot allow the Boogyman of terrorism to cause most Americans to vote against their own best interests. Weakening environmental laws is another issue to be stressed. I like other Americans love the great outdoors to be
as pristine as possible. Our national parks and forest are for all of us.

The comment by scootmandubious are to the point. The Republicans claim to stand for values. They stand for the WRONG VALUES.
The democrats can carry the day by stressing true compassion for the average American who struggles with higher health care and education costs which are not properly represented in the Consumer Price Index. A new index of inflation is needed. The newest proposed tax cuts amount to Welfare for the Rich. Senior citizens are particularly not valued by the Republican agenda that includes a Byzantine complex Medicare and a partial dismantling of Social Security designed to financially reward campaign contributions from pharmaceutical interests and Wall Street brokers. We cannot allow the Boogyman of terrorism to cause most Americans to vote against their own best interests. Weakening environmental laws is another issue to be stressed. I like other Americans love the great outdoors to be
as pristine as possible. Our national parks and forest are for all of us.

I agreee with both John Patterson and Vic . I think Vilsack seems very good, and I think the combination of him and Warner would be quite strong.

Once again, I was a very strong supporter of Dean in 2004, in part because of his ability to speak bluntly about the issues at hand, but also in part because of his successful track record or managing a state. I beleive this focus on management for results, as articulated in Tim Kaine's SOTU address is a successful path to the White House for the Dems.

I think the Tim Kaine, Mark Warner, Vilsack types are very well positioned to do well in national elections. The fact is that the Dems are poised to fall into what i call the 'morality trap." In other words, they cannot have it both ways--if their opposition to the right wing ideological war is to say that the government does NOT have a place in morality, then that doesn't really hold water because the dems have (and should) been offering their own brand of morality.

And if they do offer their own brand of morality, they should not just expect people just to switch over based on say--moral arguments about economic justice and taking care of the poor. I am starting to think that even that idea--that we can trump the repubs culture war by offering a program of economic justice (what John Edwards will do in 2008) is not the best way to go because too many just people dont have that in their blood. AT least on the surface.

A better way to win, and perhaps a better way to get to economic justice, is to come forward with a proven record of sound management and results. Don't frame it in ideological terms. Especially in the face of katrina and the defecit, the repubs come accross as folks who couldnt run a business because they would be too busy throwing bombs. The fact is, hearing Tim kaine use the word "management" was so striking because i could never imagine Gore or Kerry saying it. Why? because I dont think they've ever managed anything

I believe a combination of Vilsack & Warner would make a formidable team at the top. The two Governors should make a pact that who ever falls in the initial rounds agree to become VP. US problems in 2008 would be largely domestic and I feel the two dynamic governors can serve the country best. It is a plus point that neither of them supported the invasion of Iraq.

I'm from Kansas, and I would support Vilsack, if he managed to run the gauntlet of "expert" pundit naysayers and come out the other end still standing.

He knows how to beat Republicans in a Republican state, so don't write him off.

And as for "nobody likes him", now there's a bold statement from someone who should be giving their own opinion instead of everyone else's. Sounds like something Karl Rove would spit out at a Republican fundraiser.

If you don't support him, you have every right to say so, but don't casually include "everybody" in your opinion.

Unless you just took a comprehensive interstate poll, it is just your own circle of association that may not support him, but he's been very well respected by the nation's governors since he first came to office.

Don't write-off Vilsack the way a lot of people wrote off Clinton when he was "just" the governor of Arkansas.
JEP

As someone who quit my job to work on the Howard Dean campaign in 2004, I am frustrated by statement such as the following, "Does Tom Vilsack really think he can be President? And where is his support coming from? Certainly not from the grassroots and the netroots. No one likes him. Period."

This is the sort of bizarre, ill-informed comment that makes me wince. Does it really matter whether Vilsack "thinks he can be president" or that "nobody likes him" What seems much more important is his track record, his program for solving the countries problems, and his potential for garnering support on the national level.

I met Tom Vilsack for the first time a month ago, and heard him speak in a small group. He took unrehearsed questions and answered them without hesitation. On one complicated technical question, he didn't try to talk around it. He just said it was an area he wasn't expert in, and thus couldn't answer the question with any authority. Nice and direct. Yes, he comes across a bit nerdy, but he's no fool and no idiot. Definitely one to misunderestimate. I have met Evan Bayh and Hillary, too, and would be comfortoable with any of them as a presidential or vice-presidential candidate. I think most of the perceived hostility toward Hillary is a media creation. In a one on one, she is smart, gracious, and charming, just like all the GOP senators said--the ones who were ready to hate her when she got to the Senate, and then found out that not only was she a great person, but one of the easiest Democrats to work with they had on the other side of the aisle. She can be misunderestimated, too.

I am always amused to see the so-called "netroots" people try to refer to themselves as the base of the Democratic party. They are not the base of the party!! They are an over-educated, elitist minority who hurl insults at any Democrat who dares not adhere to every single point of the liberal orthodoxy. (Much like the Right Wing) The "netroots" deserve to have their voices heard in the primaries, but they alone will not decide the Democratic nominee. Vilsack is a guy who has speaks the language of the heartland and looks comfortable doing it. Family, community, national security and energy are all issues he seems to have concrete ideas on--he's not just spouting tired cliches. He actually has two terms of governing experience under his belt as well, unlike any of the Washington-based politicians. He may or may not be a factor in the nominating process, but he's a much more attractive candidate than any of the senators like Clinton, Kerry, Feingold, etc...

Vilsack is a very long shot, but I don't see anyone else in the party who isn't a long shot themselves. I agree with the view that Hilary Clinton is not a good choice. She's fine as a senator from NY, but she cannot redefine herself from the often unfair definitions created by her enemies and rivals. Plus, the last thing the country needs is another polarizing figure in the white house. What we need is a good moderate president, and the resurgence of good moderate congress people who can talk with each other and create policy that isn't so ideologically driven.

Vilsack can do that.

Just thought the Vilsack part migt be of interest. Dad

hey, about the illegal migration detention thing, whats the difference between that and Ellis Island?

Every Governor and Senator from Iowa and New Hampshire dreams of being President. None of them have made it yet. Well, count Senator Franklin Pierce (Herbert Hoover was from Iowa but never a Senator or Governor).

He'll be a great VP.

The people I have heard who have met Vilsack seem to really like him. His track record is solid like a previous person wrote he has a great personal story. I see no reason why a good centrist governor can't make it in a national field. He also has the immense advantage of having Iowa LOCKED up as the first primary. That way he can focus on second round states like South Carolina, and let everyone else fight it out for New Hampshire.

THIS is exactly what is wrong with the Democratic Party. Is it me, or was this man's blueprint for candidacy making the "Together We Can Do Better" talking points come to life?

By the way, regarding values, since when are refusing to help the poor, supporting torture and pre-emptive strikes on other countries 'values???'

I am so tired of media pundits defining this argument when they so rarely have a clue themselves.

AND THE REPUBLICANS WIN THE 2006 ELECTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Study: New Machines Await 4 in 5 Voters

By ROBERT TANNER, AP National Writer Mon Feb 6, 7:25 PM ET
www.yahoo.com
Fewer voters will cast their ballots by punching a card or pulling a lever in this November's elections as the country continues to turn to newer, electronic machines, according to a study released Monday.

While the study says old systems that were prone to error are on their way out, experts also note that means many Americans will be voting on unfamiliar equipment this fall.
At least four out of five registered voters will use the newer generation of machines -- either ATM-style touchscreen machines or ones that ask voters to fill in the blanks, a vast change from the contested 2000 presidential election that spurred states and Congress to push for improved equipment.
Back in 2000, just over half the voters had access to the latest technology.
By this fall, however, only one out of 33 voters will be asked to use the system that raised the most objections in Florida -- punch cards -- and just one in 10 will use a lever machine, according to a survey by Election Data Services, a political consulting firm that tracks election equipment. Six years ago, one in six voters used punch cards and one in five used levers.
The changes are bound to create their own glitches as voters and administrators learn how to use equipment they haven't voted on before, said Kimball Brace, president of Election Data. Just over 30 million voters will be casting ballots on unfamiliar equipment, he said.
"You throw that many people in on something new, you're always bound to see something go wrong," he said.
The changes have created new controversies, especially with accusations that touchscreen-style machines are vulnerable to manipulation. In response, 25 states have passed laws requiring election administrators to use machines that allow voters to verify their vote has been accurately counted, and that create paper receipts for a recount.
Those paper trails -- called voter-verified paper audit trails -- are creating their own challenges, as manufacturers try to respond to lawmakers' demands for the equipment, Brace said.
Some of the survey results may change by the time the fall election arrives, the study said, because some states are still trying to change over from older equipment as encouraged by the federal Help America Vote Act, which was passed after the contested 2000 election.
The widespread push to modernize means that, in the six years between November 2000 and this fall's elections, nearly 82 million people in a nation of 170 million registered voters will have cast ballots on new equipment, the study concludes.
___
On the Net:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaim.info

Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention Camps

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20SC20060206&articleId=1897
by Peter Dale Scott

February 6, 2006
Pacific News Service

Email this article to a friend
Print this article

Editor's Note: A little-known $385 million contract for Halliburton subsidiary KBR to build detention facilities for "an emergency influx of immigrants" is another step down the Bush administration's road toward martial law, the writer says.

A Halliburton subsidiary has just received a $385 million contract from the Department of Homeland Security to provide "temporary detention and processing capabilities."

The contract -- announced Jan. 24 by the engineering and construction firm KBR -- calls for preparing for "an emergency influx of immigrants, or to support the rapid development of new programs" in the event of other emergencies, such as "a natural disaster." The release offered no details about where Halliburton was to build these facilities, or when.

To date, some newspapers have worried that open-ended provisions in the contract could lead to cost overruns, such as have occurred with KBR in Iraq. A Homeland Security spokesperson has responded that this is a "contingency contract" and that conceivably no centers might be built. But almost no paper so far has discussed the possibility that detention centers could be used to detain American citizens if the Bush administration were to declare martial law.

For those who follow covert government operations abroad and at home, the contract evoked ominous memories of Oliver North's controversial Rex-84 "readiness exercise" in 1984. This called for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to round up and detain 400,000 imaginary "refugees," in the context of "uncontrolled population movements" over the Mexican border into the United States. North's activities raised civil liberties concerns in both Congress and the Justice Department. The concerns persist.

"Almost certainly this is preparation for a roundup after the next 9/11 for Mid-Easterners, Muslims and possibly dissenters," says Daniel Ellsberg, a former military analyst who in 1971 released the Pentagon Papers, the U.S. military's account of its activities in Vietnam. "They've already done this on a smaller scale, with the 'special registration' detentions of immigrant men from Muslim countries, and with Guantanamo."

Plans for detention facilities or camps have a long history, going back to fears in the 1970s of a national uprising by black militants. As Alonzo Chardy reported in the Miami Herald on July 5, 1987, an executive order for continuity of government (COG) had been drafted in 1982 by FEMA head Louis Giuffrida. The order called for "suspension of the Constitution" and "declaration of martial law." The martial law portions of the plan were outlined in a memo by Giuffrida's deputy, John Brinkerhoff.

In 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 188, one of a series of directives that authorized continued planning for COG by a private parallel government.

Two books, James Mann's "Rise of the Vulcans" and James Bamford's "A Pretext for War," have revealed that in the 1980s this parallel structure, operating outside normal government channels, included the then-head of G. D. Searle and Co., Donald Rumsfeld, and then-Congressman from Wyoming Dick Cheney.

After 9/11, new martial law plans began to surface similar to those of FEMA in the 1980s. In January 2002 the Pentagon submitted a proposal for deploying troops on American streets. One month later John Brinkerhoff, the author of the 1982 FEMA memo, published an article arguing for the legality of using U.S. troops for purposes of domestic security.

Then in April 2002, Defense Dept. officials implemented a plan for domestic U.S. military operations by creating a new U.S. Northern Command (CINC-NORTHCOM) for the continental United States. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called this "the most sweeping set of changes since the unified command system was set up in 1946."

The NORTHCOM commander, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced, is responsible for "homeland defense and also serves as head of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).... He will command U.S. forces that operate within the United States in support of civil authorities. The command will provide civil support not only in response to attacks, but for natural disasters."

John Brinkerhoff later commented on PBS that, "The United States itself is now for the first time since the War of 1812 a theater of war. That means that we should apply, in my view, the same kind of command structure in the United States that we apply in other theaters of war."

Then in response to Hurricane Katrina in Sept. 2005, according to the Washington Post, White House senior adviser Karl Rove told the governor of Louisiana, Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, that she should explore legal options to impose martial law "or as close as we can get." The White House tried vigorously, but ultimately failed, to compel Gov. Blanco to yield control of the state National Guard.

Also in September, NORTHCOM conducted its highly classified Granite Shadow exercise in Washington. As William Arkin reported in the Washington Post, "Granite Shadow is yet another new Top Secret and compartmented operation related to the military's extra-legal powers regarding weapons of mass destruction. It allows for emergency military operations in the United States without civilian supervision or control."

It is clear that the Bush administration is thinking seriously about martial law.

Many critics have alleged that FEMA's spectacular failure to respond to Katrina followed from a deliberate White House policy: of paring back FEMA, and instead strengthening the military for responses to disasters.

A multimillion program for detention facilities will greatly increase NORTHCOM's ability to respond to any domestic disorders.

Peter Dale Scott is author of "Drugs, Oil, and War: The United States in Afghanistan, Colombia, and Indochina" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2003). He is completing a book on "The Road to 9/11." Visit his Web site .

Vilsack deserves credit for engaging the blogosphere. Beyond that, his words really didn't inspire me to the point of considering voting for him in 2008.

Do I support Tom Vilsack? The answer is maybe. The only way I would support a Tom Vilsack nomination is if it was between him and Hillary only. I believe a Hillary Clinton nomination would be one of the worst things to happen to our party. We will further decline as our relavance as a national party. We must field a candidate in 2008 that can win in the North, South, East, and West. Hillary can't compete in the South, and large areas of the Midwest, and West. So I inclined not to support her and do everything possible to make sure she is not our nominee. I want to see Dems like John Edwards, Mark Warner, Wes Clark, Evan Bayh, and even Tom Vilsack be our nominee because they can run a 50 state campaign.

Vilsack seems, on paper, to be a thoughtful guy. Not sure if he's tough enough to survive the GOP Slime Machine if/when the latter ever identifies him as a primary target.

Can't tell what his 'electability' is unless I see him on TV somewhere. He's gotta have a personality with which the common man can identify. The text of his interview indicates that he isn't as stiff/formal as Gore or Kerry which is a good start. Actually, now that I think about it, with the possible exception of Obama (who shouldn't run so soon) any senatorial candidate will pretty much kill the Democratic Party's chances of recapturing the WH.

Richardson keeps being mentioned and I know nothing about him. I hope CC interviews him soon.

"The Fix has embarked on a project to sit down with each and every one of the candidates..."

"Each and every one?"

I haven't seen this in print by a professional journalist in 20 years. Please leave the tired cliches to the amateur bloggers.

This is an interesting read. Thanks for the itnerview. Vilsack seems like someone to look into and find out more about. And it seems to be sure that he is winning the ideas primary.

Also, I think it is interesting to note that the attacks coming at Vilsack seem very childish and by anonymous commenters no less -- it looks like the primaries have already begun.

I am really intrigued by Vilsack his rhetoric is right on key. He is a better speaker then Warner. His speech on taking to a widow of an Iraq veteran was really touching.
Joe Klein talks about it here:
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,1156542,00.html
He is also smarter than Richardson,who is popular largerly on his personality with little policy.
Vilsack is a candidate who can win!

I love this guy. He's bright and compassionate, he has an enviable record as the CEO of an important state, he's attractive but a bit nerdy, he's got a great "life story" (adopted, Hamilton graduate, rose to the top rung by rung), and he's one of those underdogs who always ends up winning!

I'm dubious about his chances but one thing he's doing that deserves enormous credit is engaging the "netroots" of the Democratic Party about a message. On Daily Kos he posted a diary recently challenging members to describe what the Democrats stand for in ten words or less. He's also behind a contest taking place online. This is a shrewd move because it taps the creative energy of people beyond the insider beltway bubble as well as establish a reservoir of good will for him personally. The nutty ideas he will be smart enough to reject. But he might just stumble upon a gem that serves the progressive cause.

http://www.intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

Agreed that he has little chance of capturing the nomination (Richardson and Warner both have much better chances of being the anti-Hillary candidate), but his talk of building community, matched with his record as governor, are certainly attractive. Whoever wins the nomination may be wise to take some message and policy tips from the current leader in the Ideas Primary.

I agree... Although it did make me laugh a bit to see it expressed like that. I have an image in my head of Vilsack giving a speech in New Hampshire and an aide leaning over and whispering, "Dude, nobody likes you. Seriously."
In all seriousness, even as a vice-presidential candidate he is nothing to get particularly excited about. He is the Democrats' Mitt Romney, except much less interesting.

Does Tom Vilsack really think he can be President? And where is his support coming from? Certainly not from the grassroots and the netroots. No one likes him. Period.

His nomination as far as I can tell is dead on arrival, just like Joe Biden's.