home

Veepstakes: Obama and Sebelius, Part II

This is a follow-up to my post last night on why I think the Obama campaign is floating Tim Kaine as a smokescreen in the Veepstakes and the frontrunner is Kathleen Sebelius.

Here's the latest veep sweepstakes numbers from 538.com. Law Prof Michael Froomkin at Discourse.Net says the Bayh numbers may be misleading. Froomkin thinks, as do I, that Sebelius may get the nod from Obama.

Why does Obama need Kaine as a smokescreen? To make Sebelius more palatable to Hillary supporters who will be more than a bit upset at his choosing a woman other than Hillary. [More...]:

It's the same theory behind the five stages of grief, 1. Denial and Isolation, 2. Anger 3. Bargaining. 4. Depression 5. Acceptance.

Hillary supporters are just coming out of the anger phase. They realize Obama is going to be the nominee and, as loyal Democrats, have been trying to get to a place where they can accept him. One of Obama's dilemmas has been that Hillary supporters aren't ready to accept a woman other than Hillary for the ticket. They view it as a slap in the face. The only way Obama can pick a woman other than Hillary is if the alternative is worse

So, Obama tosses out Kaine's name as a serious contender, knowing he's a deal breaker for women. Kaine is their worst case scenario. The prospect of Kaine makes them feel adrift. Is this even their party? To avoid Kaine, he’s betting they are willing to move to stage 3 and the bargaining table.

Obama is hoping given time, once women process and come to grips with the fact that the VP candidate is not going to be Hillary, they will accept it. Then the issue becomes who can he pick? Knowing Kaine will scare them to death, he bets that . anyone else, even another woman, would be a relief by comparison.

In the next few weeks, should Obama announces his running mate is Sebelius, he is counting on that sigh of relief from Hillary supporters: he didn't completely abandon them. He could have slammed them harder. He could have picked Kaine or Hagel. By picking Sebelius, he's throwing them a bone, and after contemplating the prospect of Kaine, they may just be hungry enough to take it. I think I am.

I like Kathleen Sebelius. She isn't Hillary or even close to being in Hillary's league in terms of experience, but that ship has sailed for 2008. Here's her record and position on issues. Sebelius is pro-choice despite her personal opposition as a Catholic to abortion. (More here.) She's also anti-death penalty. On immigration, while she talks tough on enforcement, she also supported legislation allowing children of undocumented immigrants to receive in-state tuition rates at colleges and criticized Bush for unilaterally deciding to send the National Guard to the border. She opposes a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. She supports Second Amendment rights. She vetoed the voter id law in her state. She's good on health care, including for seniors.

She's also good for the ticket since she’s obviously acceptable to Republicans having been twice elected Governor of the normally Republican state of Kansas. In other words, she might even take votes from McCain and put Obama over the top (although I believe he's a shoo-in at this point anyway.)

As for Obama's outreach to evangelicals and independents, many of whom are Republicans disgusted by Bush and believers that McCain is no different, they too get a bone with Sebelius. Her husband, Magistrate Judge Gary Sebelius, comes from a prominent Republican family. His father, Keith Sebelius, was a popular Kansas congressman. He's a staunch Republican. Maybe they will be satisfied that their voices will be heard, if only in private.

On a lighter note, One more thing about Judge Sebelius:

Judge Sebelius is reported to have a wonderful sense of humor and a great love of music. His record/CD collection is among the finest in Kansas. He downplays his role as advisor to his governor-wife, and prefers the title "First Dude" of Kansas.

I wonder if that's where their son got his sense of humor, which I don't find very funny but he's only 23 so I'll give him a pass -- John Sebelius created the board game "Don't Drop the Soap" about life in prison.

"Fight your way through 6 different exciting locations in hopes of being granted parole," the site says. "Escape prison riots in The Yard, slip glass into a mob boss' lasagna in the Cafeteria, steal painkillers from the nurse's desk in the Infirmary, avoid being cornered by the Aryans in the Shower Room, fight off Latin Kings in Gang War, and try not to smoke your entire stash in The Hole."

Another factor that makes me think Obama will pick Sebelius: When Obama first came on the national scene in 2004 giving his much heralded speech at the Democratic Convention in Boston, he was all about multi-culturalism and being the child of a poor, Kenyan father. Over the course of the campaign, he began to stress his ties to his mother's side of the family and his roots to Kansas. Obama wants to be viewed as a Middle American. But he also wants to maintain his image as the candidate promising change. What better way to do that than to pick a woman who has not been entrenched in the politics of Washington, who has taken a progressive stand on issues and who is from the heartland, happily married to a long-standing Republican? It's his "we're neither red states nor blue states just the United States" platform in action.

Sebelius also fits with Obama's strategy of focusing on unregistered voters and giving them a reason to vote. They expect a different kind of ticket than they've been offered in the past. I don't think either Obama and Kaine or Obama and Bayh, is exciting -- at least not enough to get potential voters off their duff and go to a voting booth. On the other hand, two non-Washington insiders, one an African American and the other a woman with progressive stands on issues who hasn't been dissected to death by the media, could be viewed as a breath of fresh air by unregistered, apathetic voters. They might actually be getting something different this time.

The downside: The Democratic ticket becomes a double-dose of inexperience at the national level. Neither Obama nor Sebelius have enough experience. But when reality sets in, the bottom line will be, contrary to what I repeatedly said and believed during the entire primary campaign, the devil you know actually is worse than the devil you don't. I'm now ready to buy that pig in a poke. A candidate like McCain with bad foreign policy and domestic views is worse than a candidate with good views who may need a little on the job training. Obama and Sebelius are a far better choice than McCain and another four years of Republican rule.

So I am reversing my prediction from June. I think Sebelius is the most likely choice right now. And I'm okay with it.

< FL, OH, PA Polls | Court Rules Bush Aides Not Immune From Subpoenas >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Uh, Sebelius is NOT more palatable than Kaine (5.00 / 23) (#1)
    by masslib on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:10:22 PM EST
    to this Hillary supporter.  It's a slap in the face.  It would be right up there with picking Richardson.  If Hillary had been selected by the SD's and choose not to ask Obama but a less qualified african american man, how do you think that would go over with the Obama supporters?

    That would be true. . . (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:25:45 PM EST
    if you consider the VP spot as the "womens' spot" on the ticket.  But if you consider it the "Midwest governors' spot" then Sebelius might make sense.

    Put it another way.  If Obama is intent on selecting a Midwestern or purple state governor for VP (which I think he is, and probably ought to be) do you think people who fit that criteria who are women should be excluded from the pool simply because they're not Clinton?

    [ Parent ]

    Well, I have other reasons I don't think she's a (5.00 / 12) (#42)
    by masslib on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:34:12 PM EST
    good pick as I say above.  But voting isn't just logical.  it's also emotional.  And, Hillary supporters wanted to make history with her this year.  So I do think it's hard to justify another, less qualified, woman this time around.  The reality is there would be little talk about a woman VP if Hillary had not accomplished what she did in the primary.  But the same goes for Hillary.  I would have expected her to ask Obama.  Indeed, she promoted the "unity ticket".

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry...I'm not "coming out"... (5.00 / 13) (#38)
    by Shainzona on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:31:23 PM EST
    of the anger stage so this nomination would only create fury for me.

    She is not qualified - as a male or female - to be VP if one of the credentials is to also be able to step in as POTUS if required.

    Seriously - Sebelius should then be in a position to run for POTUS after Obama....never never never.    

    [ Parent ]

    considering the fact we have so many (5.00 / 7) (#47)
    by hellothere on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:35:22 PM EST
    qualified people in the democratic party and none with the degree of qualifications i think are deseprately needed will probably be on the tickets just stuns me and leaves me saying "how do they expect to win and then what do they think they'll do afterwards." not much is the answer in my view for both questions.

    [ Parent ]
    I may be stuck in the depression stage (5.00 / 8) (#112)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:24:13 PM EST
    and never make it to Acceptance.

    'Better than Kaine or Hagel' is not going to be a big comfort.

    [ Parent ]

    Sebelius pales in comparison (both (5.00 / 13) (#141)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:47:05 PM EST
    literally and figuratively) to Hillary.  The dems are bound and determined to shoot themselves in the foot.  Seems all we can do is let them.

    [ Parent ]
    Not a fair comparison (2.33 / 6) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:13:12 PM EST
    50 % of the population is female, we are not a minority. And please don't start race-baiting or your comments will be deleted.

    [ Parent ]
    Excuse me? Race bating? Are you kidding me? (5.00 / 21) (#6)
    by masslib on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:16:41 PM EST
    That's not even logical.  It would be an insult to the tremendous barrier Obama had broken.  She would not do that.  She would ask Obama.  Likewise, if he is to select a woman, he should go with the one that broke the gender barrier, and who is best qualified.  It's extremely insulting that you would say that is "race baiting".

    [ Parent ]
    masslib I think what she is getting at (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:22:03 PM EST
    is that the pool of qualified women is SIGNIFICANTLY larger. Hillary is the MOST qualified, not the ONLY qualified woman. Also, Sebelius endorsed Obama early on.  

    [ Parent ]
    Big deal. Hillary is far more qualified, and (5.00 / 21) (#27)
    by masslib on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:26:26 PM EST
    the reality is we haven't had an african american man or a woman as President or vice president.  Picking a woman less qualified than Hillary to reach that historic milestone after she basically tied Obama in the primary would be a huge slap in the face to Hillary's supporters.  Likewise, if Hillary were the nominee and went with a less qualified african american man it would be a slap in the face to his supporters.  There is nothing "race baiting" about it.  It's about respecting what these two have achieved, and what their supporters have done to make that happen.

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly (5.00 / 15) (#114)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:24:52 PM EST
    Again, it is saying to women "See we like women, just not the one you women want."  It's that paternalistic attitude that will kill it.  If Hillary had not won 50% of the vote, it would be different.  If Dean and the DLC had not played politics with MI and FL it would be different.  But to fill the slot with a woman other than THE WOMAN who gave women hope for so many years; the woman who has PROVEN over and over and over her ability to lead, to speak out for the poor and the disenfranchised whether her words were directed at China or at Bush, is a damn slap in the face, thumbing of the nose to the women of the democratic party who have been working our arses off for democrats for four decades.  We again have been denied by the men of the DLC.  They do it one more time and I will bolt from the party and take along all the women who I have been encouraging to NOT drop out with me.

    [ Parent ]
    And she gave a terrible response (5.00 / 5) (#103)
    by BernieO on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:14:15 PM EST
    to Bush's State of the Union. It was soooo boring. That was the first time I ever saw the woman. The party gave her the national stage and she blew it. Flat intonation, no emotion and her face looked frozen (botox?).
    Check it out on youtube.

    [ Parent ]
    I remember that (5.00 / 4) (#115)
    by daria g on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:24:55 PM EST
    Waaaau, it was unbelievably flat, I couldn't watch.  It just looked like she didn't care, that the party didn't care.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't want the thread devolving into (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:23:46 PM EST
    race-based arguments based on speculation as to what Hillary would do in a non-comparable situation. You've made your position clear. Are there any  reasons you don't like Sebelius or think she would not be a good choice for Obama?

    [ Parent ]
    Hmmm (5.00 / 14) (#50)
    by nell on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:35:53 PM EST
    Well, at a purely rational level, I suppose I don't know enough about KS to have a well-formed opinion. I did watch her SOTU address and I was not impressed - it was so painfully boring I could barely get through it. But I don't know enough about her otherwise to say that I absolutely could not support her.

    But people are not always rational, and I think it would be a slap in the face, not as much to Hillary, because we all know she will be fine, she will soar one way or another, but to her supporters. I know I don't have to tell Jeralyn or BTD about how horrendously Hillary was treated during the primary, just horrendously. And for many of us who were shocked and surprised by the sexist insults thrown her way (or even subject to some of the most sexist name calling ourselves while knocking on doors for Clinton, etc), her treatment continues to be a source of frustration and anger, regardless of whether we will eventually suck it up and vote for Obama or not.

    Given the way she was treated during the campaign, I think it really would add insult to injury. We wanted this woman because she was the BEST qualified, and whether fair or not, I know a small part of me feels like Hillary is the one who has earned the right to make history, at least this time around...

    So while it may not be a totally rational reaction, I know it would elevate my level of disgust with the Obama campaign further. There has just been a general sense that he doesn't really respect Hillary, and this would certainly add to that sentiment...

    [ Parent ]

    I so hear you and feel the same (5.00 / 7) (#123)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:31:29 PM EST
    I really thought by now I would be over the anger and disappointment and to my surprise I'm not.  I want to vote for Obama and probably will.  But if he picks a woman other than Hillary, I don't think I can.  
    Yes I will be accused of being sexist, and stopping women in their tracks but I will DISAGREE 100%.  KS, after her speaking, and coming off (to me anyone as the appeasing type) seems to be a step backward.

    If Obama is not secure enough to put Hillary on the ticket then he is not a man I could vote for.

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah (4.90 / 22) (#178)
    by nell on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:22:02 PM EST
    but it isn't even about "getting over it," I mean what is there to get over? That she was not selected? Yeah, okay, I'm "over that," I "get it." Whatever. I believe it is a huge loss to this nation and I am filled with pangs of regret when I see her on the tv,etc, but I have moved on. That's life, you win some and you lose some. She will be fine, of that I have no doubt. She will continue to be a fighter.

    But I will NEVER get over the way she was treated, NEVER, and that isn't about me wanting to be some bitter dead-ender or whatever, it is about injustice. You don't just see the kind of injustice and discrimination perpetuated during this primary and "get over it." Not gonna happen, not now, not ever. I fully expect to tell my kids and grandkids the truth about how the first viable female candidate for the presidency was figuratively kicked and spit upon on a daily basis.

    And, I guess, in that vein, that raises another problem I have with KS...though I don't recall her ever participating directly in the sexist Clinton bashing, she, along with the rest of the spineless fools in the DNC, never stood up once to say anything. I guess I will hold that against any VP candidate, male or female, if he or she was not a Clinton supporter during the primary, but somehow her silence stings more because she is a woman. She has been there and she did nothing...

    [ Parent ]

    what you should have said then (5.00 / 8) (#113)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:24:33 PM EST
    is that the comment was off topic or race-based as you did here.  You have a tendancy to quickly label comments as race-baiting that in no way resemble race-baiting at all.

    [ Parent ]
    She has no foreign policy experience. No (4.83 / 18) (#35)
    by masslib on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:29:36 PM EST
    national policy experience.  She's an Obama loyalist and I think it best to round out the apparatus by picking a Hillary supporter.  I don't think she does anything for him electorally.  

    [ Parent ]
    those are all good points (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:32:05 PM EST
    I agree with them. Thanks.

    [ Parent ]
    Now that's the stuff we should be debating. (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:36:28 PM EST
    Thanks masslib for providing some substance. You got me thinking...

    [ Parent ]
    First, this is going to be an election (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by brodie on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:50:56 PM EST
    about the Republican Recession, and not with FP at the top of people's list of concerns.  In fact, the economic situation is likely to continue to get worse as the year wears on, so a late 11th hour October Surprise scenario is much less likely to get traction for Rs this time.

    Second, picking a VP to "shore up" the P candidate's FP shortcomings is a much overblown alleged necessity -- mostly trumpeted a while back by the usual MCM suspects.  In fact, what such a pick could just as easily do is unintentionally underscore the fact of the nominee's lack of experience in the FP area.

    Third, with the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld "experienced" crowd running roughshod over the US FP in the last 8 yrs, the notion of "experience" (as HRC should have recognized) is now a much devalued political commodity this cycle.  Change easily trumps Experience, as McCain will soon discover.

    As for balancing the ticket with a Hillary backer, that might be ideal, but it's not always possible.  And it's not at all unheard of for the nominee to reward early major backers with a Veep pick.  That sort of is one of the unwritten incentives for pols to get on board early with a candidate.

    Picking someone who supported you in the primaries is also good insurance for having a loyal P-VP team once in office -- something which, famously, didn't happen when JFK was forced to have Lyndon on the ticket, though Reagan-Poppy is a counterexample.  (Well, the Rs tend to get in line and march a little more easily than Dems ...)

    [ Parent ]

    After the way that Obama has handled his (5.00 / 12) (#87)
    by Aqua Blue on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:58:57 PM EST
    campaign, I think of him with the same distain that I hold many Republicans.

    If Obama takes over the Democratic Party, the nation is doomed...because he has been bought.

    As a lifelong Democrat who has voted a straight Democratic ticket for more years than I care to admit, I am disturbed at a "soul" level.  The foundation of our nation is cracked and fascism is snuffing out our Democracy.   I do not see Obama as the answer, but part of the problem.

    [ Parent ]

    I disagree (5.00 / 12) (#120)
    by ccpup on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:29:07 PM EST
    The American People voted for Change in 2006 and placed the Dems in control of both the House and Senate.  What they got in return was more of the same DC b.s. and several strongly worded letters to the Bush Administration that went ignored when they weren't being laughed at.

    As for Change trumping Experience, if that were, in fact, true, Obama would have won CA, NJ, OH, PA, NH and IN.  He didn't.  And truth is that as February ended and we rolled into March, Obama had hit his peak -- evidenced by him rolling up his delegate count during mid-February in Red States the Dems have no chance of winning in the GE -- and stumbled from Primary to Primary against an opponent who wasn't as well-funded and had the Media screaming for her to drop out until the DNC dragged him across the finish line.

    But the Dem voters had chosen and rewarded Hillary with win after win after win after win at a time when logic says she should have been losing.

    Furthermore, people actually DID have Experience as a strong criteria for their preferred candidate which can be seen in the current polls.  The voters just aren't that into Obama and still don't believe he has the experience to handle the Big Issues.  If they were, his numbers would not be as frighteningly anemic as they are.

    To have a female with scant National or Foreign Policy experience as his VP pick will not only be a slap in the face to those who were impressed time and again -- and I'm talking the American People who watched the debates in record numbers and not just the Dem Primary voters -- with Hillary's knowledge and grasp of complex foreign policy issues, it will also be a huge FU to these demographics which may be still open-minded about Obama now, but will turn away once they realize he just "doesn't get it" and that his arrogance and political immaturity prevent him from choosing what may be best for the Country, for Us.

    People will openly ask "How can he NOT want Hillary on the ticket and go for this milquetoast Hillary Lite instead?"  Probably not the response he's hoping to get.

    [ Parent ]

    And she does not have (5.00 / 6) (#118)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:26:51 PM EST
    the assertive personality women want representing them.  The sugar and spice and everything nice polite, know your place as a woman meme will just anger women like me.  Been there, done that for most of my life....no way will I accept it again. I want the strongest woman possible to make history.  And Selibus is not it.

    [ Parent ]
    2 Kinds of Assertiveness (5.00 / 4) (#165)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:10:11 PM EST
    I believe there are 2 types of assertiveness - the "quiet" kind, where people do what they think is right, but don't so public approval for their actions; based on Jeralyn's bio, it seems that Sibelius has this kind of assertiveness; the 2nd type is the type involving public assertion of one's positions, attempts to get others behind you by speaking out in public, etc. Hillary and others have this, but Sibelius does not. Does not make Sibelius "unassertive," just, perhpas both less and more effective in certain ways.  I agree that she Sibelius may not make a good VP candidate, as her public-speaking style is lacking in ways others have already pointed out.  
    And then there is the slap in the face to Hillary and supporters.  If the Obama campaign is proceeding on the bases Jeralyn describes, then the campaign seems to be assuming that support for Hillary is less principled, less ardent, etc. than it actually is, and that the supporters can be counted on eventually to fall in line because "they have no where else to go."  As a strategy to unify Democrats in order to win the election, I think this is misguided, as it will not achieve the desired effect. On the other hand, I received an e-mail earlier today indicating that Hillary has been chosen to give the keynote address at the Convention.  What do you think will be the impact of this?

    [ Parent ]
    Good points, masslib! (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by JoeCHI on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:34:03 PM EST
    ...and i'm sorry that others accused you of being a racist.  I tried to defend you, but my comments were deleted.  ;)

    [ Parent ]
    Women aren't considered a minority group (5.00 / 4) (#146)
    by angie on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:52:53 PM EST
    I expect better from you Jeralyn -- the fact that women are more then 50% of the population does not erase the history of the world that women have been oppressed by & not afforded the same rights and opportunities as men -- it wasn't that long ago in this country that women were little more then chattel (and there are plenty parts of the world were we still are) --heck, we didn't even have the right to vote in this country until 1920 -- today  girls are NOT encouraged to go into math & science fields in the same way boys are -- so to imply, as you do here, that the sheer NUMBER of us means there are more "well qualified women" to choose from is patently unfair and, in reality, just plain wrong.

    [ Parent ]
    You missed the point (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by CST on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:01:13 PM EST
    There are more "well qualified women" than "well qualified minorities" because of sheer numbers, not more than "well qualified males".

    [ Parent ]
    again, you miss the point (5.00 / 6) (#205)
    by angie on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:41:17 PM EST
    re-read the post I'm responding to -- Jeralyn specifically said masslib's post verged on race-baiting, not male bashing. And yes, women are considered a "minority" because of the history of the male-dominated paternalist society. What do you think Affirmative Action is based on? It is not based on the fact that blacks are only 12% of the population -- it is based on "evening the playing field" because blacks were historically oppressed and not given the same opportunities and rights as whites. Hate to break it to you, same goes for the women.
    Riddle me this, batman, since you think you are so smart -- why are women owned business given "minority status" for US government contracts?

    [ Parent ]
    That double-dose (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Lahdee on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:13:11 PM EST
    of inexperience could be a concern for some and a target for McCain. I hope that our apparent nominee has a plan to deal with that attack and those concerns cause "trust me it's change" ain't gonna git it.

    The word experience does not persuade (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by catfish on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:28:22 PM EST
    there is something about that word "experience" that implies incompetence. I hear it and just think he has more bullet points on his resume, so what?

    But I do see Obama as a naive negotiator who will be too susceptible to flattery. Even with more experience, that will still be his weakness until he gets burned big time.

    [ Parent ]

    Experience can be such a relative (none / 0) (#56)
    by Lahdee on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:39:38 PM EST
    term. IMO it's to the right's credit that they have been able to discredit political experience when it suits them and to discredit the process in general.
    Can he negotiate? That remains to be seen. Will he get burned big time? I hope not in this cycle.

    [ Parent ]
    it isn't going to change. that is the problem. (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by hellothere on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:37:46 PM EST
    what has the campaign done or said that would indicate anything different. they are going after the ones they don't have and leaving the ones they did have but pushed aside under the bus. (strictly my view)

    [ Parent ]
    I can't stop wondering (none / 0) (#62)
    by Lahdee on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:42:31 PM EST
    what this means,
    Barack Obama's vice presidential vetting process has moved into a new stage in which a larger than previously reported group of candidates is being exposed to a "deeper dig" into their backgrounds...
    From The Fix.

    [ Parent ]
    it is interesting speculation. (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by hellothere on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:53:48 PM EST
    personally i think the fix is in already and this is spin for spin's sake. then again a number of potentials have made it clear they are not available, so maybe they are expanding. personally i think that is a wise idea.

    [ Parent ]
    Why all the hush and mystery (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Saul on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:19:18 PM EST
    I just don't get it.  Obama,
    I know Hilary is the best choice and will make 18 million voter happy and I know it the right thing to do but I won't do it. So I will pick a women so the Hilary supporters won't be so angry and just a little bit angry.
     

    Hell just pick Hilary then.

    Too deep. (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:21:05 PM EST
    I have no idea who the VP will be and I think the media chatter about Kaine is just media chatter -- it certainly doesn't mean he's on the inside track.  It may well turn out to be Sebelius.

    But I doubt the Obama campaign is engaged in some kind of complex bait and switch game.

    The only thing I buy... (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:24:31 PM EST
    ... is that Obama doesn't want to pick somebody that the media has predicted he'd pick for weeks. So his camp may be leaking Kaine's name with no intent of taking him. But I don't think there's any complex psychological game at work.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama camp tests the water an then adjusts... (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Aqua Blue on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:50:34 PM EST
    based response they get.   They have done so repeatedly during campaign.  Put a toe in and then take it out...change up the rehetoric.

    I have been calling Obama campaign headquarters for 2 days and cannot get my opinion recorded yet.

    An Obama receptionist told me they were tallying views and that my call would have to transfered to the people who were recording election input.

    [ Parent ]

    Agreed, it's all about the test-marketing (5.00 / 4) (#150)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:55:35 PM EST
    They've done it repeatedly. (Repubs do it too, although somewhat less promiscuously).

    Fact is, they're casting about for anyone, anyone at all that shows even a millimeter of positive movement in the polls so they don't have to pick Hillary.

    There's also a general feel-good effect for supporters of the various VP possibilities that ratches up each time a different one is highlighted.  It's like that feeling you get when you buy a lottery ticket but before you find out you didn't win -- just the possibility, no matter how remote, of winning, gives you an endorphin rush.

    [ Parent ]

    Not to worry. WSJ says (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:25:48 PM EST
    Kaine is wrong and Obama is still looking at a "wide pool."  Mirror, mirror on the wall, whom shall I tap as VP?

    Pool

    [ Parent ]

    Ha - they've had to "dig deeper"!!! (5.00 / 5) (#64)
    by Shainzona on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:43:57 PM EST
    That's for sure - anyone with even a hint of integrity and principle has headed for the hills long ago.

    [ Parent ]
    Could be TeamO (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by brodie on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:35:37 PM EST
    is just engaging in some not untypical misdirection with floating the names of Kaine and, imo, the very shopworn anti-Change Biden.

    But, otoh, this is a campaign team which, while not perfect, did outsmart my supposedly much smarter candidate HRC and her campaign team in the primaries, so I wouldn't put it past them to have come up with a very clever and precisely focused variety of misdirection in the Veep stakes public discussion.

    I have been somewhat taken aback in recent days to see Kaine's name rise so quickly and so far to the top of the alleged list, and this with a fairly uninspiring and not wildly popular pol who's just been elected to his first important office and who has been governing, so I gather, more like a moderate Republican than a progressive Dem.

    Jeralyn's theory about Kaine as cover for Sebelius seems to have a lot going for it, though obviously I'm biased in favor of wanting it to be true.

    [ Parent ]

    What about the fact that choosing EITHER Kaine or (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by allimom99 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:38:46 PM EST
    Sibelius gives a free governorship to the R's - a real piece of work in the case of VA, and a DINO party-switcher in KS. The party can't be pleased about these prospects, or does Obama not really care about the rest of the party, which more and more seems to be the case?

    Cynthia McKinney is looking pretty good right now to this progressive voter.

    [ Parent ]

    [I'm still angry.] (5.00 / 7) (#12)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:21:12 PM EST


    Five Stages of Grief (5.00 / 20) (#13)
    by BDB on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:21:19 PM EST
    Clearly that's the analysis the Obama campaign is hoping for. And why not?  It's disempowering.  

    I agree with lambert that Ghandi's stages are much better and ones I hope those of us unhappy with the direction of the party remember going forward beyond this election that framing: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

    In the meantime, Obama could do worse than Sebelius, clearly.  And it would make me right when I said awhile back that Obama would select someone who had no independent base of political power, who was dependent upon him and his faction of the party.  I do love vindication.

    Other than that, Sebelius does little for me.  She does not shore up Obama's weaknesses in experience at a time when we're headed for disasters both foreign and domestic.  Her selection would do nothing to reassure me that an Obama Administration could handle the problems it's going to face.  Nor would it indicate any interest in Obama and TPTB in the Democratic Party that they are truly interested in unifying the party.  So it does not reassure me about the party.  The only thing it reassures me of is that Obama is too insecure to share power or the stage and not just with Clinton.  

    Which is not, btw, an endorsement of McCain.  I haven't decided how I'm going to vote except that it won't be for McCain.

    Yes, I am rather tired of that meme. (5.00 / 20) (#18)
    by madamab on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:23:53 PM EST
    Grief is something you "get over."

    Knowing that the person you are expected to vote for has done things that are inconsistent with your core values is another.

    You don't "get over" core values.

    [ Parent ]

    So it's coat-hanger Kaine ... just kidding! (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by catfish on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:25:10 PM EST
    You girls were really scared there for a second. No, no it's a woman, whats-her-face from Kansas.

    [ Parent ]
    Dear Gawd (5.00 / 18) (#61)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:42:03 PM EST
    I'm so tired of thr meme that I am in a stage of grief over the outcome of the primary.

    I Do Not Think That Obama, Based On His Positions, Is An Acceptable Choice For President.  This would be my position even if Hillary had never been a candidate for the nomination.

    Since this whole meme is based on a faulty premise, I am not going to get over it. His vote to cover up Bush's illegal activities and to eliminate 4th Amendment rights has set this position in stone. IOW I am not voting for Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree ... (5.00 / 9) (#83)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:55:35 PM EST
    it's insulting.  It suggests that the only explanation for being worried about (or opposing) Obama has to be an emotional one.

    It's ridiculous.  In fact, the opposite seems true.  Emotion seems more of a requisite for supporting Obama than opposing him.

    I'll probably vote for Obama.  But I'm worried about him.  For strictly rational, fact-based reasons.

    [ Parent ]

    I totally respect you for saying that MO Blue. (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:04:04 PM EST
    This whole PC over-rationalizing thing is getting on my nerves. If you don't like BO just say it. My daughter is a BO supporter. She is NOT a "cultist" or an "Obambot". She, like most of O's supporters, don't have CDS. I saw a poll just after the primaries that stated AAs had something like a 75% for the Clintons. I think some of us pay a little too much attention on Kos and the 100 idiots in the MSM. If you like McCain or someone else, you're not gonna be arrested for saying so, so stop pulling crap out of your butt with memes like "McCain is more progressive" or "I see no real difference".

    [ Parent ]
    You won't see me writing that McCain is more (5.00 / 11) (#142)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:47:15 PM EST
    progressive. I don't think that McCain is acceptable either.

    I don't happen to ascribe to the theory that because McCain is unacceptable that I MUST vote for someone I also think is unacceptable.  

    [ Parent ]

    Too few are able to grasp that concept, (5.00 / 19) (#160)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:02:34 PM EST
    and I am tired of being looked at in horror when I say that I cannot force myself to vote for Obama just because McCain would be worse.

    When I held my nose and voted for Gore and Kerry, it wasn't because I thought they weren't qualified to be president - it was about Gore distancing himself from Clinton and picking Lieberman, and about Kerry not being able to stand up for himself and not connecting with real people.  I wasn't worried about their foreign policy cred, or their stand on reproductive rights or whether they could justify playing fast and loose with the Constitution.  I wasn't worried they would sell us out on judges and the Supreme Court.  I was confident they were Democrats, committed to a Democratic agenda and not looking to water it down to make it acceptable to Republicans and evangelicals.

    I have to vote my conscience and I am not about to ignore what it is telling me, or start trying to justify why it would just peachy to vote for Obama when I don't think he is qualified.  


    [ Parent ]

    Given the change in message from the (5.00 / 4) (#102)
    by samanthasmom on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:11:40 PM EST
    Obama trolls on JSDN blogs, I think PUMA has moved from being ignored, to being laughed at, and is now at the "they fight you" stage. I'm not sure how a Sebelius VP nomination would further Obama's cause either with the Democrats or former Democrats who refuse to support him. If he chooses her, he must think that she will appeal to the more conservative voters that he's pursuing. The progressives have already swallowed his FISA vote so it's obvious that they will get in line behind whoever he chooses. No need to choose someone to appeal to them.

    [ Parent ]
    Thank you! (5.00 / 7) (#153)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:59:19 PM EST
    Gandhi's stages are a much more accurate evaluation of what's happening this year than the grief meme.  And much less condescending.

    [ Parent ]
    He could talk about his Kansan mother (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by catfish on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:22:49 PM EST
    Good analysis, I think you are right. This will give him a chance to wax nostalgic about his white mother, white grandmother, both from Kansas, blah blah.

    Sebelius is also known for shunning combative partisanship. She says she doesn't see why we can't disagree without being disagreeable, which is what Obama supporters say they want in a politician.

    So is her husband a Republican? And that board game is very odd. But I was stupid at that age too. (Chelsea would not make a board game like that.)

    Also, Obama said he wanted a workhorse veep (5.00 / 9) (#16)
    by catfish on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:23:38 PM EST
    he wants someone who isn't afraid to roll up their sleeves and work. For some reason, I thought that was code for saying he wanted a woman.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:30:24 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    WORM...someone to do the work... (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by Shainzona on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:45:54 PM EST
    and take the blame so Obama doesn't have to dirty his hands.

    [ Parent ]
    in my humble opinion a woman veep in the (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by hellothere on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:51:39 PM EST
    obama administration would attend funerals but wouldn't have much say in policy or decisions.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama = Oedipus (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by magster on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:34:37 PM EST
    Are you saying Sebelius is like his mom?

    [ Parent ]
    No - but he can talk about his bio (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by catfish on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:47:26 PM EST
    which is what his campaign is based on. It's a pretty amazing bio, up until about age 20.

    [ Parent ]
    I see no reason to assume so. (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ramo on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:28:31 PM EST
    Just because his father is Republican, doesn't mean he's one...

    [ Parent ]
    it's not an assumption (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:44:47 PM EST
    he's given many interviews on it.

    [ Parent ]
    Fair enough. (none / 0) (#99)
    by Ramo on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:10:29 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Four more points... (5.00 / 8) (#20)
    by Ramo on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:24:27 PM EST
    Since Jeralyn has articulated much of what I wanted to say in the other thread, I'd like to supplement her post with a few more points about Sebelius:

    1.  She stopped the construction of coal-fired power plants in Kansas.

    2.  In her previous job (as Insurance Commissioner for 8 years), she stopped an IN-based Blue Cross/Blue Shield from buying up the KS Blue Cross/Blue Shield.  The significance of this is that the KS company is owned by its policy members, and therefore is accountable to them as well (i.e. a semi-public insurer).

    3.  She passed the largest increase in education funding the state history, despite a huge GOP majority in the legislatgure.

    4.  She opposed the KS anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment.

    Of the various red state Dems who are praised by the netroots (Schweitzer, Tester, Webb, Napolitano, McCaskill, etc.), she's the only the real deal.  A genuine progressive who has a history of governing effectively.

    3 of those 4 are passive (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by catfish on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:43:30 PM EST
    She sounds pretty good though. But I've noticed Obama tends to say "no" to ideas instead of moving his own forward. That's his perfectionism kicking in.

    What I loved about Hillary is she moves the ball forward. I think that's what rankled her critics. They picture women quelling discord, not propelling us forward with such gusto.

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly (5.00 / 7) (#125)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:35:59 PM EST
    What makes Hillary great in the eyes of most women I know is that she is assertive.  She pushes the envelope.  She moves the ball.  Of course that "assertive, ambitious" trait, admired in men, scares many, mostly men and women who have drunk the paternal kool aid much, they don't get it.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think Sebelius is passive. (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Ramo on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:12:00 PM EST
    One of the more assertive things she has done has been getting anti-choice AG Phill Kline, who was trying to get women arrested for abortion, thrown out of office.  She recruited a moderate Republican DA (Paul Morrison) to switch parties and beat him in the next election.

    Sebelius played a lot of defense, because she was in Kansas.  When the playing field changes to the national stage, expect her to do more offense.

    Sebelius stood up many times and fought the right.  Successfully.  You simply can't say that she isn't assertive.

    [ Parent ]

    Whatever..... (5.00 / 10) (#179)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:22:08 PM EST
    here's my thought.  Obama picks Sebelius and I am done with the democratic party.  Obama asks Hillary and she declines and then Sebelius is chosen, fine.  But no way does he or you or anyone else get to tell me what woman I want representing me as the "FIRST."  We, the women, already spoke.  We spoke loud and clear and the democratic men did not only NOT HEAR US, they stood by while their friends in the media trashed the most accomplished woman of our time.  

    Sorry, Sebelius could be another "annointed one" and it won't work.  Telling me I don't know what is good for me has been done one too many times by my party leadership and I am sick of it.  

    [ Parent ]

    What? (5.00 / 0) (#195)
    by Ramo on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:36:48 PM EST
    But no way does he or you or anyone else get to tell me what woman I want representing me as the "FIRST."

    Would you mind pointing out where I did this?

    My point was simply that Sebelius is very assertive.  She successfully fought the right in KS over and over again.  The degree to which you like Hillary is not at all related to that.

    [ Parent ]

    I am not particularly familiar (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by zfran on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:58:24 PM EST
    with her "assertiveness" however I tried to listen to her response to the state of the union and had to turn it off as it was sooooo boring. If she is so "assertive" how is she going to play 2nd fiddle to the "star" of the show? Can you see it?

    [ Parent ]
    I'd Say Given Obama's History (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by BDB on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:26:21 PM EST
    #1 probably disqualifies her.  Obama loves the coal.  

    [ Parent ]
    Home state politics. (none / 0) (#201)
    by Ramo on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:38:50 PM EST
    That's probably a political necessity in IL.  He repudiated that stance during the primaries, as he developed a national constituency.

    [ Parent ]
    The 5 stage of grief is a myth (5.00 / 11) (#23)
    by dianem on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:25:14 PM EST
    Well, at least in general. It is based on research done about people who were told they had fatal diseases, not general loss. In reality, the stages can happen in different order and at the same time and sometimes don't happen at all. Personally, I'm still stuck in anger and rejection about Bush's election wins - I tried acceptance at first, then realized that I didn't want to accept it. Perhaps if Obama stopped acting in a condescending way toward women I would be able to accept him, but he doesn't seem inclined to do so. They didn't even bother to put Clinton on the short list for VP candidates. They didn't even consider her seriously. If Obama came out and said "I considered Hillary Clinton, but we both agree that the Democratic Party would be better served by having her remain in the Senate", it would have pacified voter's and I'm willing to bet that Clinton would have gone along with it, true or not. He didn't even bother - he just made it clear that she wasn't even considered as a serious option.

    Sebelius is a lovely candidate, but she is a second rate choice for a woman. He passed up the first for reasons of his own that I will always believe are linked to petty revenge for Clinton actually challenging his campaign and upstaging his "historic" run and fear that she would be perceived as more qualified than him.

    I think the "5 stage" thing is a bit of (5.00 / 9) (#116)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:24:58 PM EST
    an insult. Hillary's voters should NEVER "get over it". It was a campaign for the ages, and a lot of bullcrap went on that wasn't sufficiently condemned IMO. What my fellow supporters should do is live in the moment and decide honestly who they think is best to lead, or not decide at all.

    [ Parent ]
    Anger is not grief (5.00 / 14) (#159)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:02:12 PM EST
    I am not grieving the primary, but I'm angered by the actions of the DNC. The tactics they employed assumed us to be fools who would fall in line and vote democrat because we would come to realize "a democrat is a democrat is a democrat, and that's better than the alternative."

    Held my nose to vote one too many times already, and those people had the experience and leadership to be elected. I don't see the democratic platform in this election.

    [ Parent ]

    A little bit of humor, please. (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by BronxFem on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:25:54 PM EST
    Obama picks Sebelius as his VP, and then McCain picks Hillary as his VP, and everyone will be happy.

    That would be fine with me...at least (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Shainzona on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:35:27 PM EST
    I would actually get a shot at voting for the most qualified candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    LOL! (none / 0) (#59)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:40:59 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I think your basic misconception, Jeralyn, (5.00 / 9) (#28)
    by frankly0 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:27:30 PM EST
    is that Obama and his campaign really care about women voters.

    Of course they should. But I think they believe they're in the bag, and they have bigger, white working class and independent fish to fry.

    Kaine does a better job with those sorts of voters -- or at least I suspect that's the thinking in the Obama campaign.

    Are you sure? (none / 0) (#177)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:19:20 PM EST
    Don't the current polls show Obama's support among women to be problematic, at least in terms of the percentages that Dem presidential candidates usually get?

    [ Parent ]
    I believe that (5.00 / 9) (#194)
    by Emma on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:36:43 PM EST
    it is absolutely inconceivable -- along the lines of little green men living on Mars -- to Obama and the DNC that women won't "come around" for Obama in November.  

    I think it is even MORE, if that's possible, inconceivable to them that they would have to actually work for women's votes.  They are, after all, the "good guys".  The "good guys" are entitled to women's support b/c, after all, they don't HAVE to be the "good guys".  They do it as a special favor to US.

    Younger feminists are well acquainted with this guy in a different context:  He's the guy who gets angry when women won't f*ck him.  After all, he's a "nice guy" and nice guys are entitled to the goodies.

    Neither of them gets that that belief in their own entitlement to access to women, be it women's bodies or women's votes, makes them NOT the good guys or the nice guys.  It makes them exactly like every other patriarchal f*cker running around out there.  You know, the ones named Bush and McCain.

    [ Parent ]

    Kaine did an hour with Charlie Rose ... (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:28:14 PM EST
    last night.  My read was he was still auditioning.  That he wants the job, but doesn't have it.

    During most of the interview he tried to demonstrate how he and Obama meshed.  He even talked about his Kansas roots.

    So you could be right about Sibelius.  It's not who I think he's going to pick, but your arguments are interesting.

    My guess is he announces late next week, so any negatives about his pick get swallowed up by Olympics coverage.  And if he announces next week, his choice probably already knows.

    Kaine wasn't acting like he'd already got the nod.

    Kerry announced Edwards (none / 0) (#44)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:34:31 PM EST
    on July 6 with the convention starting on July 25 -- if that's a guide at all.

    [ Parent ]
    I wish he'd just get it over with and announce. (5.00 / 5) (#60)
    by Plutonium Page on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:41:51 PM EST
    There's enough uncertainty with Obama's platform as it is.  I'd at least like to know who the VP will be, to eliminate some of that uncertainty.

    [ Parent ]
    Jockeying with McCain (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by Mike H on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:40:57 PM EST
    I think neither campaign wants to be first to announce its VP pick, to be honest.  Each wants to "one-up" the other, as well as continue feeding off the media attention that comes with the uncertainty.

    Once the Veep is picked, there's a few days of attention, and then it's over and back to being about the presidential candidates.

    [ Parent ]

    McCain can easily wait Obama out (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:16:37 PM EST
    since the dem convention is first

    [ Parent ]
    McCain has been teasing the press (none / 0) (#192)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:35:06 PM EST
    by saying he is going to announce his pick anyday--in order to get some attention....And they keep falling for it....

    [ Parent ]
    ...or add to it... (4.00 / 3) (#155)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:00:11 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    My issue with Obama choosing Sebelius... (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Plutonium Page on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:32:47 PM EST
    ... is a purity troll sorta thing.  (Well, not troll, maybe just environmentalist purity-type annoying person, ha ha.)

    Obama is really big on coal as part of his energy plan.  You'd think he'd see the light about "clean" coal being an excuse to continue using the dirtiest form of energy possible, but that's another story (see here).

    Sebelius is about as far from Obama's stance on coal as you can get:

    In October of last year, the administration of Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D) denied permits for two new coal-fired plants in her state because the greenhouse gases such coal plants would emit constitute a threat to the environment and public health. Last Friday, she also vetoed a legislative attempt to reverse the decision.

    I write about "clean" coal, and coal power in general, a lot (over at coal-is-dirty.com, and desmogblog.com), so I'm very sensitive to this issue.

    However, the average voter would probably overlook what I see as a glaring contradiction if Obama were to choose Sebelius.

    Then Kaine's his man. (5.00 / 5) (#86)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:57:05 PM EST
    One big negative about Kaine is his coal-love and sucking up to Dominion Power. He's no environmentalist.

    [ Parent ]
    No kidding (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Plutonium Page on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:59:58 PM EST
    Kaine's a one-man coal industry advertisement.

    [ Parent ]
    Hmmmm.... (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:14:46 PM EST
    So does anyone know what energy source Sebelius is for?

    [ Parent ]
    Good question (none / 0) (#162)
    by Plutonium Page on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:06:53 PM EST
    I'll dig around and see what I can find.

    [ Parent ]