In the last two days there have been over 1000 comments in 3 main page threads on the topic of why Howard Dean should be the DNC chair and why Tom Vilsack shouldn't. All of this energy (much of it quite rancorous, if not libelous) is, in my opinion, premature & misdirected. Many kossacks are gearing up to fight a war that may not even occur.
I think much of the talk is premature because it seems most of our information is based on rumor. No one, including Dean, Kerry, Rosenberg, or Vilsack, has said anything on record that I've seen about who should be DNC chair. Suddenly, Bob Novak is considered in these parts to be the voice of truth and blogs that put out rumors without any supporting facts are taken as gospel. At the end of the day, if anyone was offering odds, I think the safest bet is that neither Dean nor Vilsack will end up as chair. (More in the extended entry).
Tom Vilsack has been run through the ringer around here even though he has not had the opportunity (if he's even a candidate) to espouse his vision for the future of the party. He's been labeled as a Lieberman-in-Midwesterner's clothing, as a Red stater, and as a defender of the status quo that has led the party to defeat.
How many of the people parroting these lines have any idea what they're talking about? Tom Vilsack won his primary for governor 6 years ago as the liberal in the race, he came back in the general election from 30% down, & he has very strong ties to labor. By January 2005, he will be the party's longest serving sitting governor and he comes from a swing state - the kind that we must win in 2008. Do I agree with him on everything? Almost assuredly not, but he is not a conservative Democrat. I know that if Joe Lieberman makes a pro-Vilsack comment that means that many people will automatically detest Vilsack, but the circular firing squad around here is getting ridiculous.
No, he didn't "deliver" Iowa for Kerry. I counted 23 states that voted for a president of a different party than their governor. It's a credit to the state Democratic party that Kerry almost pulled Iowa off - Kerry outperformed most polls done in the state over the last month.
It seems to me that much of the rancor here stems directly from Dean losing the Iowa caucus. I'm not a huge fan of the caucuses either, but I would point out that it is likely that IA and NH will stay first regardless of who is the nominee, because the Republicans have already committed to starting there. Besides, how can anyone prove IA and NH are the problem, when every four years a party wins the White House that had their nomination process begin in IA and NH?
Furthermore, if Vilsack were to run for president in 2008, the Iowa caucuses would be a non-event, just like they were in 1992 when Harkin ran (I do think that if Dean or Vilsack becomes chair, it will take them out of the running for president in 2008). What has caught so much attention on this site is a comment his spokesman gave when asked a question by the Des Moines newspaper about defending the caucuses - what do you think he was going to say? That Vilsack would seek the DNC chair in order to do away with the Iowa caucuses?
Whomever becomes DNC chair cannot be a defender of the status quo. All who run for the job should present a bold vision for changing the direction of the party. If Tom Vilsack seeks the position, he should be given a chance here to state his case. Instead, all too many people here are making threats about leaving the party and the like if he becomes chair. Everyone needs to calm down. We need to direct our energies to fighting battles with the Republicans, not ourselves (notice how the Republicans never do things like this). Those who seek the position should be accorded some simple respect and allowed to present their ideas.