An Obama-Sebelius Ticket?

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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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.


    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.


    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.  

    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.


    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)


    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
    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.


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

    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"

    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 :)


    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.


    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.

    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?

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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...


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    "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.

    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

    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.  :)

    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.


    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"

    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.

    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.  


    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?


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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...

    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?  

    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.

    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.  


    It's really sad that you make a habit (5.00 / 9) (#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.


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

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

    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!


    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?  

    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.


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

    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!

    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.


    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?


    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.


    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.


    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?


    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.


    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?


    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.

    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.

    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.    


    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.

    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.


    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?


    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.

    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.



    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.


    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.    


    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.


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

    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.


    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.

    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!


    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."


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


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

    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!


    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.


    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.  


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


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


    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.


    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.  

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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".

    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?

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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!

    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.

    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).


    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'.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

    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
    ROFLMAOOOOOOO you are hysterical. (none / 0) (#106)
    by kelsweet on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:38:49 PM EST
    No (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:40:37 AM EST
    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 EST
    someone with foreign policy/national security experience. also- she wouldn't even win him kansas, so i don't see how she helps the ticket. i want her in the senate, and she can go from there...

    Is NS really going to be that (none / 0) (#38)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:02:49 PM EST
    crucial with the growing Republican Recession hitting the middle class so hard right now?

    As for winning KS, yes it would be tough, but she might well put it in play, forcing Rs to squander time and resources there.  She has a great profile to appeal to many in the HRC wing, though for sure the speculation about HRC for VP would need to be put firmly to rest in the next 2 months lest an anti-Sibelius backlash occur.


    the passion for hillary (5.00 / 7) (#51)
    by Turkana on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:10:52 PM EST
    is not necessarily a gender thing. it's a hillary thing. the hillary hardcore are not going to be placated by just another woman. and there's no question that national security will be a factor. having two candidates with such short national security resumes would be very politically dangerous.

    The HRC matter re VP (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:20:56 PM EST
    is not resolved, and I have conceded here that until it is, over the next few months, there would be resentment should KS be picked over her.  It's just a matter of O laying the proper groundwork for the Sibelius outcome in the near term, if that is indeed where he's headed.

    As to the rather overrated NS, this is a KS shortcoming, but concerns here could be put to rest, to an important extent, with O's announcement of his NS/State/Defense team of experienced and tough folks, including a notable general or two.  Wesley Clark comes to mind.  Jim Jones.  Zinni.  


    You think that if BO speaks... (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:28:25 PM EST
    everything will be kumbaya again?

    I mean, really, a ton of us have listened to him speak ad nausem and rejected his "words" - (that do not matter to him -WORM!)

    He can talk until he's blue in the face and it won't make Sebelius any better than she is today...which is NOT good.


    That would be a good idea (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:30:33 PM EST
    Announce the whole team all at once. I hope he does that.

    Jim Jones (none / 0) (#81)
    by eleanora on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:25:17 PM EST
    I know it's unfair and hate to bring it up, but I truly think his name will be an unfortunate thing in the GE. I was trying to google him during yesterday's VP discussion and kept running into Jonestown. I don't approve of the obvious dumb jokes, but you just know people will make them. Stupid and meaningless and pointless, but sometimes the little things make a huge difference. If they pick him, they'd better have a great media blitz ready to go that will make the problem moot.

    I don't take seriously the (none / 0) (#99)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:34:29 PM EST
    VP talk for Jones (nor most of the names on that list released yesterday).  

    As I noted, he might be in line to be on O's NS team, which I would heartily encourage him to announce around the time of his VP choice should the latter be lacking NS creds.

    Jonestown was 30 yrs ago, but now that I think of it, there would be the major anniversary coming up in Nov.  Hmmm ...  

    Otoh, we've already got a nominee with 3 funky names, two of which aren't ideal in a pol in this particular time.  But he seems to have nicely overcome that (so far), so having a guy on your team with the same name as a mass-murdering cult leader, hey no big deal.


    Not poking about names, honest, (none / 0) (#127)
    by eleanora on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:54:58 PM EST
    but so many people google to find things out, and the Rs are amazingly good at confusing and misleading voters. I just don't think we should be blind to how they'll use any weapon we give them. Once I found the right guy, I think he'd be an asset to a Democratic administration :)

    Actually (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:18:57 PM EST
    it may not be THE issue but there is a war going on. It seems that a lot of Dems want to ignore that fact and hope we can win on the economy. Regardless of Iraq, there is still Afghanistan. If you've got swing voters who think Obama can't be commander in chief then it's enough to make him lose.

    She does not appeal to HRC supporters. You seem to think that any woman can be replaced with any woman.

    Sebelius is a really bad choice imo. She adds nothing and once again you would be putting a more qualified woman beneath a less qualified man.


    Totally agree (5.00 / 4) (#87)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:28:57 PM EST
    I know Dems hope and wish the election will be about the economy, and that will certainly be big.  But there are 200,000 troops in the field.  I don't expect the majority of the populace to feel comfortable electing a CinC without at least a little bit of  military expertise someplace on the ticket.

    In the depths of the Cold War, did (none / 0) (#107)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:39:00 PM EST
    LBJ /HHH have any significant military expertise?  (especially HHH)  Or Humphrey/Muskie in 68?  

    How did McGovern's substantial war experience in WWII work out for him?

    Or for Bob Dole in 96?

    NS is much overrated as a necessity on a ticket.


    It's not (5.00 / 5) (#115)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:44:02 PM EST
    about having military experience, it's about having a coherent national security policy of which Obama has none right now.

    NS is only overrated during peace time not when there are troops in field. The problem here is that while McCain might not be great, there's the fear that someone like Obama could screw things up even worse.


    Really? (none / 0) (#137)
    by newms on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:04:05 PM EST
    Screw things up more than Bush?

    You know (5.00 / 4) (#156)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:19:06 PM EST
    what? It could happen. I'm old enough to remember Carter vs. Ford. Who could have thought that Carter would screw things up worse than Ford did? Well, it did happen so it can happen again.

    Yep, Obama is nicely (none / 0) (#147)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:12:35 PM EST
    postioned to beat back the "lack of NS creds" charges about an O/KS ticket because of that opposition to Bush's Iraq Disaster.  That "NS cred" from Cheney and Rumsfeld and similar got us into a huge quagmire.

    I wonder if the MCM isn't talking up the NS "necessity" for Obama's VP in order to force him into picking a person far more conservative for VP than he would otherwise have considered, like Sam Nunn for instance, or some general who'll be friendly to defense contractor co's like GE.


    You guys (5.00 / 4) (#153)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:17:40 PM EST
    really don't realize what's coming down the pike do you? The MSM is picking up the NS stuff because the polls are telling them that he has a 30-35 point deficit in this area against McCain.

    Besides the things you and others (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by tigercourse on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:56:55 AM EST
    mentioned, I think it's generally a good idea to pick a VP who brings a state. She doesn't. Edwards had the same problem, so did Lieberman. A VP should be likey to bring a state (even if it's not their own) with them.

    And this doesn't concern Progressives? (5.00 / 6) (#37)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:02:33 PM EST
    I agree with you statement:

    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.

    I'm still waiting for them to realize that they haven't seen him for what he is, The social issues that concern many in the progressive community will not be addressed IMO.

    It does (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:20:28 PM EST
    me. So what's the argument against McCain again?

    I can't believe that kick-a$$ Jane (5.00 / 7) (#40)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:03:20 PM EST
    finds anything attractive about Sebelius in the VP slot, but I don't frequent FDL anymore, so what do I know?

    Well, what I do know is that Obama has painted himself into a very tight corner on this VP thing.  I think he cannot pick anyone who could even remotely be identified as the old guard, because to do so would fly in the face of Obama's "new" politics.  He just can't spend months rejecting the Washington insiders, casting them as people who cannot inspire hope or change, and then put someone on the ticket like Clark or Biden or...Hillary.

    He is, after all, engaged in re-making the Party; on the Wes Clark thread, I called it Extreme Makeover - Democratic Edition; he's building a new party - and his new party wants to look nothing like the old party.

    So, what does that leave him with?  How does he balance his inexperience with experience but not go old guard?  I think it leaves him with having to choose a young governor, and I think that's going to leave a lot of people feeling like he is working without a net.

    Really, I think he's better off running alone and letting the party nominate a VP for him - if that's possible.  Can you imagine how interesting that would be?

    Interesting idea (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:09:48 PM EST
    Letting the party pick for him.  It won't happen because he has to look like he can make tough decisions, but it makes the most sense.  The party picked Obama, an obvious VP choice for any of the other candidates, to be the presidential candidate. So what would they do now?

    I'm thinking that (none / 0) (#206)
    by Grace on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:29:30 PM EST
    he might be able to pick a famous politician's kid -- like Caroline Kennedy or one of RFK's kids.  Someone with a name but little political experience.  

    On second thought, it's kind of "old guard" too, isn't it?  


    What Is It? (5.00 / 7) (#42)
    by JimWash08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:05:13 PM EST
    About Sebelius that has so many media folk and bloggers tripping over themselves in naming her as a Veep nominee?

    She's pretty underwhelming to say the least, and she's got the charisma of a rock. But of course, as someone here mentioned yesterday, why would you (Obama) want to take someone more goodlooking (charismatic) than you to a singles party (the ticket.)

    I actually think Sebelius is Kerry's female-equivalent. Proof? The SOTU Response.

    Jeralyn's 3-pt argument is spot on.

    Frankly, there's really no (other than HRC) who could be really helpful to the ticket. Anyone but HRC would be walking on eggshells.

    The other thing going for (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:15:55 PM EST
    Sibelius is that she has fewer negatives overall than most other potentials, an advantage here over my candidate Hillary whom I don't want to see in that subservient post.  Pick HRC, and watch O's coverage in the MCM turn south, quickly.  

    Sibelius keeps coverage rather surprisingly positive for Dems.

    Experienced, but not in a too-long in DC way, like with Biden et al, which means O can keep his winning Change theme with her and not have to apologize for her.  She also doesn't bring any Yes on AUMF vote with her, as other potentials would, which again doesn't muddy O's fairly principled critique of the Iraq Disaster.

    She also brings leadership, having fought successfully against draconian anti-abortion bills in her state, and has wisely rejected the voter ID trend.   She also has been in the forefront in bringing high-profile KS Repubs over to re-register as Dems -- quite an achievement.  Rather more bold in her leadership, one might note, than O was in the IL state lege.

    Easily one of the least objectionable potentials as we look to August and the anger of the primaries simmers down.


    Wait (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:21:43 PM EST
    til sept. His coverage is going south then anyway.

    But HRC is not a good pick (5.00 / 5) (#71)
    by davnee on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:21:33 PM EST
    if you think this is the most important criteria: "But of course, as someone here mentioned yesterday, why would you (Obama) want to take someone more goodlooking (charismatic) than you to a singles party (the ticket.)"

    If he wants to win, he should pick HRC.  But if he wants it to be all about him, then he's in for a world of hurt, because everything will be about Hillary.  She has more experience and more skill and better policies.  And now, she's more popular with the American people.  All that "he'd have to hire a food taster" crap from the media is not about HRC's venal ambition, it's about Obama's stunning weaknesses as a candidate.  That's the subtext.  He'd spend his entire presidency having to ask for hall passes from the teacher.  And with the Cheney model of the #2 running the show fresh in everyone's mind, I don't think this is an exaggeration.  

    Personally I'd be thrilled if Hillary was the puppet master.  The feminist in me would be bruised that a woman could only hold power in a de facto fashion, but at least I'd feel better about the health and security of our country.

    But Obama doesn't want a puppet master, at least not one that people can see.  He wants his wizards like Daschle and Kerry to be behind the curtain.  I don't think his ego, or his apparent vision to completely transform the Democratic party away from populist ideals and championing of the working class, will permit teaming with Clinton.


    Wizards! (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:39:38 PM EST
    I hope he looks further than that for wizards. Daschle couldn't hold his seat even being Senate Leader. And with Kenndey's illness that isn't going to work for him either. Maybe what he needs is a true progressive on the ticket to secure his base before he worries about expanding it.

    How about Barney Frank? (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:20:38 PM EST
    If he had the guts to do that, I'd change my mind and vote for him.

    Rumor has it (none / 0) (#61)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:17:34 PM EST
    that she is Obama's personal favorite for the job. They will send up her trial balloon regularly until the decision is made.

    I'm a very firm believer in (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:23:41 PM EST
    picking a VP with whom the P feels absolutely comfortable -- especially in the modern P-VP substantive working relationship context.  KS, fits the bill.  Hillary, not so much.

    Great. I agree. (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:31:06 PM EST
    BO should have his own VP choice.

    Then it's a sure defeat in November.  Go BO/KS!!!!!


    With the faith initiative (none / 0) (#194)
    by Molly Pitcher on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:00:56 PM EST
    and the Jonah generation, I cannot bring myself to hope for his victory in Nov.

    Professionals and grownups (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:50:29 PM EST
    work together quite productively, even if they're not BFFs.

    I don't particularly recall that Bill and Al were fabulously compatible, but they sure made that work.

    If she can rise above to campaign for him, for him to reject her because they wouldn't be absolutely comfortable with each indicates he can't rise above.


    This doesn't surprise me. (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by Fabian on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:30:15 PM EST
    I think most nominees pick their veeps on strategic value to an election first and an administration after, but Obama makes me think that he wants "obedience" and loyalty first, and anything else will be considered after those two two criteria has been met.  It's really difficult imagining Hillary fitting into that particular role.  

    I think that Hillary would be a brilliant VP, first mate, go to guy, and so forth.  You tell her what you want done and she'll do her best to get it done.  But she's going to do it her way.


    I am all for (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by LoisInCo on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:07:59 PM EST
    promoting women. But I don't see what she would bring to his plate. Find me a woman who offers him something in the way of an advantage other than just being a woman. Example would be Granholm of Michigan. Of course she is not eligible because she was born in Canada but she would have offered an advantage in Michigan and she is fairly solid candidate. Decent speaker, not a snoozer but not overwhelming either.

    Are there really NO female candidates who could bring something to his ticket (other than Clinton) ? That bothers me.

    Can't see it (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by scribe on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:10:08 PM EST
    because when she was put on to speak in response to Bushie's State of the Union address, she was (to my eyes, anyway) pretty much unwatchably bad.

    I think (and this is solely my opinion) her name's being trotted out solely to be the not-HRC woman on the "short" list.

    4th reason: (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by cpinva on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:11:55 PM EST
    it really doesn't matter who he picks, he's going to get blown out in nov. by mccain. he's become the "toxic" democrat. no one in their right mind, who has any thoughts of a future career, is going to want that spot on his ticket.

    watch the graceful turndowns start, as soon as he actually begins to make overtures.

    btw, and this is kind of OT, sort of, i think. have any of you also received an email from an organization calling itself: justsaynodeal.com? it claims to be a coalition of various clinton supporting groups, united in opposition to sen. obama's nomination. i think.

    I didn't get that e-mail...but (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:33:15 PM EST
    I have my "NO means NO/NObama 08" bumper sticker on my car.

    I will now go to that site.  Thanks for the tip.


    I did and wondered how they got (none / 0) (#94)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:30:59 PM EST
    my email addy. Saw it mentioned here in an earlier thread also.

    I asked the same question (none / 0) (#208)
    by aquarian on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:37:11 PM EST
    I visit a ton of different sites but this is the only site I have ever posted on.  I know that TalkLeft would not use my id in this manner.  I also got a rather targeted phone call from the DNC yesterday.  

    Weren't you the guy (none / 0) (#167)
    by scribe on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:31:32 PM EST
    who told me to bet the mortgage payment on Big Brown to win the Belmont?

    That it was a sure thing?


    not me, i know nothing (none / 0) (#212)
    by cpinva on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:34:52 PM EST
    about horses, or horse racing, except they eat hay and leave a big mess. i prefer cats. you can leave them on their own for a couple of days and, aside from being irked at you, they'll be fine.

    actually, i wasn't shilling for the site, just wondered how they got my e-mail address, and if anyone else had received it.


    I don't find her particularly impressive.... (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:14:35 PM EST
    ...one way or another. If he's not going to have Hillary or Clark she's probably as good as anybody else on his short list. The downside for Obama, though, is that I don't see her as being a particularly great campaigner...more like a nonentity.

    This would be the single biggest slap in the (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by masslib on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:15:29 PM EST
    face to Hillary supporters.  

    I See a Lot Of Posters (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by creeper on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:23:33 PM EST
    complaining about Sibelius' boring response to the SOTU speech.  

    Pretty words do NOT make a competent statesman.  Dems are driving their bus off a cliff constructed of pretty words from fiery speeches.  We have got to get past the stupidity of basing our opinions on what people say and start watching what they do.

    Since I will not under any circumstances vote for Obama in November I don't have a dog in this hunt.  But let me remind you that it was Sibelius who exposed the dangers to states created by Bush commandeering the National Guard and losing so much of its equipment.

    They should put her at the top of the ticket.

    That's a good comment, but it wasn't (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:24:52 PM EST
    that Sebelius's speech bored me that was the problem. I didn't like the message at all. As I recall, it was very Liebermanesque in its call for unity and bipartisanship.

    Hey (5.00 / 6) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:28:29 PM EST
    don't you realize that Obama is the lieberman nomination we never had?

    Does this mean that (5.00 / 4) (#111)
    by janarchy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:41:24 PM EST
    Obama actually has Joementum?

    I simply am befuddled as my name suggests (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:27:03 PM EST
    on the best VP candidate for Obama.  Any woman other than Clinton will definitely be resented.  I really doubt Obama would ever want Clinton so I don't see that happening.  Someone with great military credentials could amplify Obama's short comings.  I guess someone who could absolutely deliver a state that would not be in play and will complement Obama, but not make him look bad.  Not too liberal, but not too conservative either.  

    I don't know anyone like this.

    I am willing to bet.. (5.00 / 6) (#89)
    by JustJennifer on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:29:28 PM EST
    my annual NOW dues that he won't pick a woman.

    Yup. (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:35:57 PM EST
    If he doesn't ask HRC, then why would he ask any other woman?

    It's clear he cares nothing about HRC's voters anyway. Why people continue to believe he will try to reach them is a mystery to me.


    HRC and the VP (none / 0) (#160)
    by John Locke on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:23:43 PM EST
    HRC brings advantages to the ticket, but she also brings perhaps insurmountable disadvantages as well.   A President should have a VP that he/she can trust.  If a VP is even suspected of having a hidden agenda - something to gain by either keeping the President from winning the election or by subtly sabotaging (or at least not helping) the President's chance to have a successful first term, so that the VP can run on an "I told you so" platform in 2012, the President would be a fool to choose that person as a VP.  I doubt Hillary would have been any happier about picking Obama as her running mate than visa versa.

    Also, a VP has a duty particularly not to try to upstage the President at every opportunity.  And, Obama can not be sure either Hillary or (more likely) Bill wouldn't do just that whenever the chance presents itself.  We have had 8 years of Cheney not only upstaging Bush, but overriding him and virtually running the country.  This is distructive, and any possibility of it in a Democratic administration would be undermining of the President's authority.

    Also, the vetting process for a VP candidate will require Bill to open up his books on who funded his library and foundatation, and what they might have received in return - or could expect to receive from a Clinton return to the White House.  This is a non-waivable requirement and even McCain's wife Cindy recently was forced to reveal her personal tax returns despite her extreme relunctance.  I personally doubt that Bill is prepared to open up those two closets and have all the skeletons fall out.  So, no VP nod for Hillary - and it isn't Obama who has the final say in that, its her husband.

    The Vice Presidency is a weak platform to run for a subsequent Presidency in modern times. Just ask Richard Nixon, Hubert Humphrey, Gerald Ford, and Al Gore. The few who succeeded, like George H. W. Bush and Harry Truman, were doomed to be mediocre one-term presidents.  

    There are also a variety of positions in an Obama administration that would give Hillary far more power and prestige than VP. She could end up as Secretary for Health and Human Services, Secretary of State, or possibly Attorney General, with a clear path to the Supreme Court in the future.

    Even returning to the Senate in a Democratic administration would be an enhanced power position - as long as she and her most fanatical supporters were not seen as trying to undermine the Democratic ticket.

    The two worst dangers to any future political career for HRC are 1) John McCain wins the presidency and HRC and her supporters are seen as a spoiler (like Ralph Nader in 2000), or 2) Obama wins, but it is clear that he has won despite resistance and/or lukewarm cooperation of HRC and her supporters.   Either way, she will find her return to the Senate a not very pleasant one, and the number of her enemies within the Democratic ranks will far outweigh her dwindling supporters.


    Are you saying that Hillary's whole future (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:34:57 PM EST
    depends on us all being good kids and handling Obama oh so tenderly? You're candidate sounds so weak when you set up situations as you have. You might want to work on presenting ideas with out all the subtle and not so subtle digs/threats.

    Threat of Hillary running in 2012 if she's his VP (5.00 / 2) (#207)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:35:30 PM EST
    That's a fairly ridiculous argument.  The one way he can co-opt her out of any challenge in 2012 for certain is to make her his VP.  No one would be crazy enough to run against an incumbent of their own party, no matter how spectacularly bad they are doing at 2nd-term election time.

    Vetting Bill, Vetting Bill - this is another red herring too.  For petessake, have people already forgotten all the hoo-ha Obama raised because Hillary hadn't opened up her tax returns?  Every time he was criticized on any point, health care, FP, the economy, the response was "But Hillary hasn't made her tax returns public!"  And then she did and the silence was deafening.  Do you really think the Clinton's at this point have anything to hide financially?  They know every time they buy so much as a soda it'll be examined in forensic detail.

    This is just the Reader's Digest Condensed version of all the anti-Hillary tpm we've seen.

    And it's also why he's just not going to offer it to her.  No one would be pushing these points so hard unless his strategy was to try to weaken her position so that he doesn't have to offer it to her.


    Your arguments miss the point, which is that ... (5.00 / 2) (#210)
    by cymro on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:09:16 PM EST
    ... people commenting here support Hillary because they believe, as I do, that Hillary was by far the most qualified Democratic candidate for the Presidency.

    Hillary now saying and doing the right things politically, supporting Obama, does nothing to alter the fact that Hillary was by far the most qualified Democratic candidate for the Presidency.  

    Nothing Hillary says to her supporters will alter the fact that, in their minds, Hillary was by far the most qualified Democratic candidate for the Presidency.

    Nothing you say will alter the fact that, in the minds of 18 million voters, Hillary was by far the most qualified Democratic candidate for the Presidency.

    I could go on, but you get the point.

    So, if the Democrats run a ticket that does not include Hillary, they risk losing the support of some percentage of the 18 million voters who still know that Hillary was by far the most qualified Democratic candidate for the Presidency.

    I am not advocating "resistance" or "lukewarm cooperation". I am simply pointing out a very simple truth about the attitudes of the electorate, a truth that no amount of clever argument can alter. I believe this will be borne out by polls.

    Remember the old proverb: You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Well, there are about 18 million horses out there, and Obama now has to figure out how to corral them.


    Well, it is a wonder (none / 0) (#190)
    by Molly Pitcher on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:56:07 PM EST
    that JFK chose LBJ, then.  I can recall some folks speculating that the Texas pols were 'behind' the shooting.  But weren't the AA's rather lucky that LBJ was there to step in and promote the Civil Rights Act?

    Oh: lukewarm cooperation of HRC
    so that's the adjective you'd use for her speech?


    Vetting Bill is a fake issue (none / 0) (#205)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:26:11 PM EST
    For goodness sake, the man's wife was running for President. Don't you think the Clintons knew that Bill's finances would be scrutinized? Don't you think these very politically smart people planned for this? If this is the deal breaker for putting Hillary on the ticket, then then is no reason to not make her VP.

    This is a stupid, fake issue.


    The dubious value of experience (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by John Locke on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:03:13 PM EST
    Seems to me that the question of prior foreign policy experience is often used as a smokescreen.

    Recall that, when Bill Clinton ran for President in 1992, his only political experience was as a governor of a small, mostly rural, Southern state.  He had NO foreign policy experience and NO national economic or domestic policy experience.

    He was running against George H. W. Bush, a sitting president who had 4 years in the Oval Office, 8 years as Vice President under Ronald Reagan, experience running the CIA, a tour as the United States representative to the United Nations, Chief of the U.S. Liaison office to China, and a two-term member of the U.S. House of Representatives.

    For all his youth, Obama has more foreign policy experience going into the election than Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan combined (we'll leave Dubya out of this discussion for obvious reasons).

    Experience is not, in and of itself, a virtue.  It is in large part what one learns from experience and what one accomplishes while acquiring experience that matters.  Knowledge of the complexities and histories of foreign regions, which Obama and Clinton both took into the election are far more important than, say, John McCain's experience, which is not tempered by the slightest hint of knowledge about the history and cultures of the rest of the world, the complexities of the issues facing the next president or even the current situations, as evinced by his astonishing ignorance and misstatements about Iraq and the Islamic world in general.

    The American voters understood this better than the pundits and candidates when polls showed only 9% thought experience was a major consideration in their electoral choices.

    As for me, I'll take knowledge, intelligence, wisdom, the ability and willingness to assess a wide variety of viewpoints and policy options, the ability to assemble a strong team of skilled experts and manage them effectively, and the ability to synthesize their varied viewpoints and make strong judgments and decisions before I would worry about experience - which might be very constructive, or, just as likely (if not more so given the past 8 years), might be misguided, misinformed, and horribly destructive.

    Did Obama measure up to your suggested standards? (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:35:06 PM EST
    I don't think so:

    For all his youth, Obama has more foreign policy experience going into the election than Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan combined

    Obama's more inexperienced in foreign policy coming out of the gate.

    I agree with this part, though:

    Experience is not, in and of itself, a virtue.  It is in large part what one learns from experience and what one accomplishes while acquiring experience that matters

    However, Obama hasn't shown this virtue; quite the opposite. He has disturbingly shown his unwillingness to learn from his mistakes. Additional character issues present other obstacles to being able to learn on the fly.

    As for me, I'll take knowledge, intelligence, wisdom, the ability and willingness to assess a wide variety of viewpoints and policy options ...

    Nope, didn't see that even a bit in Sen Obama during the last few months of campaigning. I don't dispute his intelligence, but I see a considerable ego blocking his abilit to accept wide viewpoints.

    I saw a lot of active wisdom, balance and discernment of herself and others from Sen Clinton though.


    Bill Clinton at Georgetown U.: (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by Molly Pitcher on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:50:05 PM EST
    While earning his Bachelor of Science degree in International Affairs he worked as an intern in the office of Arkansas Senator J. William Fulbright. There he learned how government worked and what it was like to be a politician. He admired Senator Fulbright for his accomplishments and beliefs.

    When Bill Clinton finished college in 1968, he won a Rhodes Scholarship, which allows select students to study at Oxford University in England. While at Oxford, he studied government....

    You really think?: For all his youth, Obama has more foreign policy experience going into the election than Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan combined (we'll leave Dubya out of this discussion for obvious reasons).


    How does he have more FP (none / 0) (#161)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:24:00 PM EST
    experience than BC?

    Okay, I'll bite (none / 0) (#198)
    by standingup on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:05:11 PM EST
    What foreign policy experience does Obama have?

    Governor Sebelius (5.00 / 0) (#139)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:04:23 PM EST
    It would be nice to see a woman on the ticket but I would not vote for a woman on the ticket just because she is a woman. That is why I can say Hillary had the experience and other qualities that I admired.

    I don't know that much about Governor Sebelius. I only saw her once doing the reponse to Pres Bush. I didn't have a feeling one way or the other. When I first saw Obama speak at the convention, I really did see him as one of the future leaders within the party. I saw him as VP and then on to the top spot. I figured he just needed some experience, time, and knowledge. Well, he skipped a rung or two and I still do not believe he is ready yet. I feel that he is a combination of many mentors and that is why we can not define him as to which way he will rule.

    I believe there should be someone on the ticket as the VP which would complement him and be someone he could lean on and be an asset rather than a yes person. Al Gore, IMO, was a great Vice President. He would have made a great President if given the chance. He was ready.

    I hope Gov Sebelius is not his choice because she is a woman. That would not placate Clinton women or this one at least.  

    Excuse me for pointing out (5.00 / 7) (#154)
    by shoephone on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:18:05 PM EST
    uncomfortable truths that Obama supporters won't like but.. Sebelius is DLC. Since when is that acceptable? I thought Hillary was demonized for her DLC history. But... for Sebelius it's okay?

    Hypocrisy knows no bounds. I can't wait to see Kos, TPM and Arianna defending it.

    Hypocrisy knows no bound indeed (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:29:00 PM EST
    And inconvenient truths shall be ignored.

    You probably didn't get the memo... (5.00 / 3) (#178)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:43:45 PM EST
    History is a rather fluid thing where Obama is concerned - what happened in people's pasts is...irrelevant, or not what he thought.  Or something.  Unless it's really, really good and then he's in it up to his eyeballs.

    I'm sure all Sebelius has to do is tell people that her DLC memberdship was more like being a member of the Smithsonian, except without the magazine...


    Oh please. (5.00 / 0) (#162)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:24:28 PM EST
    You were at the Confluence earlier today.

    You ask a question that has already been answered.

    And you're OT.

    Jim Johnson just stepped down from (5.00 / 4) (#176)
    by bjorn on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:39:27 PM EST
    the VP committee

    So much... (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Marco21 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:44:59 PM EST
    for not vetting the vetters.

    Is there a statement from Obama? (none / 0) (#184)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:49:15 PM EST
    imagine the reverse situation (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by lilagirl on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:57:59 PM EST
    Hillary won the nomination and doesn't want Obama on the ticket (because let's face it he would upstage her) so she picks some other black politician to appease the African American community? How well do you think that would go over?

    Women don't need to be insulted by this transparent form of pandering. If Obama picks a woman he should picked the one who's most qualified, most able to unify the party, and the one, frankly, who's earned it.

    It's a great idea (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by akaEloise on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:20:53 PM EST
    Because Finlandia is awesome!
    Oops....wrong Si/Sebelius.  Seriously, she just seems way too young, inexperienced, and unfamiliar with Washington to me. I know a lot of Obama bloggers think young, inexperienced, and unfamiliar with Washington are good reasons to vote for someone, but I don't think this will fly in the general election.  

    Why do you think Obama won't choose a woman? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:01:22 PM EST

    I agree that Obama will not pick a woman as his running mate, but I'm curious to see if your reasoning is the same as mine.

    will definitely keep those Hillary supporters on the "right" side.  I believe Obama and the MSM thinks PUMA backers will bury the hatchet and vote Democrat in November.  If he chooses a woman veep, that will seal those that cringe to think they can cast their vote for McCain to cross back over to cast their vote for Obama.  In all reality, I think ppl have made up their minds.  PPL are starting to tune out the biased media and override their consciences and the guilt the DNC has put on Hillary supporters.  I think it adds fuel to the flame.  The more Hillary bashing , the more "slap in the face" actions Obama does, the worse it gets.  His chances are gone!  He has taken too long to select a Veep.  The idea of Obama asking Hillary as a possibility, is thrown out the window.  

    Is Gary Locke politically active now? (none / 0) (#73)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:22:43 PM EST
    He would be an interesting choice.
    Very wonky, smart, progressive (as I recall).

    Gary Locke (none / 0) (#122)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:50:33 PM EST
    was the Washington co-chairman of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton's bid for president committee. He's a good guy. Interesting choice.

    Gary Locke is a lobbying shill for corporations (none / 0) (#150)
    by shoephone on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:14:25 PM EST
    He gave Boeing the biggest tax subsidy in state history -- some of it by secret agreement that WA State legislators didn't even find out about until they read it in the newspaper.

    Locke is a non-starter for me. Cannot stand him and cannot say that strongly enough.


    My bet's still Sam Nunn. (none / 0) (#74)
    by JDM in NYC on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:23:03 PM EST
    I think he will pick someone analogous to Cheney- older, gravitas, and someone who won't be seen as a potential successor. If they're not seen as a successor, then it won't matter so much if they upstage Obama- they won't be competition. And he's from Georgia.
    I don't like Sam Nunn at all, of course, but then I don't like Obama either.

    Oh great.. and Nunn probably would be (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:23:47 PM EST
    interested in being the Fourth Branch.

    If Nunn is VP I don't think I can vote Democratic (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by Coral on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:16:26 PM EST
    I'll go third party. I loathe Nunn.

    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#126)
    by sociallybanned on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:54:26 PM EST
    Good Prediction!

    I still think it will be Clark.  It will defintely be a quid pro quo.  Anyone retire lately so they can take a VP slot?  Clark?

    I think he'll pick... (none / 0) (#130)
    by Marco21 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:58:20 PM EST
    A VP with a military background to take those issues   from McCain.

    Sebelius is effective, but hardly electrifying.

    I'm growing to like the Sebelius idea (none / 0) (#169)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:32:27 PM EST
    It might bring Ohio in.  Her father, Jack Gilligan was a very very popular Democratic governor in the early '70's.  Mark Shields of tv pundity fame was his chief of staff.  Maybe he can give her lessons on how not to be a stiff.

    As for the experience issue.  On balance I don't think voters care, Shrub would not be president.

    Yes, uncledad, opinions (none / 0) (#174)
    by shoephone on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:35:47 PM EST
    often begin with the words "I think", just like that person's comment did.

    Get a grip or surely you will be tossed out of here by the site owner.

    Oh, dear lord, please no! (none / 0) (#182)
    by miriam on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:45:23 PM EST
    What does Sibelius bring to this ticket other than femaleness?  She's an absolutely horrendous speaker and has all the charisma of a caterpillar.  Her State of the Union response was cliche-ridden and Pollyannish and just plain awful.  Obama has a smorgasbord of candidates to chose from and to pick a relatively inexperienced female would be a slug to the midsection of Hillary supporters. And it's asking way too much of voters to go for two inexperienced people as chief executive, commander-in-chief.

    Wes Clark is the best fit for Obama by far. Will go so far as to say if Obama is smart enough to pick Clark I'll vote for him.

    who are Talkleft's preferred (none / 0) (#196)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:02:37 PM EST
    VP's?  I still have HRC first, Easley second and Bayh has moved to third replacing Wesley Clark.  Curious as to who would be the top choices..

    VEEP will make or break winning (none / 0) (#211)
    by fctchekr on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:10:15 PM EST
    Because Obama is running on shaky ground as someone who makes it all up as he goes..everything he does is like reaching for straws..

    Webb is too Confederate; Strictland said no; Edwards and Richardson would be perceived as a betrayal to Clinton loyalists, who wants a VP with a name that sounds like ointment; frankly it doesn't matter, because the air will be let out of the bag for Clinton supporters when he doesn't pick her.

    The polls indicate that unless one of them gets bumped big, VP choice could make the difference between winning and losing. In case you haven't looked Nadar has his biggest slice of the pie in all his attempts at the Oval Office yet.  

    Female VP out? (none / 0) (#213)
    by lentinel on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:20:17 PM EST
    I can see your point that Obama will seek a military type to bolster his militant image. It is also consistent with Obama to look for someone who is not a progressive. What else is new?

    What is glaring to me is that you say, "... I do not think Obama will pick a female for his running mate."

    So you think he will eliminate 50% of the human race (the better 50% in my opinion) based on gender?

    All the above does not speak well about our nominee. But if you really feel he would not consider a women as his running mate, that is shocking.

    Why do you think that would be true?

    Here's a quote from Obama himself (none / 0) (#215)
    by illissius on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:00:55 PM EST
    which says it's not going to be your second reason:

    "I would like somebody who knows about a bunch of stuff that I'm not as expert on," he replied. "I think a lot of people assume that might be some kind of military thing to make me look more commander-in-chief-like. Ironically, this is an area -- foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain."