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

  • Contribute 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?


    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".

    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.    


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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".

    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.  

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

    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...


    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.


    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...


    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.

    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.  

    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.

    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...

    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 ...)


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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?

    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.  ;)

    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.

    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".

    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?

    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.


    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.

    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)

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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?



    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.

    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.


    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.


    [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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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".

    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.  


    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.  


    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.

    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.

    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.

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

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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...

    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.

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


    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.

    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.


    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.  


    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.


    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?

    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.  

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

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

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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

    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....

    ...or add to it... (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:00:11 PM EST
    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.

    Thanks for the links. Great info! (none / 0) (#108)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:18:21 PM EST
    doh, replying to myself (none / 0) (#46)
    by Plutonium Page on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:34:57 PM EST
    "see here" - meant to delete that.

    I think he won't do it (5.00 / 6) (#41)
    by ajain on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:33:06 PM EST
    Because the day he announces Sebelius as the VP there will immediately be comparison stories. Influential Hillraisers will have comments all over the pages of NYT and WaPo and all over the news networks. The focus will be how Sebelius compares with Hillary and that is not a good story for the VP.

    Plus Sen. Clinton will be giving a speech on Tuesday night (88th anniversary of the day women were granted the right to vote.) The next day the VP speaks. The comparison stories and narratives will just go off-the-charts and Clinton is better speaker and has a stronger presence that almost anyone on the list, but I think Sebelius will run the risk of looking smaller than Clinton, which again is not a good story.

    For a campaign so devoted imagery and settings and what not, I think this is a risky move. Plus Wednesday night's speech will be in the convention hall, where about half the delegates will be Hillary supporters. I think this could be cause for disharmony that is not required at convention time.

    He doesn't foresee everything (5.00 / 6) (#43)
    by catfish on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:34:31 PM EST
    he didn't foresee Jeremiah Wright becoming a problem. He didn't foresee that denying a floor vote to Hillary would piss off a lot of people.

    I doubt there will be a floor vote (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by ajain on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:38:24 PM EST
    Because I think things will be much worse if he nominates Sebelius (a non-Hillary supporter) after a floor vote, I think that would be real chaos and disharmony.

    It could be hilarious if not dangerous.


    Don't worry, if KS is the pick, (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by brodie on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:04:39 PM EST
    she will have plenty of very glowing things to say about Hillary in her acceptance speech -- that is a guarantee.

    In fact, since the announcement would likely happen pre-convention, bet that numerous speakers before and after Hillary will be singing her praises nonstop.

    Then the speeches compared -- almost a wash since neither is known as a dynamic, galvanizing formal speaker, certainly not at Bill's or Obama's level, though HRC is slightly stronger overall.

    I do think people will be very intrigued in watching KS as it will be their first look at her, for those in the hall and on tv, and so she's likely to be very favorably received if she's named.

    Tuesday will be HRC's night, and she very graciously in her turn will have nice things to say about O's #2 pick -- and if it's KS, loyal teamplayer Hillary is not going to do other than praise her to the hilt, so in effect the convention will have been fairly adequately prepped well ahead of time prior to KS's appearance.


    It would put HIllary supporters in a bind (2.00 / 2) (#100)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:11:24 PM EST
    Would they oppose a pro-choice female governor as VP?

    But the potential backlash among Hillary supporters is probably one reason Sebelius won't be the VP pick.  How ironic--concern over offending women for not picking the right woman could be the reason the first real chance for a woman VP is lost.


    Cry me a river. (5.00 / 5) (#106)
    by masslib on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:15:05 PM EST
    No, Obama's refusal to pick the best (5.00 / 9) (#132)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:41:51 PM EST
    qualified female VP is the reason the first real chance for a woman VP is lost.

    So what so wrong if he picks Hllary (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Saul on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:39:11 PM EST
    If he picks another woman no matter what the backlash will be:  

    Okay, Obama  you could have picked Hilary so why didn't you?

    I would love to hear his reasons for not picking her and have someone debate him on each of his answers.

    Some of the honest answers could be:

    Yes she is the prefect choice but I could not swallow my pride and pick her.

    It would some how be admitting defeat to her

    It really all about me and I don't want any competition

    etc etc

    Sebelius and Kaine are more alike (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:40:44 PM EST
    than I thought. He is married to a Repub and his father-in-law is a former Repub Governor. He is a Catholic who is personally pro-life but has not and would not force his beliefs on others. I personally don't have a problem with electing Catholics who have that view. I wonder what position JFK would have taken on choice. There is a world of difference,imo, between wing-nuts imposing their "morality" on others and people with sincere religious beliefs.

    I have to laugh at the notion (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:42:42 PM EST
    that somehow being catholic and pro choice means one is in turmoil.  Having been raised catholic and gone to the indoctrinating schooling of the 1950s and 1960s, I am pretty aware of the good vs evil, heaven or hell, mentality.  Now, mortal sin gets you hell.  So yea, abortion or support of it gets you damnation for eternity.  But then so does adultery.  So if you are already going to hell, if you happen to not make it to confession after a little tryst outside your marriage, why would supporting a woman's right to choose be a big deal.  On the other hand, the catholics who are hell bent on saying "I am catholic but......my personal beliefs don't affect me..." I look at with doubting Thomas eyes.

    Acceptance (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:46:56 PM EST
    for me is that he hasn't proven he can do the job or is trustworthy on issues. VP won't matter much to me until I know who it is and what roll they will really play in an Obama WH. He wants someone that will roll up their sleeves and work (heh, no surprise there for me!), but how much of a voice will they have? Or will they just be his good little workhorse? If he gets elected, he will have 4yrs to earn my vote  ;) If he chooses an VP that is bad for women or a repub., that would be a huge problem for me on the re-election front.

    On Meet The Press (none / 0) (#107)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:16:26 PM EST
    Obama specifically said that he wants a running mate that will be very active and willing to work.  

    He isn't picking Hagel.  Not a chance.  

    Kaine is a possibility depending on what the calculus that the campaign is using.  His anti-choice statements make him less than ideal and I think it would be odd that Obama would willingly tick off the Clinton supporters like that.


    Why? (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by samanthasmom on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:22:00 PM EST
    He ticks off the Clinton supporters weekly.

    Daily ;) (5.00 / 5) (#119)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:27:07 PM EST
    The fact that (3.50 / 2) (#144)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:51:01 PM EST
    some of you look for reasons to get offended does not mean he is doing anything to offend you.

    Some Hillary supporters are offended because he is the nominee.  Nothing he can do to appease those people.


    sure there is... quit :-) n/t (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:02:04 PM EST
    "Appease those people" (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:05:52 PM EST
    No, that's very right. Some people are not interested in being "appeased" by the man who wants them to give him the second most powerful job in the country. (Donna Brazile has the first.)

    You're right (3.00 / 3) (#167)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:12:44 PM EST
    some people prefer to be angry and bitter and create their own reality.

    To each their own.


    Do they really? (5.00 / 5) (#176)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:18:35 PM EST
    I'll just have to take your word for it, I guess.  Since you seem to have your own experience with it.

    i'm not angry. i am disgusted and intend (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by hellothere on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:40:59 PM EST
    to stay that way. i have seen nothing to make me change my mind. disgust is long lasting and results in changes in views and actions. that much more dangerous than anger.

    Being active and willling to work are good (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:30:04 PM EST
    but doing what? And what voice will they really have, if any? Won't know the answers to the questions until he's actually in office and starts doing things. This is where his "blank slate we can project on" backfires for many of us along with his lack of history/experience.

    Obama needs to go after (5.00 / 5) (#72)
    by magisterludi on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:47:08 PM EST
    the working and middle class and pick someone with a known populist streak. The only known quantity that comes to my mind is Clinton.

    The punditry and inside baseballers get their panties in a wad at the thought, but tune into c-span callers and listen to them get excited about a unity ticket. I think there's a real disconnect here.

    More miscalculations. More misunderstanding. (5.00 / 5) (#74)
    by joanneleon on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:49:10 PM EST
    Your reasoning seems sound, and seems to be a very likely scenario.  We know Obama is obsessed with Virginia, but it's too hard to believe he'd really choose Kaine or Hagel.  I really thought he'd be going for Mark Warner for the Virginia situation.

    Just to backtrack a bit on Hillary for a moment:
    That ship has sailed for 2008?  

    Do we know for sure that the ship sailed?  Do we know why?  Does anyone know the details of what went on during the VP selection process and why Hillary was not chosen?

    Anyway, I believe this is a big miscalculation on Obama's part, if he is hoping to appease women voters who supported Hillary.  It is, as you have said, a slap in the face.  It's yet another insult and demeaning gesture toward Hillary and her supporters.

    Worse yet, I don't see Sebelius as presidential material.  The party should be taking advantage of the opportunity thrown in their lap, the 2008 climate, by setting themselves up for not just eight years but sixteen years in the White House.  

    I hope he doesn't choose Sebelius.  To me she is the picture of mediocrity.  In a year when we had so many great potential candidates in this party, an Obama/Sebelius ticket is just such a waste of opportunity and talent.  God help us if we end up with another 1976 type situation, or worse, 1988.

    I just want to emphasize again, that it is so clear now, as it has been clear throughout the primary race, that Obama and his team absolutely does not understand Hillary supporters, what they want, and what makes them tick.  If he thinks that choosing a woman instead of choosing someone with some rock solid experience and potential for succeeding him as president is more important to Hillary supporters, he's wrong... again.  If he thinks that the fact that Hillary is a woman was the primary reason people supported Hillary, he's wrong... again.  His sorry substitute will do more harm than good.  He would be much better off choosing a strong leader with a ton of experience.  By not doing so, and not choosing Hillary either, it makes him look petty and weak, IMHO.

    And as for using the tactic of forcing people to choose between two bad alternatives, well, that's getting a bit old.  First we're told that a vote for Obama is a must because he's better than McCain.  (I agree with that, but it still pisses me off because it didn't have to turn out that way). Now perhaps it's going to be the same thing with the VP slot.  It's pretty disgusting.  

    We had a damned dream team coming into this election year.  What the heck happened?  That's what I can't seem to shake.

    At this point I think the best thing to do is turn our attention toward Congress, and hopefully if we can get some real progressive leaders with some power in the House and Senate, we can hope for them to act fairly independently, and do the right thing for the people.  We can hope that Congress will once again step up and take back their power, and that they can evolve (quickly) into the dominant force in our government in the coming years.

    I asked this before in another thread (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by cmugirl on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:53:39 PM EST
    Wasn't the reason put forth by people in the Obama campaign awhile back is that it would be too much to have two historic (and AA and a woman) on the same ticket?  So,is this another WORM?

    Yes, a woman is too much "change". (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:01:28 PM EST
    I think he needs a safer VP. Though don't know if his campaign said that. Maybe just the fanboys.

    I think Sebelius has always been (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:54:11 PM EST
    Obama's first choice.  

    More than anything, Obama values her Kansas roots.  It is well known his grandparents who raised him are from Kansas. Obama, in trying to put down roots, came back to the biggest city in the Midwest with a large African American population.

    Obama is most comfortable when surrounded by competent and strong women.  His mother and grandmother were very influential.  Michelle grounds him and provides a cultural foundation for him. When he first met her, she was senior to him at Sidley, and it appears he actually reported to her during the Summer Program.

    Perhaps his and Michelle's closest friend and confidante is Valerie Jarrett.  When he went on the first part of his trip (to Afghanistan and Iraq) one of the two aides he took with him was spokesperson Linda Douglass, a one-time LA reporter who broke into the big leagues a while ago.  She is older than him by about a dozen years....

    Obama is also at heart quite cautious and pragmatic--making Kansas people look even better yet.

    And Obama is fascinated with winning in Red States, and Sebelius has done that.  She is new to the national scene and fits the new politics and change theme.

    I have always thought Obama would select Sebelius if he were up 10 points, but that he couldn't in a close race because:  Sebelius has no foreign policy experience and her selection would tick off Hillary supporters to no end.

    I still think it more likely that he will select Bayh or Biden because of their national security experience.....But Jeralyn may be right:  if Obama was willing to consider Kaine who has no foreign policy experience, why not Sebelius?

    By selecting Sebelius, Obama could show dramatically that he is indeed in favor of women in high positions of power....Sebelius would magnify the change represented by the ticket....

    Sebelius would (5.00 / 7) (#168)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:12:56 PM EST
    once again take away the choice of women.  It would be the ultimate paternalistic, "we know better....we are going to give you a woman because we know you want one...but it will be OUR CHOICE, not the choice of the overwhelming majority of women...because we, the menfolk KNOW what's good for you."  It would be a talking down to women and I think it would alienate women from the democratic party for years and years.

    I am not saying this as an insult to Sebelius or any other woman.  It's about the WOMAN WE CHOSE.  Hillary TIED Obama...in votes and in the eyes of many won this except for the DLC and the club of men unwilling to let go of power.  Men like Kerry and Kennedy who would not respect the choice of their own constituents.  

    NOPE, using a woman as a consolation prize will not do what some want it to do.  It's about HILLARY AND WHO SHE IS ....not her gender.


    In all fairness, Jeralyn, (5.00 / 11) (#82)
    by samanthasmom on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:54:39 PM EST
    you were going to vote for Obama anyway. I don't think Sebelius will bring any of the "Hillary Holdouts" into the Obama column, and I think she will move more than a few back. Those of us who are committed holdouts are divided into two groups - those who will not vote for Obama no way no how, and those who will vote for him only if Hillary is the VP. I think, but obviously I can't prove, that some of the Hillary supporters who are now saying that they will vote for Obama have assumed that Hillary would be the VP because it's the only way he guarantees that he gets elected. When he announces that he has chosen someone else - no matter who - I think his polls will go down. Either Sebelius or Kaine will infuriate some voters. It's Obama's gamble as to who will lose him more votes. There is no one other than Hillary who will bring him votes he doesn't already have.

    I finally figured out what I hate about this. (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:08:04 PM EST
    Jeralyn's post makes perfect sense. But the whole idea of this really infuriates me. I tried to figure out why. Is it because I'm a bitter dead ender? Or is it because it seems dishonest, manipulative, and patronizing? Just say its Sebelius and build a case for her and leave it at that. It's insulting to me that they would use a pro-life Trojan Horse.  

    Deeper level of vetting (none / 0) (#209)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:50:43 PM EST
    It could be political strategy, but at what price?  What message does it send regarding the level of committment to social issues when Kaine is one of those being vetted at a more extensive level?

    I don't get (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:11:27 PM EST
    how Sebelius is not "qualified" to be VP.  

    She has been Governor of Kansas for 6 years.  She was the insurance commissioner of Kansas for 8 years, and was the first Democrats to win that job in over a 100 years.  She was in the Kansas House of Representatives for 8 years prior to that.

    The woman oozes competence.  She may not have the appropriate foreign policy experience but very few people do have such experience particularly non-Beltway people.

    I have only watched her speak once, as the Democratic rebuttal to the Bush SOTU address.  She certainly seemed dull but I have no idea if that was just an off night or indicative of her style.

    The 5 stages of grief (5.00 / 20) (#104)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:14:33 PM EST
    rear their ugly heads again.

    To those who really believe that's all it is for those of us who don't support Obama, I ask you.

    When the Bush v Gore ruling came, did you feel like someone died and you were in grief mode?  Or were you just outraged at the injustice?  Are the two emotions the same to you??  Me, I think what we feel is as far from grief as you can get.

    It's just plain hysterically funny that they still think people who don't support Obama are in grief mode.

    Clearly, us wimmins are just sad (5.00 / 14) (#121)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:29:13 PM EST
    because our sister Hillary didn't win. We can't control our emotions and we think with our female parts. If we were rational, we would know that the best candidate won. Now, we shouldn't worry our pretty heads with the dishonest machinations that brought us to this point. Let's go shopping and get over it!

    Gotta love Doonesbury today, (5.00 / 7) (#124)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:31:46 PM EST
    speaking of being angry...

    I knew Garry Trudeau would get it...


    lol!~ (5.00 / 4) (#139)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:45:15 PM EST
    "healing on demand". perfect.

    I have to agree (5.00 / 15) (#126)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:36:51 PM EST
    the five stages stuff need to be taken out behind the shed and shot in the head.
    there are no 5 stages about it.
    1 stage.  anger.
    and we are not coming out of it.  not by a long shot.

    Yes the Five Stages of Grief frame is (5.00 / 20) (#137)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:43:46 PM EST
    just patronizing cr*p, aimed at belittling Clinton supporters.

    You nailed it TeresaInSnow2.  People who are 'grieving' are emotional, not logical or rational.  Women, in other words -- casting women as too emotional has been the historical justification for not allowing them to vote, to own property, to barring them from virtually every profession at one time (law, medicine, politics).  Grief is something to be waited out, both dismissed & dismissible as a legitimate basis for voting choices.

    People who are angry at injustice, though, they are not framed as 'grieving'.  They are rational, admired, heroic.  They are perfectly justified in retaining their anger as long as the injustice continues.

    Women as overly emotional (and yes, hysterical) actors rather than reasonable actors within political discourse is one of the most offensive memes played out this season because it triggers deepset prejudices people don't even acknowledge they have.  There's a lot of nodding and 'yes, yes, yeses' because of course women are grief-stricken, they're 'crying like a girl' over what was always an overly-emotional attachment to Clinton's candidacy anyways.

    General Election 2000 indeed.


    The grief argument is simply a (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by my opinion on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:13:47 PM EST
    false choice fallacy.

    It's an interesting analysis, Jeralyn, (5.00 / 8) (#117)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:26:06 PM EST
    and as a theory it may make all kinds of sense.  The problem with theories is that reality does not always follow the game plan.

    I just keep thinking about the night Hillary speaks at the convention.  She will undoubtedly give a speech that not only brings down the house, but will have ordinary people like me cheering in front of our TV's - even as we see concrete evidence of what we could have had, and what the country really needs.

    Hillary's speech will be followed, the next night, I presume, by the VP's acceptance speech.  Kathleen Sebelius, if she is the nominee, had better have a barn-burner of a speech to give if she is to have half a chance of overcoming the "what-if" of Hillary not being the one to give that speech.

    But it isn't just that she isn't Hillary; it's that I don't think the country can afford to have both the president and the vice-president using training wheels - there's too much at stake.

    All that being said, I don't have a clue what Obama will do - and for all we know, he has made up his mind and changed it, flipping and flopping from this one to that one as he tries to microscopically divine the meaning of one poll after another.  That he doesn't realize the fall-out from not picking Hillary - that he is willing to alienate many voters who really have been trying to support Obama - tells me more about what kind of president he intends to be, and increases my fearfulness on a range of issues that cannot afford to be in the hands of someone so inexplicably tone deaf.

    Gallup tracking has it down to a one point (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by karmadillo on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:38:03 PM EST
    Obama lead. If I were Obama and if I really wanted to win, I would be floating Kaine while begging Hillary. Still, Sebeliuzzzzzz would be better than Kaine. Obama has to have a woman on the ticket. If he doesn't, I think it almost guarantees McCain will take Palin (or Meg Whitman or etc.). I have no idea what would happen then, but I doubt Team Obama wants to find out.

    Pew has Obama up by 5 (5.00 / 0) (#138)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:45:14 PM EST
    And yesterday's CNN poll had it at a 7 point lead....

    I don't think the race has changed at all since early June....Statistical noise....


    No Way! (5.00 / 10) (#130)
    by pmj6 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:40:42 PM EST
    I have reached my "acceptance" stage a long time ago. However, in my case the "acceptance" is of the fact the Democratic Party has lost its way. This is the third time the Dem Party is poised to waste an opportunity to move the country decisively in a liberal progressive direction. They've wasted the first one after Nixon stepped down in disgrace, the second after Reagan/Bush, and now we are set for a third repetition of this sad spectacle. I have voted for Hillary in the primaries and I will vote for her in the general. If the Dems don't see fit to put a candidate as qualified, capable, and deserving as her on the ticket, well, then to hell with them.

    When did Hillary (2.71 / 7) (#148)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:54:52 PM EST
    become a defender of Progressive values?  

    You guys are mythologizing her.  

    If you had said you want to see Russ Feingold I could understand but, if anything, Hillary is the right of Obama.  Although, in truth, they are pretty much the same politically.


    you know (5.00 / 8) (#175)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:18:19 PM EST
    by saying stuff like this you may get a couple of 5 ratings from the Hillary haters but all you are really doing is showing how little you know about the things Hillary has spent her entire life working on.

    Hardly (3.00 / 3) (#180)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:22:58 PM EST
    I'm not looking for 5 ratings.  And I'm not hating Hillary.

    But to suggest that she is a defender of Progressivism is to completely discard her entire time as Senator.

    What she did as an activist 30 years ago does not make her a Progressive today.


    three words (5.00 / 6) (#183)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:26:43 PM EST
    universal heath care

    When she (3.25 / 4) (#188)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:31:50 PM EST
    actually proposes Universal Health Care, come talk to me.

    Mandated health insurance is NOT universal health care.  


    So (5.00 / 7) (#191)
    by cmugirl on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:34:06 PM EST
    What she did as an activist 30 years ago does not make her a Progressive today.

    Would you say that what Obama supposedly did as a community organizer 10 years ago does not make him a Progressive today? Or, how about that his travels in Asia as a child and college student, do not make him an expert on foreign policy today? So, what does that leave on his resume?


    You really must be clueless (5.00 / 12) (#181)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:25:52 PM EST
    You cannot get it.

    Hillary is not to the right of anyone when it comes to issues of poverty, of civil rights, of tolerance and of education and children's health.

    Yes, she played the hawk for the boys in the primary.  Not her best choice.  But I guarantee you any woman running for national office KNOWS damn well what she faces in terms of being assessed as capable of being "commander-in-chief."

    But anyone with any knowledge of politics in this country knows damn well one must look centrist to get elected.  But most of us who support Hillary have known where she has stood for decades when it comes to the issues we care about.


    Look (5.00 / 0) (#184)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:30:49 PM EST
    I'm not in any way trying to disparage Hillary.  

    But if you are willing to move to the middle and eschew Progressive values for political gain you are NOT a defender of Progressive values.

    And for the record neither is Obama.

    I think they are both liberals.  And they will govern in a Center-left style.  But true Progressives cannot win a Presidential election in this country.


    Not true. (5.00 / 8) (#193)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:36:20 PM EST
    Hillary is left of Obama, left of Bill Clinton, even. She always has been. Even before Obama began his lurching to the right after her suspension.

    All you have to do is look at the issues - she's for UHC, he's not. She's strongly pro-choice, he wants to roll back Roe (no later term abortions for "feeling blue" - what an insult to women). She voted against FISA, he for.

    The list goes on and on.


    I'm okay with Sebelius (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by ItsGreg on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:46:24 PM EST
    It seems to me that Obama is looking for a couple things in a VP: somebody who will work hard and somebody he feels can be a partner. Sebelius fits.

    I doubt Obama will pick a VP based on the notion of winning any specific demographic. I think he understands he's got an excellent chance of winning in November and he's more concerned with how he's going to govern after he wins than with pleasing any specific group of voters now.

    Is Sebelius the most qualified person out there? No. But she IS qualified and perhaps it's better to select somebody you want to work with rather than somebody you feel obligated to work with.

    Sorry doesn't wash..... (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:56:54 PM EST
    ...If I listen to everthing Obama has to say then I would expect from him that he put aside his own personal work style in favor of what is best for the country and the party. He speaks of unity, but doesn't that require compromise? I see very little indication of a willingness to compromise on matters of personal style, and yet too much willingness to compromise on issues like FISA.

    Read my mind (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:37:44 PM EST
    I was thinking the same thing in response to a different post.  It has stopped being about what is best for the country and become about what is best for Barack Obama.

    Referring back (5.00 / 0) (#152)
    by eric on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:57:36 PM EST
    to my earlier comment HERE, I think the name "Sebelius" (did I spell that right?) is simply too  strange to put on a presidential ticket.  I don't have a clue how to say it, and spelling it required a look to the top of the thread.

    Is this shallow?  Yes, but this is America.

    Then why the hell is a name like (5.00 / 4) (#174)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:17:49 PM EST
    barack obama going to be on the ballot?  For me, it is not about his name, it is about his inexperience and constant flip-flopping on issues, whenever he even deigns to mention what he might stand for at a particular moment.

    Agreed (5.00 / 0) (#187)
    by eric on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:31:47 PM EST
    but the thing about "Obama", the name, is that although unique, it is pretty easy to say and spell.

    Interesting theory, but (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by rjarnold on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:09:42 PM EST
    I still doubt it's going to be Sebelius. In your other post you wrote this:

    Obama has hit his truth in advertising wall: He's got to show he's the progressive candidate for real change because that is how he sold himself to American voters. ...

    If his VP choice doesn't also embody change from politics as usual in Washington, he becomes reduced to spouting just words about change, which in turn gives him an electability problem.

    I agree that out of the major contenders, that Sebelius is the only one that actually represents real progressive change and that Tim Kaine doesn't make any sense at all. However, Obama's message of change has always been extremely vague, so different people would take it differently.

    Many of his young nieve fans who aren't really that political and people in the MSM took his message of change to mean that he is a guy from a 'new generation' that would 'rise above partisan bickering' and reach across to the other side of the aisle. And I think that ever since he won the nomination that he has tried to prove that this is type of "change" that he really meant (especially with the FISA vote, and his statements on many other issues).

    That's why several different people in the media say that Evan Bayh would actually reinforce the change message since he has been a young guy that is relatively independent. (That's how vacuously the media sees things.) Obama really hasn't been out to prove that he is a progressive champion, but has been out to prove that he bucks his party on some issues. So I still think it's going to be Bayh.

    Sebelius (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:15:32 PM EST
    Can't deliver Kansas to Obama! With the race tightening up the DNC and the powers that be are going to insist on someone that can really push the election over the top. They've been willing to do anything to win. They've sold out the Consitution, and half the party to get where they are. I don't see them letting it slip away now. They have to pick someine that delivers the state for them.

    I also wonder how great her fund raising ability would be?

    I'd love to vote for a woman for VP (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by Emma on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:17:25 PM EST
    Just not the DNC's woman.

    It will be so easy... (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Dadler on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:31:58 PM EST
    ...for the Repubs to swipe this election when Democrats are so divided and animosity-driven that they don't care enough about the bigger picture to unite and fight when, undoubtedly, election fraud and electronic shenigans and voter purging (and on and on) once again, and even more deeply, tarnish a national election to the point of absolute theft.

    We're so far gone I can hardly see the road back.

    Predictions (5.00 / 5) (#197)
    by cmugirl on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:37:28 PM EST
    What's the scenario going to look like if Obama picks Sebelius (or heaven forbid, McCaskill), then loses, and in the exit polls, it shows a significant shift to 3rd party candidates or McCain?  We all know Hillary will get the blame, but will there be anyone out there who asks the question - "Gee, did the Dems pick the wrong nominee?"

    Taking bets now.

    fired up..again (5.00 / 6) (#206)
    by jedimom on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:48:17 PM EST
    if he picks sebilius say goodbye to the Hillary supporters IMHO including myself, I know Jeralyn is a party person looking for a way to pull the lever for him but not I. I am not willing to vote for him now anyway but with Hill on there I would pull the lever b/c I trust HER personally, not just any woman, Hillary.

    Seblius was a flop on the SOTU reply as well..no thanks.

    All of this avoids the question (5.00 / 5) (#207)
    by Jake Left on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:48:33 PM EST
    of why Obama would piss off 48% of the Democratic primary voters in order to pick a nationally unknown, inexperienced candidate. The answer must be that he cannot see a way to be act more experienced and more  professional than Hillary. He sees himself being outshone by his VP.

    So he would rather take the loss of the presidency than let a woman appear to be smarter and stronger than he. We're in for some rocky times.

    This Election was the Democrats' Election (5.00 / 3) (#208)
    by themomcat on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:49:56 PM EST
    to lose. Of all the prospective candidates, the DNC, not the voters, has chosen the least experienced and the least electable. I was not an HRC supporter until there was no other choice. And considering that the Republicans had chosen McCain, I firmly believed, and still do, that HRC would be the best choice for the Democrats. Silly me.
     I thought for awhile that I would be able to hold my nose and vote for Obama if he chose HRC as his running mate and she accepted. But Sebelius? Sorry that is just suicide by running mate. I am not going to repeat all the arguments  that have been put forth in the comments today, read them for yourselves.
     I think that if Obama does not choose HRC as his running mate he will have done HRC a favor. Obama has little chance of winning in Nov. and if by some slim chance he does, he will be a worse failure than Bush or Carter. Hopefully, he will lose in Nov. and in 4 years the DNC will have ousted the likes of Dean, Brazile and their cohorts and HRC for President in 2012.
     I will not and cannot vote for Obama nor can I vote for McCain. The other options are even worse. I will most likely vote for Democrats down ticket and leave the selection for President blank.
    Just my feelings about a mess that has become a bigger mess.

    Free to Ponder the Party's Values (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by Missblu on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 03:10:15 PM EST
     Like many women who correspond with each other daily on this VP watch, not choosing Hillary for VP
    and selecting Sebelius frees up any guilt many of us feel for our almost certain decision not to vote for him.  The reason the anger and hurt will not dissipate still is and will forever be that purely and simply our gal got shafted royally.  Shafted by Democratic women whom she helped raise money for in their own campaigns, shafted by the DNC fellas and their new rules, and shafted by colleagues whom she always was willing to help.  Hillary Clinton worked ferociously in her campaign.  Kathleen Sebelius is no Hillary Clinton.  There is no woman in power as strong, knowledgeable, and mature as she.  The Democratic party values none of this if it is authenic.  Makes good talk though. It will be fun sitting on the sidelines watching the American Idol sing his songs.  No reporters backstage though please.

    I can't buy this (5.00 / 4) (#213)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 03:38:40 PM EST
    The vast, vast majority of Clinton supporters have no idea who Tim Kaine is and probably never will.

    If every Clinton supporter was like the high-information junkies online, familiar with every detail of Kaine's positions and deeply concerned about his squishiness on abortion, then some kind of complicated head fake might make sense.

    But there's no reason to execute something this sophisticated just for the benefit of a very small minority of Clinton supporters who know all about Tim Kaine and are agitated about him right now.  To everyone else it makes no difference.

    At the end of the day, what most people would get out of a Sebelius pick would be "it's a woman and not Hillary."  Period.  Maybe 1% of voters, if that, would react by breathing some "at least it's not Tim Kaine" sigh of relief.

    Count the Founding Fathers out as VP (5.00 / 2) (#214)
    by cmugirl on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 04:20:48 PM EST
    Obama threw them under the bus too. Maybe Sebelius will be the only one standing....


    Stumping in Missouri, Obama, the first black candidate with a shot at winning the White House, argued Wednesday that President Bush and McCain will resort to scare tactics to maintain their hold on the White House because they have little else to offer voters.

    "Nobody thinks that Bush and McCain have a real answer to the challenges we face. So what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me," Obama said. "You know, `he's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name,' you know, `he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.'"

    Obama himself didn't make clear what distinctions he thinks McCain is likely to raise regarding the presidents on U.S. currency -- white men who for the most part were much older than Obama when elected. McCain has not raised Obama's race as an issue in the campaign; he has said Obama lacks experience.

    Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said Thursday that the senator was not referring to race.

    ??? are you serious? (5.00 / 3) (#215)
    by environmentally blue on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 04:24:11 PM EST
    "Why does Obama need Kaine as a smokescreen? To make Sebelius more palatable to Hillary supporters "

    OOOPS, another poor judgement from Camp Obama.  Drink fast and commit.

    Obama will lose even more support with that move.  To choose such an unappealing woman in place of the woman with the most experience and record and to have received MORE VOTES THAN HE, is a slap and anyone who wasn't already an Obama promoter KNOWS THAT.

    Gallup Daily: Obama 45%, McCain 44%
    Election 2008
    Gallup Daily

    July 31, 2008

    Keep it up Obama, you're right on track...for losing.

    patronizing analysis (5.00 / 6) (#216)
    by LCaution on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 04:34:17 PM EST
    enough with the 5 stages of grief. Valhalla nailed it.

    As for the rest:

    1. This Hillary supporter never wanted her to be the VP nominee.  She'd be treated like s**t, get the blame if he lost or the blame for anything that went wrong in his admin. if he won.  She'd have zip, zero, no power and would have to defend policies she didn't believe in.  I don't want him to ask her and I don't want her to accept. I want her in the Senate, as Majority Leader.

    2. It is patronizing in the extreme, and very disappointing to read in a post by you, to think that Obama can win me over by appointing an acceptable woman if I've first been primed to expect an unacceptable man.

    3. I'm not grieving. I'm angry and fed up with the Dem. party.  I will not be voting for Obama for reasons I won't list since you've forbidden criticism of him (except to say that every day he scares me more).

    4. I'm not angry because the nominee is a man rather than a woman.  I am angry because the nominee is not Hillary and, more important, because I don't believe the primary was run fairly. A woman on the ticket, however acceptable, is NOT what I am seeking.

    No, I'm not a troll. I won't be voting for McCain. But I've also decided to stop voting for any Democrat just because the label is "Democrat".  (xref: Joe Lieberman)

    I have only two ways to send a message to the corrupt and spineless Dem. party: no money and no vote for Obama.

    Hillary=Manny (5.00 / 2) (#219)
    by just victory on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 04:53:40 PM EST
    My beloved Dodgers just picked up Manny Ramirez in one heck of a gift deal. Barack take note: Hillary is a Hall of Fame slugger with a strong personality, as well as being a proven winner. Suck it up and choose her, or watch your entire season go down the drain.

    Sebelius is full (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by Andy08 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 04:55:12 PM EST
    of herself. I do not like her. In addition, she couldn't be less exciting than all the other names combined.

    What a patronizing and insulting "tactic"...to "gain women" ??? Low, very low.

    Hillary supporters (5.00 / 2) (#222)
    by lentinel on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 05:39:03 PM EST
    Hillary supporters are not, as you suggest, necessarily loyal democrats. They are also independents. They are also republicans. I have no loyalty to the democratic party. Why should I? The last time I was enthusiastic about the democrats was in 2006. We all know how that turned out.

    To suggest that Obama would toss out Kaine's name as a serious contender, "knowing he's a deal breaker for women", does not say much for Obama's personal integrity. This is not a game.

    If he does not choose Hillary Clinton, he is a fool.

    Not "patronizing" (5.00 / 1) (#223)
    by Sensatus on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 05:39:57 PM EST

    Anger phase far from over (5.00 / 1) (#224)
    by fctchekr on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 05:48:07 PM EST
    McCain would get a lot more traction from selecting a woman. If Obama picks Sebulius there will be a lot of Hillary supporters who will stay home.

    So, he just isn't picking her, he's actually going to have Hillary set the stage for the introduction of another female candidate to fill the VP spot?

    No bounce here!

    You are so wrong (5.00 / 0) (#230)
    by Miri on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:38:30 PM EST
    "Obama and Sebelius are a far better choice than McCain and another four years of Republican rule."

    You are so wrong on so many levels here.

    Neither Obama nor Sebelius has any foreign policy or military experience. The GOP will be chanting weak on national security.

    Obama is going down to defeat in November and I am glad Hillary will be nowhere near him.

    Hillary voters (5.00 / 1) (#231)
    by Miri on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:04:04 PM EST
    "hillary voters(both men and women) will make a difference in the election."

    Hillary voters in big swing states like Ohio, Penn, Michigan, Florida will go to McCain.

    These people are working class whites who like like strong on national security types. They went for Reagan.

    Remember Reagan Democrats?

    Get ready for McCain Democrats.

    I don't see it (4.50 / 2) (#5)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:16:32 PM EST

    Nor do I (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Jim J on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:20:02 PM EST
    It would be fantastic blunder, IMO. I just don't get the infatuation with Sebelius in some quarters, evidently including TalkLeft.

    I think it's an emperor/no clothes thing. I've heard the woman talk and I just don't get what the allure is.


    Sebelius doesn't offend me in particular, (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:24:17 PM EST
    I just think she's kinda boring and unseasoned. Frankly I would prefer her to Kaine just based on issues, but I think she would add nothing to the ticket. Obama might as well just choose a desk chair. (I wish Al Gore would have just chosen a desk chair!)

    I do agree. She does seem boring. But I don't (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:29:28 PM EST
    give a crap about style over substance, which is why I supported Clinton.

    She doesn't offend. That's what he likes. (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by catfish on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:30:00 PM EST
    I think he will pick her. He is a perfectionist, which in some professions (most actually) means you will take fewer risks and be less bold.

    I prefer excellence over perfection.


    select her a veep and she'll offend. (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by hellothere on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:39:15 PM EST
    maybe not intentionlly on her part, but the selection will offend. they need something more to sell the ticket. she won't do even if she looks ok on paper.

    They don't see it that way (5.00 / 6) (#67)
    by catfish on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:45:00 PM EST
    They think they can't lose. They think Hillary supporters are not mad. They think a couple of fringe PUMAs are really Republicans-in-disguise.

    They don't think Sebelius will offend.


    they also thought this foreign tour (4.50 / 8) (#75)
    by hellothere on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:50:01 PM EST
    would give obama creds. it didn't. we know how well their thinking works. fox is saying that the hillary voters(both men and women) will make a difference in the election.

    Berlin was over the top (5.00 / 10) (#98)
    by catfish on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:10:16 PM EST
    And that he blew off the troops is still a controversy. It even made PBS Newshour - did he blow off the troops BECAUSE he couldn't bring cameras? Or did he just blow them off to go to the gym.

    It was a segment to fact-check an "attack" ad from the McCain camp. In other words, they played right into McCain's hands.


    polls show no bump from the trip either. (5.00 / 4) (#196)
    by hellothere on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:36:55 PM EST
    Speaking of Al Gore, (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by brodie on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:40:41 PM EST
    I seem to recall the jabs against him from the MCM and the always-griping lefties on the boards back in 2000 -- he's Stiff, Wooden, and wonkishly Boring!

    Given that, I'd say Sebelius is in good company, thank you very much.

    Now you want to talk really truly boring, we could bring up the stupefyingly soporific tones of Lieberman, Reed (or Reid), Bayh or even the left's favorite lib, John Conyers (easily the most sleep-inducing pol of recent memory).


    Now Jim this is incredible. Obama gets blasted (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:27:34 PM EST
    for being all talk and no action. Now Sebelius is getting grief for being no talk. Wow. Oh, and I'm sure that now I'm sexist for defending a possible decision to put a smart progressive in the most powerful position on Earth.

    Looks like I touched a nerve (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Jim J on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:54:29 PM EST
    I'm just not a Sebelius fan, sorry. We can and should do better at this critical juncture. No offense, really.

    As someone who has worked in hospice, (4.50 / 2) (#232)
    by Radiowalla on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:36:58 PM EST
    I thoroughly reject the "stages of grief" comparison.  It is nothing more than an overworked construct to try and explain away behavior that is not well understood.

    I also reject the fanciful idea that Kaine is some kind of stalking horse for Sebelius, that the Obama folks are just trying to fake us out by dangling out Kaine and then surprising the world with Sebelius.  

    What I have learned from reading this thread and all 225 comments is that I will not be voting for Obama if he picks Sebelius.  She is not even remotely qualified to be Vice President of the United States.

    I am almost hoping that Obama chooses Kaine (4.00 / 2) (#226)
    by blogtopus on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:02:00 PM EST
    I can't think of a better example of his indifference to his followers, it would be just too friggin' difficult to ignore. I thought FISA would wake up the multitudes, but all I ended up getting in responses was 'Well he's in the GE now, he HAS to move to the Center!'

    I realize that this sounds like I want Obama to lose -- which I do: I want him to lose the nomination. As much as everyone likes to say 'too late, that ship has sailed', we are still dealing with a presumptive nominee who really is taking that presumptive aspect a little too much to heart.

    I'll believe it when the fat lady sings at the convention hall, not a moment before. Once his nomination is set in stone - for good or bad, it is FINAL - then I can sit back and watch the final act of carnage: Obama Without A Net.

    Comments now closed (1.00 / 1) (#225)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 06:29:39 PM EST
    We close all threads at 200 comments. Thanks for your thoughts.

    I gotta question. What man was/is better on (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:15:03 PM EST
    progressive issues than Clinton or Sebelius?

    Russ Feingold (5.00 / 0) (#203)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:39:38 PM EST
    Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards, Ralph Nader



    If Obama picked Sebelius ... (none / 0) (#65)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:44:30 PM EST
    it would probably prevent McCain from picking Palin.

    And, strategically, Palin would be a good choice.  She'll appease conservatives. She has the kind of personal story that makes the media swoon.  And she's younger than Obama.

    So picking Sebelius might be a sign from the Obama campaign that they're worried about McCain picking Palin.

    Palin (none / 0) (#85)
    by rottenart on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:56:34 PM EST
    is no longer an option. she's entangled in a scandal of power-abuse in AK that fits nicely with the culture of corruption meme Sen.Stevens is currently propping up. She's tainted.

    The charges against Palin (4.50 / 4) (#91)
    by americanincanada on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:03:35 PM EST
    are cra and trumped up. She is welcoming the investigation. it will be short and will vindicate her. Palin is not out, the very fact that she isn'tbeing mentioned is proof.

    Also, they did an opinion poll on her yesterday and her approval ratings remain the highest in the country, despite the 'scandal'.

    The Obama camp and his supporters had better consider her before they get blind-sided. Palin is a dream pick for McCain...went after big oil and corruption in her own party, pro-life, pro-gun, a new baby and one with special needs and a compelling personal story that will, as I hav said before, suck all the pxygen out of Obama's narrative.

    Not to mention the new gas pipeline she is sheperding through. she is wildly popular and beautiful which won't hurt. As a Democrat a McCain/Palin ticket scaresme to death.


    Palin used to look good but is mired (none / 0) (#90)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:02:12 PM EST
    in the quicksands of the everlasting and ever-expanding Alaskan scandal.....

    She will remain above it all (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by americanincanada on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:09:50 PM EST
    and untouched by the so-called scandal. the Ted Stevens thing is totally seperate and completely different than 'troopergate.' I hate seeing politicians of any party get tarnished by rumor and lies.

    This article from the WSJ today explains it in detail.

    ...When Sarah Palin was elected governor as a Republican outsider in 2006, she didn't just take on an incumbent from her own party. She took on Alaska's Republican establishment.

    Ms. Palin vowed to clean up a long-cozy political system that had been sullied by an FBI corruption investigation. She endeared herself to Alaskans by making good on her reform promises and showing homey touches, like driving herself to work.


    The allegations against Ms. Palin are less serious than -- and entirely separate from -- those that have been leveled against a number of Alaska's most prominent politicians since 2006, when a Federal Bureau of Investigation probe into influence peddling by oil-field contractor VECO Corp. came to light.

    And finally:

    Ms. Palin's supporters dismiss the so-called Troopergate incident as trouble stoked by her enemies.

    "Many of those who had been in positions of power and authority have been very envious over the past year and a half, with Ms. Palin's great popularity," says Soldotna Mayor David Carey

    The Obama camp ignores Sarah Palin at their peril.


    If I had to choose (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by samanthasmom on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:20:53 PM EST
    between Kathleen Sebelius and Sarah Palin to be the next heir apparent to the Presidency, I'd go with Palin - and I have never voted for a Republican except at the dog catcher level. She's got a lot of drive, and I can get past the few things we disagree on. Heck, Obama's already asking me to get past them and more.

    Getting past her being Pro-life is do-able? (5.00 / 0) (#129)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:40:10 PM EST
    Her pro-life (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by americanincanada on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:51:11 PM EST
    position is stated in a more understandable and heartfelt way than most. I get where Feminists for Life are coming from, just because I may not agree does not mean I don't understand.

    Besides, Obama hardly has a stellar stance on abortion from my view either. His faith based approach and Kaine being on his shortlist inspire no confidence in me whatsoever.


    I hate to admit it (5.00 / 4) (#136)
    by americanincanada on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:43:30 PM EST
    but I really like Sarah Palin. She is interesting, driven, a fighter, and has principles. I can indeed get past the very few things we disagree on easier than I can handle KS as VP or pres.

    If CNN is right, and Carl Berstein holds no water for me ever, and Hillary will not have any role at the convention beyond the Tuesday (no role call vote, name not placed in nomination even symbolically, no VP slot) then I am afraid Obama may not be able to convince me to vote for him ever.


    I really do not get this (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:48:38 PM EST
    If the reason for supporting Hillary was her positions on the issues and her experience, how does Palin even come close on either score?

    Do you know anything about Palin? (none / 0) (#149)
    by americanincanada on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:54:53 PM EST
    What issues am I supposed to be so worried about other than abortion?

    Palin has the almost exact stance as Obama on GLBT rights. She has fought big oil and gotten a profits tax.

    She would not be running against Hillary...


    Everything else (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:31:10 PM EST
    Health care, tax cuts for the wealthy, the Environment (all elected pols from Alaska are in favor of drilling in ANWR), and I assume she toes or will toe the line on neocon foreign policy and issues re torture.

    Overlooking her staunch pro-life position seems very generous....and quite a thing to overlook.


    In a world (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by americanincanada on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:37:42 PM EST
    where we have people like Bob Casey in our party, what do dems do about him? Overlook his strong pro-life stance? I don't plan to vote republicans so none of this really matters to me but I fail to understand how people cannot see why Palin is an attractive choice.

    The majority of American's now favor drilling offshore. I used to be opposed to drilling in ANWR but have now gotten to a point where I am willing to listen. She has a strong stance on children's health and welfare, a fair stance on gay rights, she has gone after big oil and won, she rooted out corruption in her own party going so far as to sell off a plane that was bought on the tax payers dime on Ebay. Her response to the lieniency (sp?) shown to Exxon/Mobile was wonderful.

    She has a son who just recently joined the military, hunts and fishes like a pro, dog sleds, was a fierce high school athelete etc, etc. She could be a very dangerous choice.


    She would have too much explaining to do (none / 0) (#210)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:53:27 PM EST
    if she were to run, and even if she could--quickly--clear her name, the GOP would want her to run for the Senate against Democratic favorite Begich.  A wingnut GOP radio shock jock is relentlessly criticizing her as corrupt.  

    That she hunts or fishes doesn't seem like a big deal, or have any bearing on being VP.  Dick Cheney, for Pete's sake, hunts and fishes too.

    And on drilling, the Exxon Valdez spill shows that there are many, many risks associated with oil drilling, some of which go beyond a simple leak in the pipeline or causing problems with the migration of the caribou....It is the law of unintended consequences....


    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:16:31 PM EST
    Except for the FfL thing.  But her background story is fabulous, she used to be an athlete, almost all the pics of her are in rugged outdoorsy kind of clothes or very smart-looking down to business kind of clothes.  So she can play the 'one of us game' with both professionals and down-to-earth types.

    She's got a good rep on ethics and anti-corruption, extremely high approval ratings, and the last thing she is is boring.  She's stood up on a lot of issues near and dear to liberals hearts.  (actually, I think she's too liberal for McCain to really pick her).  

    She would be very attractive to Independents and Undecideds, for whom abortion is seldom a litmus test issue.


    Feingold (none / 0) (#69)
    by bocajeff on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:46:32 PM EST
    Did I miss something somewhere, but why not Sen. Feingold. Midwesterner near some swing states. INcredible Progressive credentials. Experience. Jewish to reignite the AA/Jewish coalition and to help in Florida. Worked with Sen. McCain on campaign reform so that isue gets blunted.

    Sure, he's not Sen. Clinton, but then again who is?

    Feingold (5.00 / 0) (#185)
    by BDB on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:31:07 PM EST
    Would give me new respect for Obama.  I think he'd be great.  But he does not fit with Obama's "new politics" which translates roughly into "sucking up to Republicans."  I'd love to be wrong and for him to pick Feingold, but I think that's even less likely than Clinton.

    I would love that (none / 0) (#135)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:43:24 PM EST
    But I'm afraid he is too progressive for Obama.

    finegold would never take a second banana (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by hellothere on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:39:28 PM EST
    position. it isn't his style. i am deeply sorry he isn't the candidate.

    Extreamly interesting (none / 0) (#94)
    by Jgarza on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:05:07 PM EST
    I hope you are correct or he is bluffing about Hillary, those are my top choices.  Really well thought out and interesting.  Thanks for the run down on your thought process.

    Sebelius worse than Kaine IMO (none / 0) (#111)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:22:22 PM EST
    I think Sebelius would actually be worse than Kaine. First she's as bad as Kaine because like him she has little or no experience nationally. She's slightly better in that she's been governor longer and so has even more executive experience. And in general governors make good choices I think. But international expereince is what worries a lot of people and that won't help. More importantly I think is that she has the same problem Kaine has in that her credentials are questionable on the pro-choice issue given their personal beliefs. Given Obama's desire to partially (at least for now) roll back Roe, I think anyone that isn't 100% privately and publicly on board for women's rights will be a problem. Where she is worse of course is that she's a woman who is not Hillary with the problems mentioned. Just my opinion, your mileage may vary.

    I think Kaine is being pushed out there as a test to see what the reactions are though. But since Sebelius is just as weak on choice in my opinion, I'm not sure it's a smoke screen designed to work towards getting women to like the choice better.

    By the way Jerylan, a couple of things mentioned gave me pause. One was

    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.

    And the other was

    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.

    Both of those sound like you're just now accepting Obama and suipporting him. But you've said since he because the presumptive nominee that you're for him. What gives?

    Sebelius is rock solid on choice--and in Kansas (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:42:46 PM EST
    to boot.....

    But... (none / 0) (#127)
    by Mike H on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:37:43 PM EST
    If it's rare to have a Dem in power in Kansas, and she's done such a good job, do we even want Sebelius to leave her post there to become VP?

    If KS were a Dem-safe state, that would be one thing, but I think the party should be focused on keeping as many Dem governors, congressfolk, and state legislatures as possible.

    Heck, pick John Edwards or Al Gore -- we won't lose any Dem seats that way AND they are both still relatively popular with the base and independents!

    IIRC, there's a 2 term limit. (none / 0) (#157)
    by Ramo on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:01:47 PM EST
    She only gets to stay there for another two years.  And her replacement would be a Dem (albeit a converted Republican).

    I think Sebelius would be a huge asset to the new Admin, and would be able to do a lot of good without crazies like the KS legislature thwarting her.  From the perspective of making the next 8 years work great, she'd be a good choice.

    But frankly, the direction of KS isn't as important as the direction of the US.  If she were a Senator under a Republican Governor, I think you'd have a point there.

    I think Gore or Edwards would be good choices as well.


    oops.... (none / 0) (#228)
    by Sensatus on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:09:55 PM EST
    I meant "......he must choose somebody because they satisfy a certain faction such as gender, instead of who he believes will do the best job?"

    naagonnahappin (none / 0) (#229)
    by pluege on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:44:02 PM EST
    ...is worse than a candidate with good views who may need a little on the job training.

    no good. Americans are basically conservative in the voting booth, preferring to go with the devil they know rather than take a chance.

    It's less about winning, (none / 0) (#233)
    by Left of center on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 02:23:02 AM EST
    and more about Obama's ego. If Hillary gets the VP nod, everything the Clinton's do or say will be front page news till the election. Obama doesn't want to be upstaged, so he will go with a relatively unknown VP pick who will not take up the spotlight. I'm just afraid that it's going to cost us the white house in November.

    Sebelius's abortion scandal (none / 0) (#234)
    by suzieg on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 05:39:31 AM EST
    I remembered her being chased down a street about a scandal so I google her and here it is:



    The Democratic Party's choice to elevate Mrs. Sebelius to national stature in the midst of a scandal within her administration is both curious and brazen. Either party leaders believe the national media will ignore the story because, after all, it's just Kansas. Or they believe the media are so fixed on a Democratic victory in November that they just don't care.

    These same party leaders have wrongly believed over the years that women vote as a monolithic bloc, and they would never reject one of their own gender no matter how tainted. Once again, they underestimate the very women for whom they claim to be champions.

    Now that both Mr. Morrison and Planned Parenthood face criminal allegations, Mrs. Sebelius' silence betrays her tacit support for both of them. With confessions now made public and court proceedings going forward, she cannot blame their troubles on a vast right-wing conspiracy. Her focus may be on her future ambitions but people across the country now begin to take the measure of Mrs. Sebelius they should also be aware of her recent and present judgment. Forgoing the safety of women in exchange for powerful political allegiances is the last thing women are looking for in a national leader. Women, and all of us, deserve better.