home

An Obama-Sebelius Ticket?

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:33:37 AM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, Kathleen Sebelius, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Jane at Firedoglake thinks Kansas Governor and long-time Obama supporter Kathleen Sebelius would be a good match for Barack Obama as the VP candidate. Jane also addresses reports of Richard Lugar or Chuck Hegel as VP.

I like Sebelius because she's anti-death penalty, pro-choice and not a former prosecutor. She opposed the law requiring voters to show photo id's.

Prediction: It won't happen for three reasons. First, I do not think Obama will pick a female for his running mate. Second, he is too sensitive about attacks on his national security and foreign policy experience and is more likely to pick someone who can bolster both. Third, he is going to go after centrists and conservatives to counter attacks he is too liberal and is not going to pick a progressive on social issues.

< Ohio Judge Orders Switch to Barbiturates for Executions | Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    An Obama-Sebelius Ticket? | 207 comments (207 topical)
    One heartbeat away. Is Sebelius really ready for (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:36:12 AM EST
    this high a position?  I don't think so.

    She is just as ready as Obama (5.00 / 8) (#41)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:03:59 PM EST
    I'll put it that way.

    The only thing I have against her is that she is a pale imitation of Hillary Clinton.  The fact that she is a woman is a big reason that she is being considered, and she is not the most qualified woman in the pack.

    [ Parent ]

    Yessssss (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:17:48 PM EST
    I thought we weren't supposed to vote for someone "just because she's a woman"?

    At least, I know that's all I heard for months whenever I said I voted for Clinton.

    But now it's ok?

    Anyway, this is a far-out thought:  With all this talk of Sibelius as VP: if Obama picks neither she nor Clinton in the end, will that tick off Clinton supporters even more?

    Sounds paradoxical I know, but to the extent if floating Sibelius' name is successful in attracting female voters and/or Clinton supporters, and she's not picked, he might achieve a sort of double backlash effect.  A multibacklash, if you will.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't think there are many (5.00 / 5) (#76)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:23:36 PM EST
    Clinton supporters that would be mad if Sebelius is not picked.  

    [ Parent ]
    Not now, of course (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:40:36 PM EST
    but the more she's floated...

    It turns the "I'd pick a woman just not that woman (Clinton)" into "I'd pick anyone but a woman."

    The DNC has conditioned female voters into accepting  both losers and second-best status for years.  Our hopes were up with Clinton, and now they're obviously putting Sibelius on the short-list to try to get hopes up again.

    If it were successful (and it won't be with me, and I'm guessing not with many others but assuming I'm wrong) and then he picks, say, Webb, it'd be just another rejection.

    Personally, I hope he does pick her because I'd love to see how that played out.

    [ Parent ]

    it's not (just) about the VP (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by A little night musing on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:58:43 PM EST
    IMHO, too much emphasis is being placed on his choice of VP as far as "outreach" to Clinton supporters, or in terms of whether or not this or that VP choice would have an effect on Clinton supporters' willingness to vote for him.

    I'm looking for a pattern showing that he is listening to us and taking our concerns seriously - at least as seriously as he's taking, say, the concerns of the religious groups he's meeting with.

    One VP pick ain't gonna do it for me either way.

    Just my view.

    (and for the record, I don't want Sebelius for many reasons)

    [ Parent ]

    Count me "None of Above" (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:28:11 PM EST
    Further, that Sens. Hagel or Lugar are even being considered for inclusion on the Democratic ticket is far too much "unity pony" for this liberal. I will not cast my vote for any Republican, period, and such a foolish choice would simply cause me to leave the top of my ballot unmarked.

    [ Parent ]
    Um, yes (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by A little night musing on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:35:45 PM EST
    The one kind of VP choice that
    would
    be a defining thing for me is if he chose a Republican.

    Definitely would not vote for that ticket. Nohow, no way. Wrong message entirely.

    [ Parent ]

    Who would be his other choice...McCaskill... (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:05:27 PM EST
    ugh

    [ Parent ]
    I Would LMAO (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by JimWash08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:26:29 PM EST
    And start a T-Shirt printing business with just one print: "Don't Blame Me, I Was For Hillary"

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 0) (#185)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:49:35 PM EST
    I think it was after George Sr, we had bumper stickers "I'm from Washington, Don't Blame Me".

    If, and that's a big if, Obama gets to the WH, you'd make a fortune :)

    [ Parent ]

    I and a half years as a (none / 0) (#157)
    by TomP on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:19:40 PM EST
    Senator.  I don't think it would be McCaskill.

    Clinton and Sebelius, among others, have much more experience.

    [ Parent ]

    Why not? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:38:51 AM EST
    She's had a fairly short term as governor, but she's been very successful.  I don't see any reason she wouldn't be ready for the step up.

    [ Parent ]
    What does she know about national (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:39:46 AM EST
    security or foreign policy?


    [ Parent ]
    What's that have to do (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:43:03 AM EST
    with being "ready"?  She might not fit the profile of the best possible running mate in terms of policy strengths (Clark's the ideal choice, IMHO), but the "readiness" argument doesn't hold water.  She's proven she can govern, what more do you want?

    [ Parent ]
    Um, nothing if you don't care about (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:44:41 AM EST
    winning elections.

    [ Parent ]
    Like I said, I don't think she's (none / 0) (#18)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:47:38 AM EST
    the best fit either, electorally speaking.  I just objected to the idea that she's not "ready" to be VP.

    [ Parent ]
    She's certainly not ready to be president. And (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:49:00 AM EST
    one should always keep that in mind when thinking about a vice presidential candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, Hell... (5.00 / 7) (#52)
    by creeper on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:11:13 PM EST
    Dems are about to nominate a candidate for President who's not ready for that either.

    Sibelius has a heluva lot more political experience than Obama.

    Not that there's anyone he could choose (including Hillary) that would make me vote for him...

    [ Parent ]

    Picture this: 3 am, the red phone rings, (5.00 / 4) (#151)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:14:34 PM EST
    obama answers it with Sebelius sitting nearby, voice on the other end says sir, we have a nat'l security alert, obama clamps his hand over the mouthpiece sez to sebby, you take it, she pushes back, no you take it.  Both look at each other saying in unison, what do we do?  Poor choices can have terrible consequences.

    [ Parent ]
    Nah, she's a great choice (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:52:30 PM EST
    if we want to spend the next four years as sitting ducks to the world.

    [ Parent ]
    She would be a poor CYA pick if that (none / 0) (#143)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:06:20 PM EST
    is where she is to pick up the slack for obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Why not? Again, just like Obama, not enough (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:40:57 AM EST
    experience.  Why would anyone want two inexperienced people on the ticket?  A fairly short term as governor is enough for you?  It's not for me.

    [ Parent ]
    She's in her 2d term as gov, so (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:48:56 AM EST
    it's inaccurate to refer to her "short term".  Prior to that she was in the KS state lege, then won an historic term, for a Dem in KS,  as state insurance comm'r.  Add that to her father being a gov from OH, and you have plenty of experience plus politics in the genes.  

    Not a bad resume for a Veep in any year.


    [ Parent ]

    "Fairly" short. (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:53:46 AM EST
    And I agree, it's a great resume.  Dealing with an unfriendly legislature, no less.

    [ Parent ]
    Not to be picky about the FAQ (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:34:02 PM EST
    But you reached your limits of comments for your first day here which are 10. As a Clinton supporter, I really do not care who Obama picks as the only choice would be her. As for the Governor, she is still an unknown. She might have experience, but for  the WH, you need lots of experience. See GW for example.heh

    [ Parent ]
    Didn't know about the limit, thanks. (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:35:57 PM EST
    I'll pipe down.  :)

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, add her father to that list (5.00 / 5) (#113)
    by esmense on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:42:55 PM EST
    It irks me when Obama supporters, who objected to Clinton because they claim not to believe in political "dynasties" and object to the fact that her political fortunes are connected to that of a politically powerful male, talk up Siblelius. The truth is, it has historically been true and, as Sibelius demonstrates, is still true today to a larger extent than one may wish, that ground breaking women in politics have necessarily enjoyed some connection to a politically powerful man; husband, father, etc. Sibelius IS part of a political dynasty (her husband is also the son of a congressman).

    It shouldn't surprise ANYONE that the first "serious" female presidential contender, like the first women to serve in the Senate and Congress, was connected to a brand name politician. Given the misogyny that persists in our political culture, it couldn't have happened any other way. Instead of condemning Clinton, Democrats who actually cared about equality, should have condemned the real problem; the persistent sexism, among party elders, donors and the media, that accounts for this state of affairs.

    [ Parent ]

    obama certainly didn't have any qualms (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:10:31 PM EST
    about hitching his wagon to the Kennedy dynasty.
    The great obama proclaiming across the world: "Do
    as I say, not as I do"


    [ Parent ]
    Being Governor of a Small Rural State is Not (none / 0) (#123)
    by Richjo on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:52:12 PM EST
    typically seen as great qualifications to be President of the United States. Even Bill Clinton faced criticism that bein Governor of Arkansas didn't really mean he was ready for big time national politics. Bill Clinton was the senior governor in America when he ran for President and had been the chair of the National Governor's Association in addition to his 12 years as a governor. His experience was questioned nonetheless in large part because he had not been Govenor of a large populous state. She has less than half the experience Clinton had so to even suggest she would be viewed as clearly qualified to be President is just ridiculous. This does not even touch upon her zero experience in foreign policy. If Obama wants to amplify all his weakenesses through his VP choice she would be a great selection.

    [ Parent ]
    Reagan had less elective office (none / 0) (#141)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    experience than Sibelius does now, and he too had no FP/NS creds, again in the context of an ongoing and still tense Cold War situation.  

    Carter had only one term as gov, not even the two of Sibelius, when he ran during the Cold War.  And his running mate Mondale hardly shouted National Security creds.  

    [ Parent ]

    Reagan (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:10:39 PM EST
    had longer as Gov. than Sebelius has. Reagan had actually spent years doing foreign policy speechs and articulating a foreign policy ideology.

    You are right about Carter. Do you remember how well that one worked out?

    [ Parent ]

    Oh c'mon, RR had all of two more (none / 0) (#159)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:22:31 PM EST
    yrs as gov than KS, but as I said, overall she has more elective office/political experience (state lege, elected state insur comm'r) than Ronnie.

    And you're not going to convince me that RR had anything more than a simplistic black-n-white notion of FP generally.  His FP "ideology" was simply US=Good, Commies=Bad.

    As for Carter, he actually did have "NS creds" sufficient at the time -- his Naval Academy/sub experience.  On the one hand, he didn't involve this country in major wars during his term; otoh, he really fouled things up re Iran and the Shah.  Might have cost him his presidency.

    But that had more to do with his temperament and indecisiveness and less about lack of or insufficient NS background.

    [ Parent ]

    Here's the (none / 0) (#191)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:56:11 PM EST
    problem with a lot of Obama supporters: the talk about legislative experience as if it's all equal. It's not. Do you think being a part time state senator is the same as serving in the US Senate? That's what you are implying when you use the bogus "legislative experience" talking point.

    How old are you? Reagans policies were pretty detailed as far as foreign policy goes. He talked about a missle shield and the details of his plans.

    The temperament and indecisiveness are the same things I see in Obama fwiw. The only difference is that Obama is already showing his attitude whereas Carter was able to keep in check until he got elected.

    [ Parent ]

    I Think You Missed the Point, Bless Your Heart (none / 0) (#186)
    by Richjo on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:49:52 PM EST
    One of my major contentions was that being Governor of a small rural state is suspect qualifications. Last time I checked California wasn't a small rural state but like the 7th largest economy in the world. Georgia might fit that category and it is may be true Carter had less experience than she did, but I don't think saying she is as qualified as Carter was is a good thing. Obama has enough problems being labeled as running for Carter's second term, he doesn't need any more.

    [ Parent ]
    Reagan may not have had foreign policy (none / 0) (#203)
    by esmense on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:21:09 PM EST
    experience -- but he had been on the political scene for decades, not simply as an office holder but also as a spokesperson for one of the nation's most influential defense contractors. I was working for an ad agency that represented a different, but equally important, defense contractor at the time -- believe me, the defense industry was dancing in the street at the idea of his election -- and NO ONE, in the media or elsewhere, was indulging in much criticism or concern about Reagan's foreign policy credentials.

    [ Parent ]
    2 wrongs dont make a right (none / 0) (#177)
    by sociallybanned on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:42:48 PM EST
    But then again, Obama is not experience and neither is Gov. Seb.  2 wrongs would make us go right... to McCain.

    [ Parent ]
    I wonder what kind of faith profile (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:36:43 AM EST
    Obama is looking for in a VP. I think he will want someone who is overtly religious, preferably born again.

    ugh... (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by kredwyn on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:54:41 AM EST
    another faith-based program in the Whouse makes me cringe all over...

    [ Parent ]
    Just going to make stuff up now? (none / 0) (#36)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:02:01 PM EST
    Why in the world would he want someone who is overtly religious?  

    [ Parent ]
    I am not making up the emphasis he (5.00 / 6) (#45)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:06:47 PM EST
    has put on faith.
    Good to see you, too.


    [ Parent ]
    I just don't get (none / 0) (#56)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:15:11 PM EST
    why you are so determined to find anything possible to criticize Obama about.  

    He has not made an emphasis on faith.  He simply isn't trying to pretend it doesn't exist.  

    [ Parent ]

    It's really sad that you make a habit (5.00 / 10) (#60)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:16:59 PM EST
    of commenting from ignorance:

    Reaching out to the faith community is a priority for Barack Obama and will be a priority under an Obama Administration. This is one of several meetings he will have over the coming months with religious leaders....He's done it before. He'll do it again.

    That was from an Obama spokesman.

    [ Parent ]

    LOL! (5.00 / 10) (#67)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:20:21 PM EST
    Surely you jest!

    I mean, really, are you serious?

    Come on now!

    [ Parent ]

    ROFLMAOOOOOOO you are hysterical. (5.00 / 0) (#129)
    by kelsweet on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:56:50 PM EST
    I love reading you. I have a few other fav's too. I have learned so much at this site!
                                       o/t somewhat, sorry.
     

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks kelsweet! (5.00 / 0) (#136)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:03:50 PM EST
    [blush]

    [ Parent ]
    Earth-to-flyerhawk!! (5.00 / 5) (#68)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:20:24 PM EST
    You must have a short term memory problem or perhaps yesterday you didn't read about BO's three (not just one...but THREE) "faith" initiatives that he's actively promoting within a week of declaring himself "the" candidate.

    Don't you think there are more important things to be concentrating on than inviting fundies to an "Obama White House" to pray?

    I do!

    [ Parent ]

    Could someone let me know (5.00 / 5) (#124)
    by Grace on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:52:25 PM EST
    when they create the new "Secretary of Religion" position in the cabinet?  

    [ Parent ]
    Right (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:48:35 PM EST
    So outreach programs to religious people are now the same as focusing on religion?

    And Democrats wonder why religious folks distrust them so much.

    [ Parent ]

    Simple answers to simple questions (5.00 / 3) (#192)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:56:26 PM EST
    Yes.

    [ Parent ]
    This religious folk (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by Molly Pitcher on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:13:26 PM EST
    USED to trust the democrats!

    [ Parent ]
    Yes they did (none / 0) (#204)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:21:48 PM EST
    A long time ago.  And then the Democrats decided to eschew them because much of the Democratic base distrusted religious people.

    Personally I am agnostic and no fan of organized religion.  But I respect their faith and I don't see anything wrong with Democrats reaching out to religious people and offering them a better message than the hostile one spewed forth by the Republicans.

    [ Parent ]

    could one of you Obama critics (3.00 / 2) (#132)
    by tben on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:59:32 PM EST
    point to one thing that he has promised, or even discussed doing, that you object to?

    Sounds to me that he has said that he will make it a priority to talk to the religous community - which strikes me as a very smart thing for a politician to do.

    Maybe I am missing something, though. Could y'all please point to any initiatives you fear he will implement?

    [ Parent ]

    Troll alert - tben (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:05:07 PM EST
    This poster was banned from The Confluence.

    Just so you know.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama said he was against 'politicians in Wah'n' (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:18:10 PM EST
     ... so slickly acting as a "smart" politician himself by doing this:

    he has said that he will make it a priority to talk to the religous community

    Provides two answers I'd give to your question.

    [ Parent ]

    huh? (none / 0) (#172)
    by tben on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:35:45 PM EST
    Talking to citizens is now a problem????

    And yes, politicans talk to people, and Obama said he wouldnt be a typical politician - but I dont think that means that he has promised never to talk to people.

    Typical politicans wear clothes y'know. Obama has not promised to be a nudist president.

    Seriously, what is the problem with a Democratic president talking to the faith communities? If he starts pushing creationism in school, or appointing antiRoe judges, then I will race you to the front lines of opposition to him. But none of that is gonna happen.

    So I repeat. What is the problem beyond talking to people?

    [ Parent ]

    You're not 'repeating'; saying a totally different (5.00 / 3) (#189)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:55:35 PM EST
    ... thing.

    So I repeat. What is the problem beyond talking to people?

    That's hugely different from Obama's stated intent to reach out to the radical religious right his priority.

    Presumably your next deflection will pretend that I clamed that fanatical sector of the voting public weren't people.

    To spare you typing it out, that won't fly either.

    [ Parent ]

    sorry Ellie (3.00 / 2) (#193)
    by tben on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:00:20 PM EST
    maybe its me. Maybe I am just slow. Because I really sense that I am not getting my point across.

    What does "reaching out to the right" mean to you?

    To me, it means he will talk to those people, show them some respect, and listen to what they say. Thats all.

    Now if there is more to it - if he actually is contemplating caving in to some of their demands, then, as I said, I would be hugely angrily against him. And believe me, I am hypersensitive to such things.

    But I dont see that at all, in anything he has said. THats why I have asked, several times now - what is it that people are think he is doing beyond just speaking to these people?

    [ Parent ]

    I think there's no way (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:37:11 AM EST
    and it's not issue based, it's that she's bor-ing.

    Isn't she the one who delivered the (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:38:06 AM EST
    awful response to Bush's SOTU address this year?
    Read the transcript of that speech and tell me if that is someone you want fighting for your values.

    [ Parent ]
    She's bland enough (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:48:10 AM EST
    not to upstage Obama. I think that he will want someone who is "invisible" when he's on the stage and can handle a debate, but not create sound bites that have longer news cycles than his do. If enough of Hillary's supporters can handle the idea that she is "too much woman for the job", but like the idea of at least getting a first woman VP to break through, Sebelius might work out for him.

    [ Parent ]
    She gave one suboptimal speech, (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:56:10 AM EST
    big deal.  What a silly reason to exclude someone from a position she's qualified for given all the other potential reasons.  

    And she does seem to be positioned not only not to upstage the top guy, but from what I've seen of her she's not nearly as bland and boring as other VP potentials -- like Bayh or Nelson (either one) or Warner, all snooze material.  So it would seem she nicely fits in that comfortable middle ground where VP nominees can operate.

    Not nearly as many downsides to her as most other potential VPs.

    And, disagreeing here with Jeralyn, since she's from Kansas, people won't perceive her as too liberal, as they might a pol from Taxachusetts or the People's Republic of VT.

    This is a Dem yr, too, and with the economy in the tank and O appearing to be running hard to the center, it's not nearly as important to worry about going in some crazy Lieberman-conservative direction for VP.  

    Though the MCM will push hard for a Sam Nunn "safe" conservative -- which would be a disaster for party unity.    

    [ Parent ]

    I don't believe I said that she isn't (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:14:22 PM EST
    a good choice.  The discussions here have said that Obama will not choose Hillary because she "outshines" him.  I was merely stating that Sebelius will not do that. Many of Hillary's supporters think that ANY woman on the ticket that isn't Hillary is a giant slap in the face to them. Other women just want to break the barrier once and for all, and it doesn't matter who does it. Sebelius is not Hillary and will not satisfy the first group, but she fits the bill for the second.  Of course, to break the barrier she and Obama would have to win since we have already had a woman run for VP.

    [ Parent ]
    Also don't assume the misogyny used by HRC bashers (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:33:25 PM EST
    ... will magically disappear should Obama present a different woman for VP consideration.

    There have been many dismissals and deflections of that egregious bigotry along the lines of blaming the target. Obama himself said that by labeling her "divisive" (ambitious etc.)

    This has come from the fauxgressive blogosphere acting on the presumption that because they're supporting a black candidate for office, they can use it as carte blanche to engage in a historically unprecedented onslaught of bigotry against a truly historic and worthy candidate.

    They have done virtually nothing progressive to halt or limit that means of attack. I use the nutracker:lawn jockey ratio as a yardstick.

    That bigotry leveled not only by Obama himself, repeatedly, by long- and short-pants media, and by political enemies will still be flung at female candidates in the VP spot.

    [ Parent ]

    Speaking of long pants and (5.00 / 8) (#116)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:44:10 PM EST
    short pants, the burning question ought to be -- will Sebelius wear a pantsuit?  Will she become androgynous?  And how about her cleavage?

    And let's get to vetting her -- that is, what does her husband do?

    [ Parent ]

    Well, her son created a prisoned-themed board game (5.00 / 0) (#133)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:59:42 PM EST
    called "Don't Drop the Soap", which stirred up some controversy.  Hubby is a federal judge.

    [ Parent ]
    Ellie, LOL! (5.00 / 4) (#117)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:44:36 PM EST
    'nutcracker:lawn jockey ratio'. I believe that number would be extremely large.

    Perfection!

    [ Parent ]

    If I don't consider Obama's (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Fabian on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:05:13 PM EST
    ego and penchant for hogging the spotlight, I think Sebelius is a poor strategic choice for winning the GE.

    If I consider his souffle-like ego, then Sebelius sounds perfect.  She'll do her job and fill the seat but in a noncompetitive way.

    [ Parent ]

    That speech was horrible (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:51:47 AM EST
    and really said nothing. It was as interesting as American bread.  One thing you can say for Sebellius is that she will never upstage Obama.  Also, the night of the speech I started to google her.  Seems she is not all that popular in her own state right now.  Lots of criticisms of her handling their natural disasters and her absence during the aftermath.

    Women candidates are not fungibles.  You don't replace Clinton with Sebellius and have all Clinton supporters rally.  I think this would be resented, IMHO.  You cannot replace Clinton and should not try.    

    [ Parent ]

    A wing of our party prefers boring (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by catfish on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:43:30 PM EST
    Prefers soft-spoken, cerebral Warren Christopher John Kerry types. This wing is crazy about Obama and may be why they keep talking up Sebelius.

    At the same time, they are turned off by muscular liberal, southern or blue-collar types: LBJ, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton.

    [ Parent ]

    Dukakis (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by catfish on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:46:16 PM EST
    Add him to the above list.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks for bringing up the Dukester. (none / 0) (#128)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:56:22 PM EST
    If we're going to judge people based on one speech, recall that MD gave a dynamite acceptance speech in 88 and his numbers shot up coming out of (wherever we had the convention that yr, can't recall).

    I'm not a one-speech person, either to harshly judge against (Sibelius, Bill Clinton 88) or for (uh, Obama 2004).

    Funny thing though, I find ability to deliver a speech an important quality -- but in the P.  Like JFK, my all-time favorite Dem.  

    But oratorical skill is only factor #17 in the list of qualities you want in a VP.

    [ Parent ]

    Thank you - will look it up. (none / 0) (#195)
    by catfish on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:02:02 PM EST
    Appreciate the historical reference - I was not into politics at the time.

    [ Parent ]
    wow - talk about alternative realities (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by tben on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:04:07 PM EST
    I dont know what bubble you live in, but for most of America, Obama is about as far from a Warren Christopher as you can get.

    Although I must admit, the vision of that sexy ol' rockstar Warren the C, doin' his riffs in front of 75000 people - thats an image that has made my day!

    [ Parent ]

    The stadium thing - Obama, Christopher (none / 0) (#197)
    by catfish on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:04:48 PM EST
    Obama is a Christopher clone lol. Yes I can see why you (and many) would disagree.

    I see Obama as the cerebral wing except with James Earl Jones voice register and stadium crowds. Michelle Obama has to remind him not to get into cerebral mode, the WSJ quoted her as saying "keep it to feeling, not thinking."

    [ Parent ]

    I don't know, (none / 0) (#66)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:19:12 PM EST
    Gore was no dynamo in 1992, either.

    [ Parent ]
    Yep, but even more to the point (5.00 / 0) (#134)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:00:22 PM EST
    he was widely ridiculed, certainly by the MCM but even by some unthinking idiots in our own party, in 2000 for being "wooden" and "dull".  

    When he tried to compensate for the bad pub by revving things up on the stump, he was then called "wild" and "demagogic".

    Hillary of course, early in the primary campaign, was criticized harshly for not being able to give a good formal speech.  Some said, not without reason, that she just wasn't in Obama's league as an orator.

    But she was good enough for me.  Not in JFK's league or even Bill's but adequate to the task.

    Ditto for Sibelius, despite that one tepid speech that no one but a few online political junkies remembers or even saw.

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe it's the Ivory Tower wing (none / 0) (#200)
    by catfish on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:06:05 PM EST
    vs. the Roseanne Barr wing. Yes, I know Hillary went to Yale, but she represented the Roseanne wing.

    [ Parent ]
    I think you're right. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:37:47 AM EST
    Third, he is going to go after centrists and conservatives to counter attacks he is too liberal and is not going to pick a progressive on social issues.
    He just signed up Jason Furman as his economic advisor. Pretty good example of a centrist.

    I still think (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:00:57 PM EST
    that Mayor Michael Bloomberg is pretty high on his list for VP.

    The guy is such a "centrist" that he has changed parties three times in recent history.

    Sounds perfect for Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    Sounds like a losing ticket to moi. (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:02:58 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Of course it is. (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:36:54 PM EST
    But I think Obama will lose no matter who his VP is. So I'm just idly speculating here.

    [ Parent ]
    Except McCain is losing too (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by catfish on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:45:00 PM EST
    I would be with you but McCain's campaign doesn't appear to be even trying. They are truly winging it.

    I'm disappointed. The pugs are supposed to be the party that knows stagecraft and production values. They always drop the balloons at the right time. Come on pugs, at least give us a show!

    [ Parent ]

    I agree... (5.00 / 6) (#120)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:49:12 PM EST
    McCain is winging it until August.

    Remember when the first SwiftBoating started - after Kerry was the official nominee.

    [ Parent ]

    It would be funny, in a certain way, (none / 0) (#149)
    by Grace on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:13:37 PM EST
    if neither McCain or Obama won -- and we ended up with someone like President Nader or President Ron Paul.  ;-)

    Brrrrrr.  That just gives me shivers.  

    [ Parent ]

    Shades Of The Unity08 Party n/t (none / 0) (#102)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:36:44 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Obama (5.00 / 5) (#104)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:37:37 PM EST
    is the ultimate Unity08 candidate.

    That is not a compliment.

    [ Parent ]

    Agree on both n/t (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:39:42 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    But..... (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:39:02 AM EST
    don't you find Sebelious - well - BORING?

    Her response to the SOTU speech was...how to put this charitably???? - horrid.

    And, if Obama selects her it will be the final nail in the coffin for many of us HRC supporters as Sebelius can't light a match to Hillary's intelligence, strength, wonkishment and experience.  

    (Actually, I hope he does pick Sebelius...it will make his defeat in November even more likely...imho).

    If he picks her, or any woman (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by americanincanada on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:46:27 AM EST
    other than Hillary I will be done. DONE. there will be no hope for him to win my vote.

    In fact, I think I can safely say that if he does not at least offer it to Hillary I will be done.

    [ Parent ]

    You hope McCain wins? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:45:28 AM EST
    (Actually, I hope he does pick Sebelius...it will make his defeat in November even more likely...imho).

    Curious that you're spending so much time hanging with the Democrats.

    [ Parent ]

    Lots of Democrats here. But sometimes we put (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:47:32 AM EST
    principal before party.  And sometimes the Democrat isn't the best choice.  

    [ Parent ]
    Not in this case. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:51:38 AM EST
    There's a pretty stark difference between the Democratic platform and endless war in Iraq, more tax cuts we can't afford for corporations and the rich, more rightwing packing of the federal courts, and further attacks on the fabric of the Constitution.  We've seen over the last eight years what Republicans will do to this country.  We can't allow it to continue.

    [ Parent ]
    Then Obama should drop out. (5.00 / 8) (#26)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:53:35 AM EST
    Give it a rest. You're trying to use a boogeyman argument to develop support for a candidate whom a large percentage of Democrats have SOUNDLY rejected.
    It would be nice to hear a more positive argument in favor of Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:57:16 AM EST
    The primaries are over, Clinton conceded.  It's Obama or McCain.  And if people don't like Obama, and consider this to be a lesser of two evils argument, that's an argument I'm happy to have.  McCain's considerably more evil.

    [ Parent ]
    Really? I think Obama and McCain are (5.00 / 7) (#32)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:00:51 PM EST
    roughly equally dangerous, although in different ways. Obama's inexperience, his arrogance, his tendency to make gaffes regarding the most sensitive aspects of policy, his repeated promise to use more troops in Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan...
    Putting someone green and untested as President is always a tremendous risk. Given what I have observed about Obama's personality and character, it is not a risk I would happily take.

    YOU think McCain is just so much better than Obama.
    I'm telling you---that is NOT how the voters will see it, based on my conversations and readings.
    Maybe a pure negative campaign will work for Obama---it sure worked for Bush 2 times---but wouldn't it be better to make a stronger pro-Obama case?

    [ Parent ]

    If I thought you'd be receptive (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:16:55 PM EST
    to pro-Obama arguments, I'd be happy to make them.  I can easily frame the above anti-McCain stuff as pro-Obama.

    Obama wants to withdraw from Iraq and refocus our anti-terrorism efforts in areas that will actually make a difference (Afghanistan and Pakistan, where Al Qaeda actually is right now).  He wants to balance the tax code to be more progressive -- increases for corporations and the very rich, and middle-class cuts.  He'll appoint good judges.  He'll review Bush's executive orders and rescind the unconstitutional ones.

    And although I don't think his healthcare plan was the best one by any measure (Edwards was best, Clinton's was better than Obama's, but single-payer beats them all) he'd at least be willing to sign the plan Congress will eventually produce, which McCain wouldn't.

    Re: his inexperience, he's shown that he wants to surround himself with smart and experienced people and listen to them, which helps mitigate the fact that this is new territory for him.

    Etc., etc.

    [ Parent ]

    That's better, except the last (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:18:30 PM EST
    one is really his area of greatest weakness.
    His judgment in associates and advisers has been abysmal, and the best of his team---the economics advisers----hardly represent the values I care for, supporting SS privatization, for instance.

    [ Parent ]
    They're all better than Penn, anyway. ;) (none / 0) (#84)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:27:17 PM EST
    And Obama's pretty clearly not going in the privatization direction (he explicitly rejected it even back when he was open to raising payroll taxes/retirement age, which he says he no longer is), so this is a nice example of being able to reject the bad advice of an advisor.

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary (5.00 / 5) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:30:33 PM EST
    isn't running anymore first of all. Secondly, Obama has flip flopped on a ton of issues lately so who's to say he won't all of sudden decide to privatize SS? He agrees with Bush that it's in "crisis".

    [ Parent ]
    Ugh! Is that (none / 0) (#201)
    by Molly Pitcher on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:08:12 PM EST
    not what Dubya did?  And how did that turn out?

    [ Parent ]
    McCain's campaign is pretty sloppy so far (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by catfish on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:53:05 PM EST
    And I can't get that quote out of my head "Americans will vote for strong and wrong over weak and right."

    Will "strong" be measured in voter intensity, or the intensity of the candidate's convictions. Ron Paul had strong convictions, and he got a pretty big chunk of the vote considering he's not realistic.

    There's no telling where this will go. Obama and McCain are running losing campaigns right now. Obama on lack of ideology, McCain on campaign organization.

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary suspended her campaign. It's a long time (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:01:49 PM EST
    between now and August, and it isn't over until August.

    [ Parent ]
    True, and she also endorsed him (none / 0) (#62)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:17:42 PM EST
    and has said she'll be campaigning on his behalf.  I take her at her word.

    [ Parent ]
    No she didn't...she suspended (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:24:56 PM EST
    her campaign.  There are a ton of us HRC supporters who hope that BO falls flat on his face in the next 30 days (as he is doing a good job at!) so the Dems can nominate the next POTUS - HRC!

    [ Parent ]
    Did you see her speech? (none / 0) (#90)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:29:44 PM EST
    "I endorse him and I throw my full support behind him" sounded an awful lot like an endorsement to me.  And she's said several times that she'll do "whatever [she is] asked" for his campaign.

    [ Parent ]
    Eh, (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Kevin on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:29:10 PM EST
    Just as large segment of the party soundly rejected your favoured candidate, so I guess we shouldn't run anyone this year going by that logic.

    A vote for Hillary or a vote for Obama in the primary isn't a vote against the other (well, not necessarily).  It says nothing of anyone "rejecting" the other candidate, only that in a choice between the two, a person preferred one.  There are many who voted for one but were happy with either (I'd say this group is vastly larger then the "Obama only" or "Hillary only" groups).

    [ Parent ]

    Kevin, this was not an ethical nomination (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by hairspray on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:45:13 PM EST
    process. google P.Cronin "Primaries and Caucuses" and read what the NYT has called out (finally) the inequities of the caucus vs primary delegate allocations. Obama won mostly caucus red states and their delegate counts were wildly inflated.  Yes those are the "rooles" but the SD were supposed to take all that into consideration when voting.  But they didn't.  They "chose" Obama just like the Supreme Court chose GWB in 2000.  I am not enthralled or easily persauded that he is the "One'.

    [ Parent ]
    Please wait for the dem platform to (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by zfran on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:06:20 PM EST
    emerge. It hasn't been submitted for your review as yet. Sorry, o/t.

    [ Parent ]
    A little nitpicky, don't you think? (none / 0) (#47)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:09:36 PM EST
    I think its basic outlines are clear -- Obama, Clinton and the rest of the field had some disagreements on policy specifics, but they all agreed on big-picture stuff.

    [ Parent ]
    This is the "new" dem party. (5.00 / 5) (#82)
    by zfran on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:25:50 PM EST
    Not the party of the "people" as it used to be. It will have all new people, new ideas, new platform. Again, we are o/t.

    [ Parent ]
    so what makes us (none / 0) (#199)
    by Molly Pitcher on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:05:47 PM EST
    imagine that 4 years of O would be much different?

    [ Parent ]
    I wonder (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Mrwirez on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:40:00 AM EST
    Could that ticket even carry Kansas?

    The part outside the Appalachians, sure. (5.00 / 7) (#11)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:40:52 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    ROFLMAOOOOOOO you are hysterical. (none / 0) (#106)
    by kelsweet on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:38:49 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    No (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:40:37 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Fourth... (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by JustJennifer on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:51:05 AM EST
    She is extremely dry and boring.

    I am with those who thought her response to the SOTU speech was really bad.  

    I like that she stood up to the Catholic church over abortion though.

    he definitely needs (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by Turkana on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:53:02 AM