Been thinking about this for a few days and have some half-formed ideas... Theoretically, I agree that rebuilding the Democratic Party around the governors makes sense for a couple of reasons:

- Governors are closer in touch with the party organization in their respective states; thus, more likely to be able to strengthen their ranks and move them in certain directions - extremely important in 'delivering' their states to a Presidential candidate.

- Governors are, by default, outside the Beltway'.

- As potential Presidents, governors are of the Executive Branch, not the Legislative; they gain essential management mindset and experience.

The last two Democrat Presidents were sitting governors when nominated, but: They came out of nowhere (no offense intended to our Southern Gentlemen here) during the primaries and were swept into national notice by dint of their own momentum, not (in hindsight) by the overwhelming strength of their stands on issues or their charisma. They also had weak opposition when first elected (the opposition to Clinton's re-election in 1996 was, if anything, weaker than in 1992).

A governor with his or her eyes on the Presidency ought to become a national name, and to form and express opinions and strategies regarding national and international issues, well in advance of announcing a formal candidacy. However, being too obvious about that will automatically raise charges of not paying sufficient attention to the home state.

It's a tightrope, surely - but one worth walking.