Iowa’s governor launches a long-shot bid

I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that the next president of the United States won’t be Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack.
While he’s the first Democrat to officially declare his candidacy, presidential nominations don’t have much to do with your place in line.
A poll of Democrats by Opinion Research Corp. rates Vilsack dead last in a field of 10 potential candidates. First and second, of course, are Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Third and fourth are Al Gore (sigh) and former Sen. John Edwards.
In Vilsack’s favor: He’s got good hair and he’s well-liked in Iowa, whose caucuses traditionally launch the nominating season.
Posted by Dave Knadler

44 Comments

  1. Posted November 11, 2006 at 5:37 am | Permalink

    He’s got good hair? Well he must be doing something right politically. Hair is all you could find out about him? Name recognition counts for a lot.

    Let us get to know him first huh?

  2. Posted November 11, 2006 at 9:00 am | Permalink

    Never forget that Al Gore WON in 2000.

    He got the majority of votes, remember?

  3. Posted November 11, 2006 at 9:31 am | Permalink

    What’s a Vilsack?And where is Iowa anyway?

  4. steve
    Posted November 11, 2006 at 10:20 am | Permalink

    He’d have a better shot than Brownback.

  5. Vaughn Tolle
    Posted November 11, 2006 at 10:54 am | Permalink

    While I don’t think Vilsack has much of a chance, I suspect I’d have said the same about Jimmy Carter in 1974, and Bill Clinton in 1990. Time will tell.

  6. rm6046
    Posted November 11, 2006 at 11:05 am | Permalink

    Give the guy a break. Besides his hair, he has at least two really good things going for him — he’s not Hillary and he’s not Gore !

  7. TRACY
    Posted November 11, 2006 at 11:14 am | Permalink

    Or Allen & Santorum. HA!

    So I jump ship in Hong Kong and make my way over to Tibet… …and I get on as a looper at a course in the Himalayas.A looper?A looper. You know, a caddy, a looper… …a jock.So I tell them I’m a pro jock and who do you think they give me?The Dalai Lama, himself.The son of the Lama. With flowing robes, grace, bald, striking.I’m on the first tee with him.I give him the driver.He hauls off and whacks one.Big hitter, the Lama.Long! Into a 1,000 foot crevice right at the base of this glacier! Do you know what the Lama says?”Gunga galunga. Gunga gunga da gunga.”So we finish and he’s going to stiff me. And I say, “Hey, Lama! “How about a little something, you know, for the effort?”And he says, “There won’t be any money… “…but when you die, on your deathbed… “…you will receive total consciousness.”

    So I’ve got that going for me… which is nice.

  8. kelly
    Posted November 11, 2006 at 11:25 am | Permalink

    I heard Vilsack speak at the Kansas Democratic Party convention in Wichita in Aug 2005. He is a political moderate, a good speaker, is not a New Englander, and would make a great candidate for the presidency. Don’t sell him short. I would be honored to support him.

  9. Ben Huie
    Posted November 11, 2006 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

    “What’s a Vilsack?And where is Iowa anyway?”

    In 1990 you could have asked the same things about Clinton and Arkansas.

  10. Dennis
    Posted November 11, 2006 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

    Tracy, that was from Caddyshack, right? The Bill Murray character?

  11. Dave
    Posted November 11, 2006 at 1:24 pm | Permalink

    Tracy,Some nerve, a Kansan trying to make fun of Iowa.

  12. Paul F. Rosell
    Posted November 11, 2006 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

    Both parties would be wise to look at someone from OUTSIDE Washington:

    Dole lost.Kerry lost.Gore lost.They were all Washington “insiders.”

    Carter won an election, he was a Governor first.Reagan won two elections, he was a Governor first.Bush 1 won an election, he was a Governor before becomming VP under Reagan, but his “insider” status, after 12 years in the White House, hurt him against Clinton.Clinton won 2 elections, and he was a Governor first.Bush 2, of course, was a Governor before winning 2 elections.

    Statistics and odds-making can be fun, but I think there is a trend here. This can’t be just chance or random.I firmly believe that a Washington outsider will win the next Presidential election.In 2 years, everyone will be SICK of Washinton.I also think front runner status is dangerous right now.Things are so poisonous that the front-runners, on both sides are going to catch all of the flack.

  13. Rage
    Posted November 11, 2006 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

    “So goes Iowa, so goes Iowa.”

    Johnny Carson, 1988

  14. JWink
    Posted November 11, 2006 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

    Paul Rosell: Do I understand you correctly? You mention above that George Bush SENIOR was a state governor before being elected President. Which state?

    I do agree that being a former Governor seems to be a plus in voters’ eyes as compared to being a U.S Senator or Representative.

    Also military seems to help in most cases … although Bill Clinton was an exception.

    Hair?? Eisenhower was folically challenged as I recall.

  15. Paul F. Rosell
    Posted November 11, 2006 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

    JWinkI apologize, I got the George H. W. Bush (Bush Senior) history wrong:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/gb41.html

    However, this is an exception that might prove the rule: Bush senior was NEVER a United States Senator, but he was also never a Governor.There is often an anti-Washington mood in the Country.However, the anti-Congress mood is really the point of my origanal post on this thread, and Bush Senior did not go directly from Congress to the White House.

  16. JWink
    Posted November 11, 2006 at 2:33 pm | Permalink

    Paul Rosell: As you say, Bush Senior was a Congressman, but not a Senator, from Texas. However he was also a director of the CIA and, of course, vice president under the popular Reagan, both offices which helped boost him to the presidency.

    Personally, I visited with Bush Senior, one on one, for a few minutes because of a lack of other people waiting to talk to him. It was at a political meeting in Olathe, prior to his election as President, probably when he was vice president. I’m sorry to say I found him to be pompous and self-important … might have been the end of a long day for him.

  17. Wiseman
    Posted November 11, 2006 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

    I am not to sure about Iowa Gov. Tom VilsackHe seems to be strong about alternative energy such as ethanol and wind energy and education for children which to me is good but in googling some info on him has found that he might be pro-illegal immigrant.One article that I have read said that he was reluctant to sign a bill to make the English language the official language of their state.As an unaffiliated voter, I do have my list of things that I deem important to me and I will be doing more research on this candidate’s political works.Most important to me whether it is a Republican or Democrat is that this candidate is a sensible person and has his priorities in the right way that uses good logics and has no special interest to any parties.

  18. JWink
    Posted November 11, 2006 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

    In the case of Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack, I believe he had served two terms as governor so he couldn’t run for re-election. So he will soon be history as governor. Might be a good time in his life to begin a campaign for President.

  19. Paul F. Rosell
    Posted November 11, 2006 at 3:32 pm | Permalink

    Hey, of course, I want the Republicans to win in 2 years —However, it would be fun, if Vilsack were elected, or even nominated, to make fun of him.Every time he was in trouble, we could say, “Vilsack is in a pickle, again!”We could do cartoon adds with his face on a pickle, inside a jar, trying to get out.(Crowson, pracice on that, would you?)It would be fun, as I said.I do think Vilsack could win more independent and crossover votes than would Clinton, Gore, or Kerry, when the General Election.However, primary voters are not pragmatic people.True-believers nominate true-believers.

    JWinkI have met a few people in the Republican Party that I would not want to have lunch with or go out to dinner with, but I vote for people based on their policy stands, not their charm or lack thereof.Bush Senior was more of a country-club Republican, in the way he carried himself. A good man at heart, but unable to connect with the public. Remember how that grocery-store-cashier conversation got him in trouble, when he ran against Clinton?There are splits in the Republican Party just as the Democrats have their own splits.The success of a Presidential candidate is, in large measure, due to that person’s ability to consolidate the Party base and pacify the factions that felt left out in the primary or on policy matters.Again, a Senator, who has had to compromise on many national issues, is at a disadvantage if the compromises went against the party base.

    WisemanI am dubious of the Amnesty Bill that W. is probably going to sign.However, the power shift in Washington means that several Democrats will vote for an Amnesty Bill that will outrage many Democrats, Republicans and Independents.Bush will give them a poison pill, enough rope to hang themselves, with a large segment of the population.On the other hand, those who vote against amnesty MIGHT have a problem with the Hispanic vote.

    Most Governors won’t have either of these problems.

  20. lucee
    Posted November 11, 2006 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

    George W. Bush will do what will benefit the GOP and nothing else. He says he wants to work with the Democrats and only time will tell.

    Most of the GOP doesn’t want illegal immigrants to be given amnesty (remember the GOP controlled House was holding up the bill?)

    George W. will have to walk a fine line and we shall see what we shall see.

    Vilsack is a newcomer but if he is socially moderate and fiscal conservative, I think he will attract more voters than anyone else realizes.

  21. Dennis
    Posted November 11, 2006 at 4:55 pm | Permalink

    Pickle man for President.President Pickle

    Nice alliteration

  22. Posted November 11, 2006 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

    It’s really too bad that Senators aren’t given more consideration for Presidency. Senators have a large record of voting ups and downs, and sometimes those votes do not reflect their true views (such as voting against a billion dollar war package loaded full of pork). Governors only get to veto or sign, making them less vunerable to the tactics of attack ads.

  23. Paul F. Rosell
    Posted November 11, 2006 at 6:14 pm | Permalink

    Political mom,What would you think of a candidate that sent out an attack ad against another candidate, if that attack ad said she voted to allow underage marriage?More to the story, what if this candidate, the target of the attack, had actually argued that any girl who can get a judicial by-pass, to get an abortion, without telling her parents, ought to be able to get a judicial by-pass, or parental permission, to get married? This makes logical sense doesn’t it? And, this amendment might actually save taxpayers some money, if such a marriage brings some health insurance into play somehow.

    Bonnie Huy voted for the Senate Bill, which included exceptions proposed by Huy. The law in Kansas reflects Huy’s arguements. The majority of the House, the majority of the Senate, and Governor Sebelius, in the end, all agreed with Bonnie Huy.Raj Goyle attacked Huy mercilessly on this point.

    Yes, you are right, Governors don’t have to make compromises, or vote on countless amendments.Governors either veto or sign.

    This is why Governors make better Presidential candidates than do Senators.

  24. Posted November 11, 2006 at 6:19 pm | Permalink

    No it’s not ok to get married at 12. Did you know Mr. Paul Rosell, that a 14 year old who is pregnant and presents to the emergency room CAN in fact sign consent for her own care if it is related to her baby? In any other case, she must have parental consent…and after she has a baby, she alone can consent to the baby’s care…but still must have consent to treat herself?

    So answer me this Paul…is that a bad thing that she can decide what she wants to do with her body IF SHE WANTS TO KEEP THE BABY…which happens BY FAR more than going for an abortion.

    What if her parents wanted her to get an abortion? They cannot force her because that law protects her. But conversely, she can’t get an abortion without parental approval. What is wrong with this picture? She only gets to decide what to do with the baby and her body if she keeps it?

  25. Posted November 11, 2006 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

    Getting married at 12 is not in any girl’s best interest. It’s a lifetime commitment that shouldn’t be made just because it’ll help your pocketbook.

    And you wonder why we have so much divorce? Geez.

  26. JWink
    Posted November 11, 2006 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

    Wiseman: Above, you said something to the effect that Iowa’s “Vilsack might be strong in alternative energies such as ethanol …”

    That’s not necessarily a good thing. It might be OK in Iowa if ethanol plants are located near the Mississippi River.

    THE PROBLEM IS ETHANOL PLANTS REQUIRE A HUMONGOUS AMOUNT OF WATER.

    Here in Kansas, this means the water will be drawn directly or indirectly from our underground aquifers. In central/western Kansas, that water will come from our already overdrawn and rapidly diminishing ancient Ogallala aquifer.

    The Ogallala aquifer furnishes drinking water for many western Kansas municipalities. It furnishes water for irrigation, ironically, so farmers can grow corn for ethanol production. The Ogallala is the source of springs that furnish water to our few Kansas “free-flowing rivers,” the Arkansas River, the north/south Ninnescah Rivers, the Chikaskia River, etc.

    The north branch of the Ninnescah River furnishes the water to Lake Cheney in northwestern Sedgwick County. Wichita draws some percentage, perhaps 50%, of its drinking water from Lake Cheney. The rest of Wichita’s drinking water comes from wells drilled into the Equis beds/aquifer south of Halstead, itself probably an underground extension of the Ogallala.

    So, bottom-line, the many new ethanol plants now being constructed throughout Kansas actually pose a TREMENDOUS THREAT TO WICHITA’S FUTURE WATER SUPPLY.

    But few people are watching this terrible developing threat. Most of our politicians refuse to recognize this impending danger to Wichita and Kansas.

    Lone Ranger and Tonto, where are you now that we desperately need your help?

  27. Postal
    Posted November 11, 2006 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

    On the ethanol problem, I propose that anyone who cannot present a 110 IQ or better on the Stanford-Binet or Weschler IQ test be barred from a drivers’ license, to save gas.

    Ethnic cleansing is stupid. Intelligence cleansing, on the other hand…….

  28. Pam D
    Posted November 11, 2006 at 8:25 pm | Permalink

    The ultimate ticket would be

    Gore/Kerry

    it is poetic justice because both men should have been president and got cheated

    We deserve to have smart intellectual leadership and not bumbling stumbling idiots

  29. Posted November 11, 2006 at 8:46 pm | Permalink

    Paul F. Rosell,

    Gore and Kerry “lost” because of very effective RNC smear campaigns, and our lazy, dysfunctional, corporate media — not because they were Washington “insiders”.

    Hopefully the problems during the last 6 years (Iraqmire, Katrina nonresponse, ignoring climate change, etc) will cause Americans to be less gullible.

    Hopefully they’ll be more responsible about what issues they support, and who they vote for.

    Tuesday’s elections suggest that’s finally happening.

  30. Ben Huie
    Posted November 11, 2006 at 8:56 pm | Permalink

    cosmos – I think Paul would agree that there was a bit of “a lot more money and willing to lie” on the part of Bush and his machine.

  31. Mrage
    Posted November 11, 2006 at 11:48 pm | Permalink

    Vilsack is not a Presidential sounding name, to me. Beyond that problem, he’s probably qualified as anyone else, trying to be President. He likely can’t overcome the push for Hillary or Obama as Dem choice.

    Hillary/Bill Richardson, gov of New Mexico, probably will partner up.

    Obama may as well grab…I don’t know who today if he tries to run for President.

    He may just try for the increased publicity and just accept who the Dem’s nominate if not him.

    Just to get people ready for a choice in 2012. Obama/Eliot Spitzer, new gov of New York then should partner up.

    Both can do it in 2008, but they are young politically that way, Obama as a Senator and Spitzer just two years being New York gov.

    It’s a money grab for most of them, campaign donations and their families on different staffs where those dollars are supposed to be distributed for political advertising.

    Lieberman might try to force Gore to run again. This time him as Prez. More recently electible by both Dems and Repubs. Gore won’t go for it.

    Vilsack fits no one I can figure,

    John Edwards/Vilsack? Vilsack/Edwards?

    Vilsack/Sebelius…he’s really trying to get there with some publicity with her as VP.

    I think its Hillary or Barack Obama to win Dem nomination locked up.

    Repubs, its wide open choices who their nom will be. If its McCain, he’s only a one termer.

  32. Wiseman
    Posted November 12, 2006 at 1:27 am | Permalink

    PaulWhen you are speaking about the Hispanic vote what are you talking about, the legal Hispanic citizens of the United States or the illegal non-citizens?Many of the legal Hispanic citizens are not too happy about the illegal immigration into the country also.

    JwinkThank you for the reminder about ethanol, I now do remember reading something about that and you are right but I was referring to the facts that Vilsack is fairly active about alternative energy sources besides foreign oil.You would have to admit that Kansas would be a good location for Wind power.

  33. JWink
    Posted November 12, 2006 at 6:21 am | Permalink

    Wiseman: Regarding WIND FARMS TO PRODUCE ELECTRICAL POWER, Kansas currently has several. One wind farm is near Montezuma (possibly on or near my uncle’s 1950’s wheat farm) and another near Spearville, Kansas. These are located southwest and northeast of Dodge City, respectively.

    Seems like another wind farm was planned for east of Wichita, out near Beaumont, the town known for it’s local restaurant to which small airplanes would drive the short distance from the airport. Is Mr. Squire and his old Beaumont hotel/restaurant still in business?

    But my concern is just how much electrical power is produced by those giant windmills? Of course, any power produced by a system that doesn’t waste our natural resources including our diminishing water resources is a plus.

    I’m again wondering — is nuclear technology improving? How many years of usable life does the Wolf Creek plant have left? Any answers out there?

  34. Paul F. Rosell
    Posted November 12, 2006 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

    jwinkdidnt the settlers and pioneers in this region have shooting wars over lots of things? Slavery was only one of them, they also fought over sheep vs cattle, fences vs “open range” and —- water!I like the idea of ethanol, but I also wonder where the water will come from.Is it smarter to produce ethanol close to the corn crop, or smarter to ship the corn to the Great Lakes? Can they use salt water, on the coasts, without de-salinization?The Ag lobby eats politicians alive when they ask these questions, but it is the Agricultural GROWERS that will suffer, when the small towns litterally dry up.The number of Kansas towns that are losing their ground water, or at present, do not have dependable wells, is growing.As a conservative, this is one area where I agree that government involvement is required.

  35. Paul F. Rosell
    Posted November 12, 2006 at 12:54 pm | Permalink

    WisemanI am not convinced that the “Hispanic Vote” — those legally allowed to vote anyway, are really that upset about efforts to guard the borders. Many of them are related to someone trying to get into the country, but many of them are also frustrated that they followed legal process, process that is being ignored by the illegals.

    Political MomIn the end, Sebelius and most of the Democrats and most of the Republicans in the legislature agreed with Huy on the teenage marriage issue. Take up your anger with them, not me.

    BenI dont think George Bush ever lied in any campaign. Candidates who are willing to use issues, like Fred Phelps, to get out the vote, when their ACLU employer wrote briefs supporting Phelps, bother me. Goyle used out of state funds to pound Huy over this and other false issues. Goyle claimed that HE would “STOP” Phelps, after Goyle’s employer STOPPED the legislature from acting.Again, this is one of the reasons why Governors have a better shot at Pres than do Senators or legislators.Sebelius, in the end, agreed with Huy and signed the marriage bill Huy wanted. Sebelius will never get punished for it, Huy was punished for it.

  36. Paul F. Rosell
    Posted November 12, 2006 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

    Wiseman and Jwink

    Drive from Rose Hill East to Latham KS. It is a pretty drive, and there is a wind farm on the way.I am sorry, I dont remember if the wind farm is on the East or West side of Douglas or Smileyberg, KS.The wind farm is an impressive sight, you can see it for several miles.Many of the farms also have stone walls or stone fences. It is much like other areas of the Flint Hills. (Is this area considered “Flint Hills.)

  37. Posted November 12, 2006 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

    Paul F. Rosell,

    “I dont think George Bush ever lied in any campaign.”

    In his first campaign (Congress, west TX) he claimed he’d served a tour of duty in the “Air Force”.

    The Air National Guard is not the Air Force, and his ANG record is rather ’spotty’, to be polite.

    The 2004 campaign,http://bushcampaignlies.blogspot.com/

    http://www.bushlies.net/http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_lies_and_deceptions

  38. Ben Huie
    Posted November 12, 2006 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

    jwink, Paul – wind power can and should be a major part of our energy future. A good wind farm can generate a lot of power; one good thing is that it tends to be windy when it is hot – peak demand load for electricity. I would also include nuclear in the mix for the future; newer technologies are significantly improved over past technologies. The approach I would like to see is to convert old warheads (for example Ukraine’s which the US bought) into fule by back-mixing with depleted uranium.

    I have seen slide shows of pictures of wind farms at Sierra Club – they are quite impressive. With current legislation to enable better transmission capacity western Kansas should really proliferate. The Plains can be the Saudi Arabia of wind.

  39. Ben Huie
    Posted November 12, 2006 at 2:45 pm | Permalink

    Paul – a comment about water. The proposed coal-fired plants will use a lot of it – perhaps even more than ethanol production. I agree, we better consider all the implications of this.

  40. JWink
    Posted November 12, 2006 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

    Ben Huie and Paul: Nuclear power plants such as Wolf Creek apparently use a lot of water also. Perhaps they are able to recycle it through the adjacent lake. Seems like one option would be to expand the Wolf Creek site.

    I wish someone who is an expert on wind farms would enlighen us on the amount of power a wind farm produces. For example, would the Montezuma wind farm produce enough electrical power to meet Dodge City’s electrical needs? What if no wind?

    I don’t see anyone, particularly any politician, taking a leadership position in the water and ethanol situation. Of course, Governor Sebelius is thinking of the number of new jobs the ethanol industry might produce not the number of Kansans who won’t find water to drink.

  41. JWink
    Posted November 12, 2006 at 6:17 pm | Permalink

    Cosmos: What do you mean the Air National Guard is not the Air Force? I think they are. Its my understanding the planes at McConnell are flown by the Air National Guard.

    I’m not an expert on the Air Force. But as a member for ten years in the 1960’s, I do know about the Army National Guard and Army Reserves. They are definitely part of the U.S. Army. A friend who is a National Guard Sergeant in the N.G. unit on south Seneca near the freeway. He and his unit are currently stationed in Iraq and might be sent back again.

  42. Ben Huie
    Posted November 12, 2006 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

    JW – I am not an expert but I will refer you to Sierra Club. Unfortunately I do not have the web site handy – I’ll keep an eye open for it.

    I agree with you about Sebelius lack of leadership in water and energy – that is why she failed o win Sierra’s endorsement.

    Most of the water use for nuclear is recycled – as you mentioned. In fact, an interesting idea is to use the heat for certain kinds of aquaculture.

  43. Ben Huie
    Posted November 12, 2006 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

    BTW – there is always wind. Not in every location but somewhere. That is why they ‘oversize’ the farms – gather wind where it is and not where it isn’t.

  44. Posted November 12, 2006 at 6:50 pm | Permalink

    JWink,

    The ANG is a reserve component of the USAF — different,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_Component_of_the_Armed_Forces_of_the_United_States#General_information

    Military spokespersons said that an active-duty member of the ANG is NOT a member of the USAF

    ‘W. Overstated His Military Record’http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=1704

    Bush did it in 1978, repeated and defended it 1999.