(Purge for two reasons:

1. At the party level, as a pure consolidation of power move.

2. At the voter level, Hillary's voters have fewer campaign contributions to make, and also want more from government. They're a low-performing division, exactly the kind that you shed in a hostile takeover.

I find it incredibly offensive that she is attacked because of her gender by some.

Hillary Clinton fought that glass ceiling for all women, not just herself.  If a women is nominated VP, it's a good thing.  It's even better if she is relatively progressive.

It's amazing to me that the man who claims to want to bring people together is using the most divisive and manipulative and dishonest tactics to do it - tactics that are creating a veneer of "unity" that is so thin and so fragile that when it finally breaks, it is going to be as ugly and as irreparable as anything I have ever seen or experienced in my almost-55 years.

Picking her is just another cynical and patronizing move by the O campaign, which really thinks women, and Hillary supporters in particular, are that simple-minded, that unsophisticated, and that easily manipulated.

I find it ironic that your claim is sadness because people would not look on Sebelius as an individual when the Obama campaign would specifically offering her up not as an individual but as a big 'Look!  I picked someone with girlie parts!'

Only Joe Biden comes close.  But, as Jeralyn noted here, he has his harshly punitive anti-crime/drug side, to go with his work for Big Banking in the senate.

On personal issues, she's also ahead of the pack -- she's a fresh face and an historic candidate, if selected; likable personality overall and nice to look at.  No obvious personality quirk or track record of making serious faux pas (Biden).  

Exciting public speaker?  No, but that's about as irrelevant a matter for choosing the #2 as you can imagine.  Edwards wasn't a great public speaker either (formal addresses), and yet he was warmly embraced as Kerry's VP last time.  Bill Clinton screwed up his 88 convention speech, droning on endlessly, yet Dems didn't reject him in 92 because of some stupid speech he gave yrs ago.

There seems to be a notion embraced by Obama supporters that women voters should be over-joyed to support and vote for ANY woman the leadership suggests, simply because she is a woman. But, contrary to the myth these Obama supporters have sold themselves, the vast majority of women won't vote -- and those who supported Hillary didn't vote -- simply on the basis of gender alone.

A Sebelius pick would be a mystery in this sense; she  doesn't add anything to the ticket in terms of bringing in big and important swing states. Plus, her midwestern conservative style says old-time "moderate" politics (the kind of politics long associated with her region) not "change."

So what is the big advantage Obama sees in her?

My big fear about his choice of Sebelius, if he does choose her, is that his major reason for doing so will be her rather uninspiring persona -- that she is someone who won't upstage, someone who will play the traditional womanly role of chief supporter for the great man without bringing attention to herself as a powerful politician in her own right. In other words, she'll be useful for fluffing up his image, but she won't deflect the spotlight from him even a little bit. Rather than a traditional VP role, I fear that Obama wants Sebelius in a feminine role that is  someone familiar one many remember another era -- the 50s & 60s role of "office wife;" that is, the devoted, protective Executive Secretary or Assistant whose most important job was making the Great Man look good  -- a devoted underling cheerfully handling all the details the boss found boring or beneath him, cleaning up any messes, correcting (and when necessary taking responsibility for) all the mistakes, and, most of all, incessantly buffing and fiercely protecting the public image of the Great Man she stood so loyally behind.

"Not putting her name in nomination for pres, relegating her to ladies night, and not nominating her for VP slot - and hit us in the face with Sibelius - is going to be a disaster."

We KNOW, we CHOSE the woman we wanted.  It is CLEAR whom we wanted.  But the DLC, Dean and the good old boys, Kennedy, Kerry and the bunch are doing a power play to hold on to the status quo.

Their "any woman except the one women chose" screams power play; screams "we'll show you."  

he picks HILL.... people who want the clintons out of the WH  will go nuts

he doesnt pick HILL...staunch Hill supporters will vote for the unthinkable  MCCAIN

he picks SELEBIUS  it will tick off HILL supporters  and MEN who wont vote for a woman

and on and on

i think the best PICK would be GORE... but GORE doesnt want it.

Concern about that might be typical of Obama thinking...on to the next stage of his metamorphosis before he's dealt with the durrent one.

Fool me once, and all that.

If he DOES pick Sebelius, it will clearly demonstrate that he underestimates the support Hillary has (which basically means he lives in a HUGE bubble and may not be as politically aware or intelligent as he should be) and literally believes he has this "in the bag" or why else would he potentially -- and quite probably -- kiss nearly 18 million votes goodbye?

The point about Hillary speaking and reminding people of what they could have had had the Stupid Super Ds done what they were supposed to do is a great one to make.  And then to compare Sebelius to that?  Ugh.  I don't want to be in her heels as I trust she'll be met with some pretty strong resistance.

At the end of the day, this is all about Obama's fragile ego and his fear of being upstaged.  And Hillary will, of course, upstage him at the Convention just by being there, being brilliant, being informed and logical and clear about her goals.  She'll be a breath of fresh adult air after having dealt with Mr. Cellophane aka The One for the past few months.  

For Hillary -- relegated to Women's Night, a clear slap in the face and an indication of the esteem Obama and his minions at the DNC hold her in --, her Convention Speech will be a repositioning for 2012 and a strong reminder to people of what kind of leader she'll be.

I almost hope the ratings for her speech match or slightly surpass the ratings for his speech.

As far as I can tell, the only thing that politicians in KS do is change the standards for teaching science laced with religion in schools every election cycle.

Does anything else happen in KS?

Oh yeah, it was KS where a couple of years ago the wacky locals forced out the owners of a bed and breakfast / restaurant business because they dared hang a rainbow flag in front of their place that their daughter had wanted.  It made the town look "gay friendly" and they couldn't have that.  Hell, the owners were married hetero couple.  And, I always thought that rainbows in KS maybe had another meaning besides gay.  You know, OZ, Dorothy, Toto, Over the Rainbow, etc.

Hart started by asking why they picked Hillary, went around the room. The answers from some men were too cool: first guy said "she had the goods". Hart asked OK what does that mean, she had the goods. The guy said she just had the whole package, the ideas, she was inspiring, and "I think it's time for a woman president." (This type of voter might be pleased with Sebelius.)

this is politics  not tiddly-winks.

I can't tell you how many times I have laughed at otherwise intelligent people I know after suggesting Hillary as VP. Their  response, with a straight face: Obama cannot pick Hillary because he is all about change.

I don't say you're wrong, tho.  There is a context at the presidential level.  

At state levels, tho, some of the names of elected officials have made me laugh out loud and wonder 'what the hey' their voters were thinking!

The name thingy is one of the BIG CHANGES we can expect in this election season, so maybe....it doesn't matter any more.

Have you seen the names people have been giving to their children these days?  And worse than that...the SPELLINGS!?!