Is Kaine a Smokescreen for Kathleen Sebelius?

I just spent two hours writing up a theory that came to me at midnight. The gist is that Sen. Barack Obama, by leaking to the mainstream media that Hillary is not on his shortlist while not discouraging talk about Virgina Gov. Tim Kaine, is manipulating a planned succession of leaks.

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. He's committed to expending untold sums of money to go after unregistered voters in the swing states -- the young, minorities and others who firmly believe he represents change. 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. [More...]

The young might believe he's a sellout, pointing to FISA. The elderly, with enough uncertainty in their lives as to their final years,will have more important things to worry about than deciding between two same-olds, one of whom came out of nowhere. That's leaves Obama's path very clear. He's been working on it for year and I as wrote earlier, it will be on full display in Denver. He's going after unregistered voters, the disaffected among us, because Obama is banking on them buying into his grand plan to have them enter the Big Tent as invited guests.

For reasons I'll describe in my next post, which may or may be finalized tomorrow, Tim Kaine doens't fit the mold. Either does Evan Bayh. Joe Biden kills it. Kathleen Sebelius could be his key.

I've broken down the analysis but it needs fine-tuning and I need to add source links before I go public on it. Right now, my money is on Sebelius. I'd love to hear your thoughts on Sebelius.

< More Signs Hillary Won't Be the VP Candidate | Thursday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Fabulous (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Grace on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 03:28:08 AM EST
    He picks a woman who won't attract Hillary's voters and who possibly will repell people who don't want a female VP.  Good move.  

    Since the goal is to purge Hillary supporters... (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by lambertstrether on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 06:44:29 AM EST
    ... and this is an excellent way to do that, I'd say, Jeralyn, that this is spot on!

    (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.

    Ha!!!!!! (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by TheJoker on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:52:18 AM EST
    If Obama picks Sebelius, Jesse Jackson is gonna need  
    a MUCH, MUCH bigger blade to cut off O's man-parts!!

    LOL! And so true Joker!!!! (none / 0) (#99)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:12:47 AM EST
    I think Sebelius is a good choice. (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by TomP on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:34:04 AM EST
    She fought Big Coal and is more progressive than the others names we've heard.

    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.

    I'll take Sebelius over Bayh or Kaine or some of the others.    


    Then She Won't Get ... (none / 0) (#141)
    by santarita on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:36:32 AM EST
    the nod.  Obama likes the coal industry.

    and no way (none / 0) (#4)
    by Chisoxy on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 04:22:32 AM EST
    is it not seen as trying to appease Hillary hold-outs by, at the very least, the Hillary hold-outs.

    Pelosi's choice (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by Prabhata on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 04:20:33 AM EST
    Sebelius has the support of those behind Obama.  I'm happy it's not HRC because my vote for anybody but Obama will be that much easier.

    If things were reversed (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 04:27:37 AM EST
    should an AA have any concerns about hypothetical candidate Clinton choosing an AA veep who wasn't Barack Obama?

    well then (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 04:49:28 AM EST
    If they pick her, they should advertise those achievements and there probably won't be much of a problem.

    You see it's not just that her name wouldn't be Clinton it's avoiding the implication that Clinton was supported only because she was a woman and that by choosing a woman one has solved a problem with women.

    But again, stick to records, issues, and acidvements and I don't foresee much if a problem here.  I've been wanting team Obama to focus on those sorts of things for a long time now.


    I look forward to (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by Fabian on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:48:49 AM EST
    Sebelius' run for the White House then.
    Her achievements should in no way be discounted simply because her name isn't Hillary Clinton.

    If she's got the cred, if she's got the chops, if she's got what it takes - let her run!

    Heck, I look forward to each and every presidential election including a strong female contender.  Democrat and Republican.  Let's see all these highly qualified women, if there are so many of them.


    hmmmm (none / 0) (#52)
    by Fabian on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:23:59 AM EST
    Well, if Obama really wanted to be Bold, Historic and Tripartisan there's always Cynthia McKinney, currently of the Green Party.

    Speaking of female contenders....


    Could you imagine (none / 0) (#84)
    by lilburro on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:57:44 AM EST
    Sebelius v. Clinton in a 2016 primary?  Can the DNC?

    Can the DNC? (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Fabian on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:40:32 AM EST
    I'm in favor of canning the DNC!

    Now that would be very interesting lilburro. (none / 0) (#97)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:09:26 AM EST
    Why are you acting out your violent (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by JoeA on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 04:52:41 AM EST

    Slightly disturbing if you ask me.

    You're missing the point. (4.25 / 4) (#12)
    by Shainzona on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 05:25:30 AM EST
    It's not just Sebelius, it's the cumulative effect:

    "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."

    I for one pray that it's Sebelius, as that will be the finishing stroke for Obama Central and a way to save this country from a horrible fate.


    That's true (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:11:16 AM EST
    Americans are resilient people.

    They can survive the worst of presidents and they will probably survive Obama too.


    I've come to believe in (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Xanthe on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:19:24 AM EST
    my 70th year that America succeeds in spite of politicans not because of them.  

    Well I do believe (none / 0) (#65)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:41:01 AM EST
    Some president's are survived better than others.

    Despite Bill's best efforts to the contrary (LOL), I was much better off in 1999 than I was in 1991 or have been now in 2008.

    I guess i was just more resilient then, moreso than ever before.


    I certainly get what you are (none / 0) (#120)
    by Xanthe on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:01:06 AM EST
    saying, as I was doing well in his tenure as well but - when I think of the energy wasted at the end of his presidency and what might have been accomplished - (as well - we may have had a President Gore) - it evens it out for me.

    I made the mistake of reading Sy Hersh's book:  The Dark Side of Camelot.  I have a really bad taste in my mouth right now and am pretty jaded.  


    Or McCain (none / 0) (#62)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:38:57 AM EST
    that argument cuts both ways.

    No doubt (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:44:52 AM EST
    I think I'll survive McCain about as well as I'll survive Obama.

    As a purely selfish self-interested me me me me first voter, the two are still a wash.

    At best.


    JoeA (none / 0) (#112)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:39:12 AM EST
    please don't try to redirect the thread.

    I know what you are saying. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by JoeA on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 04:53:50 AM EST
    But surely that is a pretty "anti-feminist" and sad position to take.  i.e. Better to nominate a man than a woman other than Hillary?

    Don't forget B O R I N G. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Shainzona on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 05:26:49 AM EST
    We can snooze through the next four years.

    The point is (5.00 / 10) (#15)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 05:51:21 AM EST
    choosing a woman will be seen as nothing more than an obvious and insulting pander to the women who supported Hillary.

    No one will think that an anonymous female like Sebelius would have been the VP pick even if the primary hadn't happened.  Heck, you yourself might think it, and it might even be true, but that's not how people will look at it.


    This "pander" objection is (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by brodie on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:51:13 AM EST
    nonsense.  Consider:  if Hillary had been just 20% smarter about her campaign, not elevating Penn to run things but gone with someone wiser like Begala or Carville, then if she'd been the one who edged out O for the nom, would there be any plausible "pander to black voters" objection here if she selected O for her running mate?  

    It wouldn't hold water, because in that scenario, O would be her clear best pick, just as (arguably) Edwards was the clear best pick for Kerry in the last cycle, yet no one then moaned about how it was such an obvious and insulting "pander" to WCWs or Tar Heelers.  Did Dems bellyache about Carter "pandering" to Northern libs when he picked Fritz in 76?  Please.

    Now, Sebelius may be anonymous for the moment as she flies under the radar (perhaps as Jeralyn suggests, a clever misdirection), but she won't be once she becomes the pick and the media covers the selection 24/7 for several days.  And no one will object that she lacks qualifications -- not given her record of being elected to statewide office several times in a heavily red state, and her outstanding record of achievement along progressive lines.



    Come on... (5.00 / 6) (#124)
    by americanincanada on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:10:42 AM EST
    ...then if she'd been the one who edged out O for the nom, would there be any plausible "pander to black voters" objection here if she selected O for her running mate?

    there would have been no need. Hillary made it clear she would have chosen Obama. I believed her. And yes, I do believe Obama's supporters would have flipped right out if she had in turn chosen Harold Ford.


    If Hillary picked Harold Ford as veep (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by catfish on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:27:55 AM EST
    that's a better comparison. Would you see it as a pander? I see Harold Ford as Obama-LITE. Sebelius is Hillary-LITE. I see both as panders, tokenism. JFK sucked it up and picked LBJ. Why can't Obama be a grownup about this? Why is it so hard to just give her that floor vote?

    Hahaha. Okay, all it will require of Obama (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:10:22 AM EST
    then is to never ever say that Sebelius would be a historic first as a woman VP.

    If that is said, even once -- and by anyone in his campaign or the media, not just him -- then it will look like pandering.  And perception is uber alless in politics, the way she is played.


    not only that (none / 0) (#177)
    by cawaltz on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:27:41 AM EST
    he'll look like an idiot because Sebelius won't be a historic first. Ferraro was first. They may not like her but they can't revise her out of history as the first female VP.

    Uh, Mondale and Ferraro didn't win. (none / 0) (#179)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:33:21 AM EST
    I didn't say historic first woman VP candidate.

    See the difference?


    If HE calls her a historic first (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by cawaltz on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:54:33 AM EST
    and it ain't AFTER the election is over he cements the impression of arrogance. If the point is to call something a historic first then they won't be able to do it until AFTER the election is over(since WINNING is the requirement to make it historic). Do you see my point?

    Okay, let me try this again (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:39:12 PM EST
    as he won't have to wait until after the election to pander.  It's about verb tense.  All he has to do is say that electing the ticket with her on it would be historic for women (as well as for AAs).

    you think? really! see ya in november! (none / 0) (#119)
    by hellothere on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:59:28 AM EST
    It's all about the context (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Fabian on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 06:50:52 AM EST
    and the Obama campaign and the Obama supporters have supplied plenty of context.

    Perhaps if they hadn't...?  (But they did.)


    no (5.00 / 9) (#37)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:58:39 AM EST
    Better to nominate the most qualified person who happens to be a woman because she's the most qualified.  Don't nominate someone less qualified who is also a woman because you feel you have a problem with women voters.

    The cumulative effect is to merely insult women voters with your assumption that they are only supporting a woman because she is a woman and any woman will do.


    NO, it's NOT (5.00 / 7) (#88)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:59:42 AM EST
    You are not listening, or you are not hearing or you just are incapable of getting in.

    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."  

    It's just wrong. Women get it.  Been there, done that.


    Well, since (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:19:48 AM EST
    one of the most common rationales for choosing Obama was "any man is better than this woman," I really don't see that there's room for Obamites to complain.

    Eh (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 05:48:27 AM EST
    I really don't think the average college student or voter thinks like "Evan Bayh = same old same old" "Kathleen Sebelius = changerrific!"  What is Bayh's name recognition outside of Indiana?

    If people haven't been bothered so far by the cognitive dissonance of old-timers like John Kerry promising that Obama will change Washington, they're not going to freak out over the VP selection.

    Thing is, really, no argument (5.00 / 4) (#92)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:05:19 AM EST
    based on the idea that Obama would lose his base by doing x or y holds any water.

    If his fans can swallow FISA and all his other backtracking, he could announce the Pillsbury Dough Boy as his VP pick and they would still support him.  Any crowd that can convince themselves that he's a secret progressive who will, once elected, come flying out of the gate and reverse all the political destruction of the last 8 years can rationalize anything.  Anything.


    Sebelius as VP equals (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by stefystef on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 05:56:04 AM EST
    McCain in the White House in November.

    Why?  Because this election  has proven that sexism is as strong a factor as racism.

    This selection will not make Hillary supporters come to Obama and it might even turn off some men.  If Obama wants to win this, he needs a white man from the South or Midwest.

    Sadly, because of Edwards personal issues, he's outta it (not that he was really in it in the first place) and Biden won't happen.  I think this year is the last horrah for Biden's bid for the White House.  Bayh or Kaine would be better.

    catch 22 (none / 0) (#58)
    by MrPope on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:35:33 AM EST
    no mattwe who he picks as VP... people will have a problem with it..

    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.

    can BILL be VP?  thats a thought


    last suggestion (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:42:12 AM EST
    contradicts your second assumption.

    he can pich Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:57:02 AM EST
    and tell his supporters to 'suck it up' for the sake of the supreme court.  They've been telling Clinton supporters that since the end of the primary.  So, it would be rather difficult for them to argue against it now wouldn't it?  What about the children?  Think about the children?

    progressive change to Obama (5.00 / 10) (#17)
    by kimsaw on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 06:07:29 AM EST
    is compromise leading to the status quo.  Is FISA a compromise that works in the nation's interest? This is from a candidate who politically maneuvers by voting present.  If he does choose Sebelius he has chosen his clone only in the female form. She is a pretty woman that will appease to those who offered "a woman but just not this woman" or to those right of center and less progressive.  Gov. Sebelius is as cloudy a Dem as Obama is. Can someone please tell me what do the Dems stand up for these days?

    The fact that Obama can't or won't work with Clinton as VP, is telling to this voter. Obama cares more about positioning his legacy than working with the best possible team for a new direction in America. Clinton on substance and commitment to cause, along with 18 million voters should be Obama's presumptive choice. Obama lack of personal and political confidence to deal substantively on the issues drives him from Clinton toward the lesser knowns or his clone. It in the end is not about America but about Obama.  

    To have a legacy (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by oldpro on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:33:59 AM EST
    you first have to get elected...

    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.

    Cart before horse, as it were.


    This is so insane by Obama, (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by nulee on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 06:43:59 AM EST
    but the denial is people about picking Hillary boggles my mine, just yesterday I was taken aback once again to here a colleague say he wished Edwards was to be VP - how could he even say that?  Edwards didn't even take, what, 1/10th of the primary votes Hillary got (either time) - he has no foreign policy experience, little other experience, lost in '04, didn't get out of the station in '08, has love child rumors swirling about ---- what does Hillary need for Obama and the public to take notice?

    I think not taking HRC as VP makes Obama look like a TOTAL whimp.

    It would be nice if, occasionally, Obama (5.00 / 9) (#20)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 06:44:31 AM EST
    didn't act as if he is just so much smarter than all of us regular voters, to the point where he would think picking a woman other than Hillary is a smart move - is he so removed from what 18 million-plus real voters said in voting for Clinton that he thinks this won't matter?  Does he have any idea how many people who have tepidly thrown their support to him will see that as a deal-breaker?

    I don't know, Jeralyn - I will anxiously await your take on this, but I have to say that I think blindsiding us with a Sebelius pick would be a really tone-deaf move on Obama's part.

    I can just see it now...Hillary gives a bring-down-the-house speech on Ladies Night, people all over the country remember what it is they so admired and loved about her, how much the country needs her kind of passion and work ethic and experience, and Sebelius appears and falls so flat she is doomed from Day One; the wounds re-open and this time, they stay open.

    Of course you're going to be blind-sided... (5.00 / 7) (#22)
    by lambertstrether on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 06:47:25 AM EST
    for pity's sake.

    Fool me once, and all that.

    Get it straight: it's all about the Obama Movement. They don't want you in the party. That's why they do what they do.


    Worked on me! I'm out (none / 0) (#183)
    by oldpro on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:38:12 AM EST
    at the national level.

    They don't want my time, my money, my input or my vote.



    When (5.00 / 8) (#28)
    by chrisvee on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:23:54 AM EST
    Sebelius's name was floated many months ago (during the State of the Union) I said that if Obama won the nomination and picked her, it would be a disaster because a significant portion of Hillary's supporters would be livid and treat it as the final insult. I don't see any reason to back off those thoughts right now because passions don't seem to have cooled much.  Is Sebelius more qualified than Hillary?  No.  Are we supposed to embrace her because she's a woman? No; we're not interchangeable.  How would people react if Hillary as nominee selected a AA other than Obama?  I think we all know the answer to that one.  She's be skewered in the media. In terms of name recognition, how many people know who she is?

    She would be a very bad pick indeed not because she's unaccomplished or because of her policies but because of the optics of the thing and because I don't think she's going to be perceive as someone ready to be POTUS, either.  It amazes me how Obama could clearly have a slam dunk win if he added Hillary to the ticket but instead this process of finding someone else to help execute some risky strategy goes on and on...I'm starting to understand why we can't win the White House.


    I'm with Anne- (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by magisterludi on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:25:25 AM EST

    he's not smarter than us (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by ccpup on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:22:50 AM EST
    he's just constantly disappointed that we don't "get it".

    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.



    I don't agree (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by oldpro on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:44:14 AM EST
    that at the end of the day it's all about Obama's fragile ego.

    People seem to have forgotten that Obama was drafted...just as George Bush was drafted...and he won't be making the big decisions any more than Bush has.

    Same song.  Second verse.

    Let's keep our eye on the ball, people.  We are at the carnival and the carny folks think we are the rubes.


    A thumb in the eye... (5.00 / 7) (#21)
    by lambertstrether on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 06:45:12 AM EST
    as indeed it will be intended to be.

    I agree (5.00 / 8) (#24)
    by cmugirl on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:05:36 AM EST
    I've been kind of thinking along these lines all week - not about Sebelius, but that Kaine was a smokescreen for anyone else.  It gets voters in Virginia excited and talking about the fact that their governor could be the VP pick, and it distracts from what is really going on.

    And the fact that Hillary is not even a choice - the person who got the most votes ever in a primary - just shows the arrogance and lack of understanding the Obama team has.  If he's afraid of the big bad Clintons, how is he going to handle the leaders of Iran or North Korea? Whine that they are too mean and can't be trusted?

    Frankly, I'm at the point with the Dems that I feel a Clint Eastwood quote coming on:  "Go ahead.  Make my day."

    Anyone Dumb Enough to Believe Obama Is (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by Richjo on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:07:57 AM EST
    actually offering real meaningful change of our politics after his actions of the last few months is too stupid or blind to be effected by Obama's choice of VP. That this man can still seriously claim to be representing a new brand of politics is simply a testament to the ignornace of his core supporters. There is no doubt that people want change after the last eight years, but that doesn't mean they don't also want experience as well. Obama's argument that you can't respresent both will only go so far. His win in the primary wasn't exactly an overwhelming mandate for that message. He may not even have gotten more votes, he was simply able to game a corrupt and broken system to eke out a narrow victory. If he doubles down on this experience is bad meme he risks losing the almost 50% of the voting population who isn't buying his BS to begin with.

    As for Sebilius, while I keep be told she is a progressive I don't see much in her governing record to suggest that she has effectively advanced that agenda, or even put much political capital into doing so. Granted she governs a very red state, but it seems to me her mojo has been to co-opt Republicans and then simply avoid actually fighting for any of the issues she allegedly believes in so strongly.

    I still believe (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by ccpup on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:46:32 AM EST
    that the Change Election was 2006 when Americans gave Dems control.  And the Dems failed miserably.  I don't know why the Dems think we're going to give them the keys to the whole thing when they've f*cked up so horribly.

    This year is not the Change Election no matter how much Obama trots out that tired line.


    change (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by MrPope on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:21:17 AM EST
    yeah  McCain surely is the key to change  not Obama.

    well, the Dems (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by ccpup on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:26:14 AM EST
    have engendered nothing but anger and disappointment from the Electorate the last two years.  They may not necessarily WANT to give the keys to the White House to a first term Junior Senator with little experience or achievement and the Party of Sternly Worded Letters Achieving Nothing.

    There's a reason the Democratic controlled Congress has approval ratings lower than Bush.


    Meh. I'd call it a wash. (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:30:59 AM EST
    Neither one represents change.

    honestly (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:48:28 AM EST
    outside of KS what does anyone actually know about what happens in KS?

    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.

    So, yes, I guess if the wonderful people of KS elected Sebelius as their Governor, she must be a fine progressive.  At least, from what I hear, she proved with her response to GW's State of the Union speech, she won't be any threat to "eclipsing" Obama in any way.  Wonder how she would hold up in a debate against Romney?


    a debate against Romney? (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by ccpup on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:03:20 AM EST
    well, she'll make Romney look exciting and young which is exactly what McCain's Campaign needs.

    Way to go, Obama!



    Can you imagine (none / 0) (#130)
    by americanincanada on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:18:18 AM EST
    if McCain chose the dark horse, Alaska's Sarah Palin? She would debate rings around KS. Sarah is great on the fly and funny to boot. I was doing some research on her yesterday on the winger sites.

    They LOVE her btw.


    I doubt if McC (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by brodie on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:27:10 AM EST
    will pick Palin -- though he might have had she been the gov of, say, PN or MI or a state the Rs would want to pluck from the Dem EV count.  Palin also apparently has her own ethical issues to deal with in AK right now involving favoritism with extended family members.

    Otherwise, have you seen Sebelius in debate?  She won two races for gov in a heavily red state -- do you really believe she could have done so w/o being competent in debate?   But do let us know what else you discover reading up on all that honest information given out on the winger sites ...


    I think you're wrong (none / 0) (#146)
    by americanincanada on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:45:49 AM EST
    SArah Palin might be a long shot but I think McCain might choose her. In fact, I believe she is in his top three. Even with the trumped up troopergate bullcrap she is going through right now her approval rating remain in the high 80s. she is the most popular gov in the country. I don't think it matters that she comes from a small state. Kansas anyone?

    Palin is a lifetime member of the NRA, a member of Feminists for Life, rooted out rampant corruption in her own party, has a son serving in the military right now and has a fascinating and compelling personal story that could suck the oxygen out of Obama's narrative. She is also a damn site more conservative than McCain. She could energize his campaign like no one else and put them in a position to compete in 2012 should McCain win and Hillary run then.

    Make no mistake the republicans know how to win and how to do so while looking at the future and the bigger picture. We have rarely been able to walk and chew gum at the same time.


    I wonder what Ted Stevens' (none / 0) (#155)
    by brodie on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:55:31 AM EST
    poll #s were just prior to his recent indictment?  Likely pretty high.

    Fact is, Palin has an ethical issue to contend with right now, and it's just getting underway and hasn't been fully fleshed out yet.  Further, it might be something which gets a pass in one home state but doesn't look too good elsewhere.

    She's also got a handful on her hands with all those kids, including an infant with a serious disability.  Would voters think it wise to vote for someone to be only a heartbeat away from the most demanding and difficult job in the world with all those family matters to attend to?  

    Sorry, but I don't think it likely Palin will get the nod.

    Though there could be one scenario -- if TeamO declines to heed my advice about picking Sebelius, which would leave the obvious opening for the badly-performing McCain camp to feel they need to toss a Hail Mary to get back into the game with a woman pick.  That could be Palin at that point, though with the recent ethical matters, it could more likely be KBH.  Maybe even Liddy Dole if that could be worked out.


    Like I said, I disagree (none / 0) (#169)
    by americanincanada on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:14:30 AM EST
    The supposed 'ethical problem' she faces now is probably more inresponse to what she has done as gov than to any real or perceived thing she did in office. She actually welcomes the investigation, which is being fast tracked. John McCain's vetting team has also been seen numerous times in Juneau. I am just saying Obama's team better be on their toes. They ignore the possible impact of a Palin pick at their peril.

    Palin is taylor-made for McCain's campaign with her taking on corruption within her own party, big oil, her stance on energy and yes, her newborn son with Down's Syndrome. As far as whether people would vote for her I think they would. As Sarah herself said, she believes women can work and think and raise children at the same time. besides it's not like all her kids are babies, the others range in ages from 7 to 18. She returned to work 3 days after having her new son.

    Read this if you think she is not in serious consideration, from today's WSJ.  


    and I can see questions coming (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:15:14 AM EST
    Obama's way about teaching creationism in school if he picks Sebelius.  Do you think he would continue to pander to the evangelicals on the teaching of creationism as he has with the faith based initiatives?

    oh (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by ccpup on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:28:01 AM EST
    had not even thought of that.  

    Way to say goodbye to the rural vote, blue collar vote and Independent vote, Obama.


    I.D. Intelligent Design. (none / 0) (#189)
    by oldpro on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:58:07 AM EST
    We call it Intelligent Design now.

    Rebranded hokum.


    Generic (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:19:05 AM EST
    The change Obama is offering is't a change in politics. It's a change in the Democratic Party. He's proposing to remake the party into the generic party, where there is no principle that he isn't willing to sell out.

    The flaw in this is that the Republican Party does stand on their values (regardless of however twisted I may think they are). The end result will be the new Democratic Party will be seen as even weaker and less effective than the old one.

    Sebelius will fit into the new generic party just right.

    Most important question.... (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by Shainzona on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:44:03 AM EST
    Is Sebelius ready to be POTUS?  Now?  Ever?

    She may spout progressive policies, but what credentials would she bring that would let her be POTUS if the need arose?  She would bore world leaders to sleep.

    VP debates (none / 0) (#139)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:35:40 AM EST
    A VP possibility has to survive debates.  If McCain picks a woman to even out the impact of Obama picking a woman.... Palin or Hutchison up against Sebelius?  I am trying to picture her up against the other options for McCain.  I don't know, can they train her up in time so she won't come across as dull?  You got it or you don't.

    McCain/Palin (none / 0) (#147)
    by americanincanada on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:46:47 AM EST
    would be a death blow to the Obama campaign I fear.

    VP debates...oh, gawd... (none / 0) (#150)
    by oldpro on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:49:44 AM EST
    ...she seems like the female equivalent of Bayh.



    RE boring world leaders to sleep... (none / 0) (#145)
    by oldpro on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:42:42 AM EST
    ...she put this committed Democratic activist to sleep as I tried to watch her televised response for the Democrats to the President's message last year.

    Dull, dull, dull.  Beyond dull.

    She certainly won't steal the spotlight from the anointed.


    Another woman besides Hilary disatrous IMO (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Saul on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:50:20 AM EST
    The Hilary supporters want Hilary, but if they can't have that then you pick a male not another woman.  Picking another woman other than Hilary will just irritate Hilary supporters to no end.

    BUT (none / 0) (#45)
    by MrPope on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:16:59 AM EST
    what about the women on here that i have read say"  I thought before i die  i would see a woman in the white house"  surely they would love SEBELIUS as VP.

    I love how people discount the number of women who supported Hillary just because she is a woman.  


    It's that Hilary is the most qualified (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Saul on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:23:33 AM EST
    so why would you pick someone that is not in the same league.  I would agree with you had there not been a front female front runner in the primary.  When you get that razor close in a primary why would another woman be equal to Hilary for VP.

    I say take a poll on this issue just to see how many woman would support another woman besides Hilary for VP.  If I was Obama I would just to see what kind of turn out to expect in Nov.  

    Who he picks for VP will be what makes him or breaks him.


    many have said that the VP pick (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:30:07 AM EST
    is the first BIG decision that the country sees the nominee make.  

    So, will Obama be a "new politician" and pick the most qualified person for the job, who would be able to be preident if necessary on "day one"?  Will he show the voters he is strong and not wirried about being "eclipsed"?

    Or, will he make an "old style" political choice?


    He has already tarnished being the new politician (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Saul on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:46:57 AM EST
    to many times so why stop now.  I remember a month a ago in an interview he said
    I desparetly need her and Bill
      The irony is he learned how to be old politician and a pretty good one that.  The new politician theme is no longer there. If you wanted to be true to being a new type of politician you would have not asked one thing of Hilary and see what you can do without any of her help or Bill's.  The very fact he ask for her help and Bills help  contradicts any new politician theme.

    Me personally I'm not that shallow.... (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:25:15 AM EST
    ...there are women and there are women. I'd rather Sebelius be the first female president than say Libby Dole, but how much would it mean to me really? It would be a woman that was chosen as acceptable by Obama and the DNC if she ran in 8 years. But wouldn't she be pretty old by then anyway? But Hillary is a woman who is a fighter. That means something to me. Something intangible, more than just XX chromosome.

    yup and just how much power would (none / 0) (#210)
    by hellothere on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:46:13 PM EST
    a woman have in an obama administration. i am thinking not much but lots of funerals. that doesn't lend itself to the idea that she would be a contender against hillary especially if obama turned out to be a one term president.

    Ha. When we say we want to see (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:14:50 AM EST
    a woman in the White House, hon, we don't mean as a VP who has to make an appointment to get even a few minutes in the Oval Office, and on the wrong side of the desk.

    Jeesh.  Do you really not get that?


    I don't know of a single woman (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:36:05 AM EST
    who supported Hillary ONLY because she's a woman. Maybe because she's a qualified and experienced woman - with emphasis.

    What I love is how others assume that there are a vast number of women who did. Because they are so very wrong.


    Stop making things up. (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by oldpro on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:49:29 AM EST
    You haven't read that on this site and neither you nor anybody else has a clue about "the number of women who supported Hillary just because she's a woman."

    You have to know the number before you can discount it and nobody knows that number.

    But go right ahead...patronize women some more.  It seems to be working so well...


    Peter Hart focus group of Hillary supporters (none / 0) (#140)
    by catfish on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:35:57 AM EST
    did anyone catch that on C-Span? He interviewed Hillary supporters from Pennsylvania, asking them about Obama and McCain.

    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.)

    Another guy who was uncertain about Obama said to Hart without hesitation, he voted Hillary because "she's a winner." He smiled. I almost cried, it was so awesome.


    Well, Dalton, you've probably hit on the (5.00 / 10) (#36)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:54:24 AM EST
    exact argument that the Obama campaign will use to shame Hillary supporters into accepting Sebelius - that it isn't fair to be opposed to Sebelius just because she isn't Clinton.  It won't matter if we argue that in a side-by-side comparison, Hillary comes out on top - and that it makes no sense to pass on Clinton when she is clearly available for the job.  No matter what we say, no matter the laundry list of accomplishments we can cite, we will be caught in a web of, and will be accused of, the gender equivalent of race-baiting against Sebelius - and I have to tell you that when I feel like I am being manipulated like that, I don't go along, I go away.

    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.

    In his zeal to make history, I wonder if Obama realizes that his tactics will diminish that history because of the backward direction he seems to be taking us on so many areas where progress was being made?

    I hope that's not his (5.00 / 6) (#41)
    by ccpup on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:08:38 AM EST
    campaign strategy.  You know, vote for me (or you'll be considered racist) and support my VP pick (or you'll be considered sexist).

    Something tells me it might be, though.  At this late date, I STILL don't know what he stands for other than being the First African-American President and making History.

    Everything else is a waffle.


    Everytime I think they won't (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:12:29 AM EST
    They do.

    Yes.  If they choose Sebelius, they'll exploit sexism too.

    It's really the only way they know how to campaign.


    how embarrassing (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by ccpup on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:36:10 AM EST
    will it be if voters begin to see McCain -- you know, the one who's supposedly on the doorstep of senility or something -- as more policy oriented and Issue driven than the infuriatingly foggy Dem candidate.

    If Obama is seriously considering attempting to guilt people into voting for him, what will that say about our Party and the strength of our Nominee?

    It's a disaster waiting to happen as I suspect voters actually can be more issue oriented and open-minded than Obama gives them credit for, but they won't appreciate that people don't appreciate either being taken for granted or overtly manipulated or lied to and, in response, will vote for the one who actually knows what he (or she) is doing.


    It's all they got (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:52:55 AM EST
    For anyone not already converted or so desperate because of Republican incompetence, the only thing they have left is guilt and to call into question the moral character of anyone who doesn't go ga-ga for Obama.

    That's the problem when you support a media driven politician with no record to stand on.

    Yes.  I am firmly convinced that if I believe Clinton was more qualified to be VP than Sebelius, the second they choose Sebelius I will be attacked as sexist for continuing to express that opinion.


    Guilt-tripping voters... (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by oldpro on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:54:19 AM EST
    Well, it certainly got him 90% of the AA vote.  And a good chunk of liberal white votes in primaries as well, from my observation at the caucuses here.

    It won't get my vote.


    the AA community (5.00 / 3) (#172)
    by ccpup on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:18:16 AM EST
    voted their pride and celebrated their collective journey with their support of him, which it perfectly understandable.

    At the end of the day, though, Obama was losing votes in many of the Primaries after February (save for the AA vote), so I do strongly suspect there was an element of buyer's remorse, of broadcasting loudly and clearly that "we" -- the collective We of Dem Voters -- had changed their minds.  But it was hard to be heard over the hoped for ringing of cash registers in the DNC's ear.

    Therefore, the "guilting" of voters into voting for him didn't work.  And I don't believe it will in the General either.


    John Lewis? (5.00 / 3) (#206)
    by oldpro on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:41:17 PM EST
    I do NOT think he 'voted his pride' or 'celebrated a collective journey'...he was strongarmed and threatened...and primaried.

    Nice.  And he wasn't the only one.  Last thing he wanted to do was join the people who trashed the Clintons...with racism, yet...

    And some people said the Clintons were the people who would say or do anything to win.

    Meet the new champs of ruthless.


    Yup (5.00 / 6) (#106)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:26:16 AM EST
    If it's Sebelius, the 'You're not a real feminist' and 'You're a sexist monster!  A monster I say!' trains will be chugging down the tracks at full speed.

    It's already started here on this thread.


    Oh, bring it on. . . . (5.00 / 4) (#152)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:53:12 AM EST
    as I would relish the chance to take on anyone who tried to tell me I'm a sexist, too.  I had some fun with those who tried the racist thing on me about my not backing Obama.

    If you knew my personal history . . . well, let me just say again -- bring it on.  Let them try to tell me I'm a sexist if I don't support a ticket with a woman on it, and I'll get to bring out my checklist.


    Yup, "bring it on!" (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by oldpro on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:56:59 AM EST
    Accusing me wouldn't pass the laugh test in my neck of the woods, either.

    Also, Cuts the Repubs off (none / 0) (#125)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:11:22 AM EST
    at the knees.   It's easy to picture exactly what will happen.  Every criticism of Sebelius will be rebuffed by claiming it's based in sexism.  They won't be able to evaluate her on any level.  More of the same for this campaign.

    I will absolutely barf (5.00 / 2) (#207)
    by sleepingdogs on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:42:12 PM EST
    if the DNC then gets vocal about sexism as well, saying "We never noticed the horrible sexism until Hillary pointed it out.  Too bad it's too late to help her her with that, but not too late to use it to help Obama!"

    it'll be impossible (5.00 / 10) (#72)
    by ccpup on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:49:36 AM EST
    to not compare a Governor of a Red State to a former First Lady/Second Term popular Senator of a strong Blue State/Historic Presidential Candidate who got More Votes than Anyone in Primary History.

    It's just not going to happen.  To choose any woman other than Hillary is to completely miss the reason people voted for her ... and it wasn't because she is a woman.


    Thank you. We are not voting our vaginas. (5.00 / 4) (#153)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:54:01 AM EST
    Such a simple concept. (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by oldpro on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:59:10 AM EST
    Hello?  Democrats?  Anybody home?

    Problem though is that (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by brodie on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:52:50 AM EST
    we all can come up with our own "side by side" comparison tests and come out with different results.

    Which one promotes the winning theme of Change?  KS, hands down.

    Which one has (far) fewer personal negatives, at least as perceived by the public through the media filter?  KS.

    Which one doesn't have a spouse whose presence either on the stump or in office could complicate things?  KS.

    Which one wouldn't automatically be tarred and feathered by the MCM immediately upon being nominated?  KS>

    Which one appears to have a more comfortable working relationship with Obama?  Again, KS.

    And so on.

    Picking a Veep isn't a simple matter of counting up years in office or yrs working in the public interest in various ways, though that is important.  If it were that simple, then probably Joe Biden should be the choice, without much discussion actually.

    Or maybe Bobby Byrd.  I mean, he's been in public office since Ike was president.


    We mostly agree, except (5.00 / 0) (#102)
    by brodie on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:16:29 AM EST
    right now we're in the phase where we're all making arguments of various types -- subjective and objective -- for our preferred #2.  Definitely the stance on various major issues is crucial -- which is why I contend Sebelius is the best choice since among the apparent Final Four she comes out most progressive on a range of issues -- surprisingly and refreshingly so for a pol from the red state of KS ferchrissakes.  And anti-mandated creationism in the schools to boot.

    Now, in the current discussion, matters such as how a candidate will be treated by the media is in fact highly relevant, just as it's pertinent, say, whether s/he has any embarrassing nicks in the record (Biden does).

    Also relevant, because it's such an integral part of the equation for O's campaign, is whether a #2 adds to or detracts from the successful theme of Change.  Sorry, but if this choice isn't handled right and given great weight in the final decision, O can just about toss out his Change banners and put up something a little more in keeping with truth in advertising, such as One is About Change, the Other is Here to Remind You All About the Tired Old Ways.


    You should have read Lanny Davis's (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:22:50 AM EST

    Hillary far outstrips Sebelius on experience AND issues.  No contest there.

    She's also the only one who helps the ticket, vote-wise.

    It's fine to make a plea for focusing on the issues, just not disingenuous ones.


    I read it, I like LD, but I'm (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by brodie on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:03:35 AM EST
    not impressed by polls about possible Veeps, especially when HRC is far and away the leader in name ID.

    As for experience, Sebelius has far more elective office experience than Edwards did -- in essence, KS easily clears the experience threshold, and at that point, once experience is met, you then look at the stance on issues and personal factors.  

    On issues, she's equal to Hillary in standing for progressive values (perhaps slightly better if we factor in Iraq), and on the personal matters, which do matter to a very great degree, she has a substantial net upside (virtually no negatives) that easily exceeds Hillary's unfortunate and not always fair or accurate downside.


    LOL (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by oldpro on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:07:35 AM EST
    "more elective office experience than Edwards did" really gave me the giggles.

    That's a recommendation?  Hell, I have more elective-office experience than Edwards!  Oh...and see how well that worked out?  Twice?

    Let's get real, folks.

    Focus.  Focus.  

    Some things matter.  Some don't.  


    well, smile, since we are a bunch of cultists (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by hellothere on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:53:36 AM EST
    according to some then why would hillary supporters vote for obama because he has a woman candidate? that presumption also assumes that these voters are dumb and will vote for a generic woman because she is a woman. that wasn't so at least with my vote. hillary earned it.

    now i respect jeralyn's analysis. i see however that by going after those not registered or involved so to speak further widens the division between the democratic base and obama's new democratic party. that suggests defeat in november to me. good luck with that senator obama.


    Sebelius is Hillary-LITE (5.00 / 4) (#128)
    by catfish on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:17:47 AM EST
    That's why it's offensive. He wants a woman who does not upstage him. Not some uppity woman who doesn't know her place.

    If Hillary had picked Harold Ford? It's unfair, but this reeks of tokenism. What national security experience does Sebelius bring?

    And honestly, it makes Obama (but I suffer ODS) look like an immature twit that he can't suck it up and pick Hillary. Hillary said she was interested in the job. The people I met have been waiting since the 1980s for Hillary to run. Not just a token women, but Hillary specifically.


    "Uppity" is supposed to ba verboten (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:57:00 AM EST
    here.  Let's see if your comment stays here . . . or if it's only okay to call us white women uppity.

    Because, of course, some of us sure are. :-)


    subject tba (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Lahdee on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:06:49 AM EST
    Obama loves to shake things up doesn't he? There's that move to a 70K seat outdoor stadium for his acceptance speech, his reining in of 527s and his takeover of the DNC among others. Now we hear from The Fix
    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 -- in the words of a source familiar with the process.
    So now we hear that they're all back on the table, this time vetted to a newer, deeper level. Is there trouble in Veep land?
    And, just for fun, and keeping with the change meme, what if the VP acceptance speech has been moved up to Tuesday?

    Rather Sebelius than Kaine (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Coral on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:07:38 AM EST
    I'd prefer a VP choice that would still allow me to vote Democratic for President this year, so Kaine worries me -- as have all the Republican names floated this summer.

    My worry is what will happen during the 4 years of a McCain presidency. But I am on the edge when it comes to a vote for Obama, as I've been voting lesser evil for a long time.

    I'm angry about Clinton's treatment by Obama and his supporters within the Democratic party, but I can see her emerging as a great leader in the Senate now that she's found her voice and an ardent constituency nationwide.

    wait (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by MrPope on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:26:15 AM EST
    so if HILLARY had won the election... you think the MCCAIN camp his  supporters would have treated her well and kept it clean.

    this is politics  not tiddly-winks.

    One trick when 2 candidates are in a heated primary is to use divide tactics... its easy for a MCCAIN soldier to pose as a OBAMA supporter and blog with  nasty attacks on HILLARY and get her supporters fired up against OBAMA and vice versa.


    Hahahaha (5.00 / 9) (#86)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:58:28 AM EST
    McCain and the Repubs didn't have to pretend to be Obama supporters; they did a class-A job of intensifying and propagating misogyny all on their own.

    In fact, they did a much better job than the Republicans ever could.  Most real liberals are inured to Republican misogyny by now.  It was the aggressive, nasty sexism from their own side that blindsided Dem women this year.

    Trust me, McCain supporters didn't spend a minute trying to ramp up Hillary's supporters on sexism, it would have been a waste of resources when the Dems were so avidly and eagerly doing their work for them.


    This campaign awakened misogyny like no (none / 0) (#143)
    by catfish on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:40:03 AM EST
    other campaign could. Not just Hillary, but Obama.

    Looking at Obama against McCain it's clear - the most tepid attack ads McCain puts out are greeted with tsk-tsking by reporters. So for a stronger-than-average personality like Hillary goes up against Obama, so many men had bizarrely strong reactions. High-profile men, college-age men, men in my family.

    These men will be much more accepting of Sebelius than of Hillary. But they were already voting Obama, so they wouldn't mind Hillary at this point.


    Yep. The men in my family (5.00 / 0) (#171)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:18:14 AM EST
    who proved to be quite misogynistic, when it came down to more than the "just words" that they so librully mouth -- they will just love Sebelius on the ticket, so they can get all guilt-free and claim to be willing to support a woman.  Just not, y'know, that woman.

    But they were voting Obama, anyway.  So looking at them, looking at the data, etc., I don't see who Sebelius brings to the ticket.  Maybe GOP women in a cross-over?  But I think they like McCain.  And they really like Cindy McCain. . . .


    Cindy McCain wrote about Rwanda's women (none / 0) (#176)
    by catfish on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:24:17 AM EST
    in the WSJ the other day, saying that they are leading their country back to life. She flies planes and drives racecars. I kind of like her. But I like Condi Rice, too, she set up some world network of women and took action against rape as a prize of war.

    I swear, I am a Dem.


    You can, of course, be 'sad' about (5.00 / 6) (#61)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:38:02 AM EST
    whatever you want, but this argument is just the usual strawman trick.

    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!'

    Obama doesn't give two bits about women, and esp. not about women over 40, which is the main demo he's lacking in.  That is perfectly plain from the primaries.

    ok, i'll judge her. she is boring! she has no (5.00 / 0) (#115)
    by hellothere on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:55:33 AM EST
    public speaking ability. she has no real creds. next!

    rock (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:46:09 AM EST
    meet hard place

    interesting (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Jgarza on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:50:53 AM EST
    I'm actually hoping for Hillary or Sebelius.  I would love to see a VP debate between Hillary and Romney, that would make the election cycle.  She would slaughter him.

    I think Sebelius is the strongest reenforcement choice, and I think Hillary is the strongest round out Obama choice.  

    Sebelius is a bad choice (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by ajain on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:54:25 AM EST
    The reason why she is not acceptable is because she is clearly a slap-in-the-face to Hillary. Not only is she a less qualified woman but she is one who didn't even support Hillary. It's a way to snub Hillary and put some over her despite what she has gone through and done.

    As many people said about Hillary, with Sebelius it's not just that she is a woman, it's that she is this woman.

    Exactly....and just maybe (none / 0) (#129)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:18:09 AM EST
    ...Kaine is a smokescreen for McCaskill!!!! Obama seems to get along with her really well.

    It's got nothing to (5.00 / 8) (#81)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:54:54 AM EST
    do with whether or not Selibus is or is not qualified.  It's the same old "talking down" to women from the DLC and men of that generation.
    It's idiotic and adolescent of them.  

    It is saying to women (hear the syrupy talking down voice): Of course we're not sexist, see...we can pick a woman. YOU can have a woman, any woman (except of course the one you have chosen with 18 million votes).  It's another way of showing women that democratic males are benevolent dictators when it comes to women, as compared, they think, to bully rethugs.

    Yeh, I'm reminded of a great woman (5.00 / 4) (#162)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:02:17 AM EST
    in my state, a lawyer in her 80s now who loves to tell the story of when she went out on the job market.  Her daddy was a leading businessman in town as head of the oldest and wealthiest company in the state, so she got an interview with the oldest and best and biggest law firm in the state, across the street from daddy's company.

    And she did great in the interview.  But the law firm told her that "we already have our woman."  Yep, they had one woman in the firm.  So they were real librul and good on women's issues, you bet.

    Btw, nobody knows now who the heck that woman was.  But the one who didn't get hired?  She went down the block to the oldest and wealthiest bank in town, started a women's division there -- and ended up as CEO.

    Btw, she was a Republican for eons.  But she doesn't like what the party became, so she became a leader of Republican Women for Choice.  And she eventually left the party.  They "already had," as she liked to say, "their women."


    No tears for Hillary (5.00 / 0) (#87)
    by jb64 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:58:52 AM EST
    I'm glad she's not on the "short list" cause it'll deprive the media of something to talk about. Personally, I think she and the President have been treated pretty badly already, and can see no reason why on earth she'd want to go through that again just to be a second banana.

    As for Sebelius, I'd say she probably is the pick. Pretty uninspiring and I think a tactical mistake. Maybe a fatal one

    Sebelius certainly looks to be (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by brodie on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:04:06 AM EST
    the most progressive when compared with what appears to be O's Final Four.

    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.

    As we see, O could do much worse than Sebelius compared to the rest.  Some of these complaints about her -- including the overblown one that too many Hillaryites will stamp their feet in protest because O didn't select their preferred woman -- will mostly fall away in time as we near Nov.  It almost always happens that way.

    Historic only if Obama wins (5.00 / 5) (#95)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:09:02 AM EST
    She's the second female VP nominee by a major party in our history.  Gerry Ferraro was first.

    actually edwards is an excellent public (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by hellothere on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:57:27 AM EST
    speaker. he has charisma no matter what your opinion of him is.

    Actually in terms of (5.00 / 0) (#123)
    by brodie on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:06:49 AM EST
    formal speechmaking, JE was not stellar.  As in his acceptance speech in 04 at the convention.  Underwhelming to say the least, and he looked almost at times like a small figure, with an underpowered voice, on a too-large stage.

    As for town hall informal talks, well of course he was much better, and had his Two Americas thing down pat.


    having seen him personally i think (none / 0) (#198)
    by hellothere on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:25:52 PM EST
    he is excellent. he is fast on his feet and doesn't aaaaaaaaaaaah you to death. i noticed after he received the veep nomination the fire and charisma was toned down. i always assumed that the kerry people did that. in my view that was a tragic mistake. also he didn't shine in the debates the way i thought he would. so yeah, there are definitely two views that are valid here.

    Nothing historic about Sebelius (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:03:45 AM EST
    that I can see.  Why do you think so?

    Don't make me call your Mom. (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by oldpro on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:18:17 AM EST
    "stamp their feet?"

    I've got news for you, buster.  It may have "always happened that way" in the past, but this is a change election in more ways than one.

    Good luck with infantalizing women as a selling point for Obama.

    Are you one of his paid bloggers?  Just wondering...


    Unfortunately (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by pie on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:13:31 AM EST
    for the person who just called me from the DCCC, I read the two posts about Hillary before the phone rang.

    Boy, did she get an earful.

    Choosing Sebelius will be the final straw for me.

    Many objections, certainly my objection (5.00 / 6) (#122)
    by esmense on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:06:38 AM EST
    to Sebelius arises from her truly horrible performance the few times she's been showcased on a national stage; stiff, droning, seemingly terrified of straying slightly from the provided script. As estimable a human being as she may be, and as soothing as her style may be to Kansans, she does not seem ready for prime time. It is hard to see her performing the tasks -- especially the sharper, more combative ones -- required of a VP candidate during a hard fought campaign.

    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.

    In other words, I fear, like so much of his campaign, this VP pick would be all about him. Rather than who would make the best president if something happens to him, who offers the best advantages (in terms of increasing the chance of victory) to the campaign, and who might best keep the office in Democratic hands after the Obama term is over.

    She is Hillary-LITE (none / 0) (#131)
    by catfish on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:22:00 AM EST
    Hillary was a pistol, which pissed a lot of people off because they didn't know what to make of it. Sebelius is sugar and spice and polite. I hear a lot of good things about Sebelius, she seems well-liked in her state. But she like Obama says that politics should be less disagreeable. "We can disagree without being disagreeable." That could work with voters who are tired of partisanship.

    And Sebelius' husband never cheated on her (none / 0) (#132)
    by catfish on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:23:32 AM EST
    that I know of. Sadly, that's what my brother and sister-in-law cited as their reason for not voting Hillary. She didn't stand up for women's rights because she stayed with Bill.

    Says more about your rels (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by Fabian on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:49:55 AM EST
    than it does about Hillary.

    If someone told me that, I'd probably ask them what Ms. Spears was up to - and they'd probably tell me.


    The sexism from "feminist" Dems (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by catfish on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:57:12 AM EST
    came from all directions. Some said "why is Hillary running like a man? I might vote for her if she didn't." Huh? She's running to be leader of the free world! How do you know she isn't just running as herself?

    The other one was: she voted on the Iraq Resolution BECAUSE she's a woman. Nobody said that about Chuck Schumer - that he voted that was because he was a man.

    Double standards everywhere. If Michelle had cheated, would they say sorry, Barack doesn't stand up for men's rights? No.

    Double standards everywhere. I feel like it's a duty to stamp it out best I can when it comes up. I'm still working on the brother and sister-in-law. They have two daughters and this is a teachable moment for them.


    Nah, give up on them (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:07:34 AM EST
    and be there for their daughters.

    I've given up on my brothers.  They're idjits on this stuff.  I thought they were teachable, too, because they said all the right things when it didn't require the right actions from them.

    But I've had such fun being an Auntie Mame, undermining parental authority with my nieces.  

    And my sisters-in-law love it -- although they won't tell my brothers so.  After all, they were the sort of women who married them and stuck with them, the idjits.

    Not sure if I have managed to have similar effect on my nephoos -- the misogyny in the men in my family is a strong influence on them.  But we'll see. . . .


    The Idea That Clinton 'Had' to Vote On Iraq (none / 0) (#194)
    by daring grace on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:14:53 PM EST
    I always heard that connection of her gender with her vote as a pragmatic explanation that she voted that way with an eye toward running for POTUS--that her vote enabled her to fend off the "unprepared to be CiC, soft on terror" meme that she, as a woman and as a 'liberal' Clinton would probably get tarred with. Moreover, the ones I heard presenting this idea were allies and supporters who were arguing she WAS more liberal than the vote might convey.

    I suspect Schumer, if he had POTUS aspirations, might have tried the same framing of it. Not because of his gender, but because of the 'liberal senator from the godless state of New York' baggage opponents might try to attach to him.


    It had nothing to do with gender (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by catfish on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:40:21 PM EST
    I am convinced it wasn't gender-based. The majority of Senate Dems voted for it, were their votes gender-based?

    I saw her on the Sunday morning shows around that time and she said when "my husband" was president, there was some situation (Kosovo? I don't remember which) when he really needed Congress to grant him that power for negotiating purposes, and they denied it, and it turned into a bigger problem. She was pretty convincing.


    I Know (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by daring grace on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:51:19 PM EST
    Did you understand that I was saying that the inclusion of her gender in any explanation that I ever heard related to how the Republicans and the MSM  in a POTUS campaign might use that stereotypically to make Clinton look 'weak' if she had voted otherwise on Iraq?

    It was never framed to me as her doing it as a woman but rather as her being politically savvy and defending her flank when the inevitable slurs on her gender and her 'toughness' were raised.

    I heard her make the justification you quote as well.


    Wasn't (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by cmugirl on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:31:19 AM EST
    One of the comments being floated around the blogosphere was that he couldn't pick Hillary because two historic candidates on the same ticket (an AA and a woman) would be too much for some people?


    I think Hillary should stay miles away from this circus.

    If he wants to show he's progressive... (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by dianem on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:55:58 AM EST
    ...he can start acting like a Progressive. That's a lot smarter than selecting a VP candidate who is going to alienate a lot of Clinton voter's by implying that "any woman" will suffice to balance the ticket - and that is the implication, no matter how much they talk about her qualifications. This woman was pretty much unknown to non-political insiders outside of her state until she became "the woman" on the VP shortlist. A lot of people on the web talk about how selecting her would show support for women. What it would show is condescension. It would show that Obama really believes that Clinton voter's only voted for Clinton because she was female, not because we believed she was the better qualified choice.

    Clinton would be a good choice not because she is a woman, but because half of the voter's chose her in the primary. No primary in recent history has been this close. She is what people want. No other candidate would be as right, and any other woman would be a kick in the teeth toward her and anybody who voted for her.

    Seriously, the first thought I had when I considered a Sebelius VP pick was "If he does that, I'm voting for McCain". I don't know if I could actually do that. I doubt it very much. But it would make me angry enough that I would consider it.

    Can someone explain to me why Sebelius is bad? (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Ramo on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:10:09 PM EST
    1.)  She has been a stalwart fighter against the KS anti-choice movement, lead by the former AG Phill Kline (who was viciously trying to prosecute women for abortions).  And she won (by recruiting a moderate Republican to run against him, and beat him).

    2.)  She stopped the construction of coal-fueled power plants.

    3.)  As Insurance Commish, she stopped an IN-based firm from taking over the KS Blue Cross and Blue Shield (which is owned by its policyholders - so was accountable to them).

    4.) With a heavily Republican legislature, she passed the largest increase in education funding in the history of the state.

    5.) She opposes to capital punishment, and opposed the anti-gay marriage amendment to the state constitution.  Again, in Kansas.

    6.) She has mad political skills, able to convert high profile Republicans (i.e. the ex-Chair of the KS GOP) into Democrats, and was re-elected by 18%.  Despite points 1-6.

    She has 22 years of elected office in her resume, including 14 years of state-wide elected office.  She'd be a great Veep, regardless of gender.  Dismissing her as simply an attempt at buying off certain demographics (n.b. I'm not accusing Jeralyn of doing this) is frankly insulting.

    Sebelius isn't bad, and (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by samanthasmom on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:33:33 PM EST
    if Obama is choosing her for the reasons you listed, good for him. What Sebelius won't do for Obama is bring many of the the 25-30% of the Democrats who remain uncommitted to him into the "likely to vote for him" group. (At this point, one would expect the uncommitted number to be around 9% of Democrats.) Most of those uncommitted voters don't really care who he chooses for VP unless it's Hillary. For many of them even picking Hillary won't get him their vote. I am interested in who Obama chooses out of curiosity. I hope that he wouldn't choose Sebelius just because she's a woman because it won't get him any votes, and I would hate to see her used that way. If he does choose her, I hope he stands up for her when sexism rears its ugly head better than he did for Senator Clinton. Any woman deserves that from him.

    Sebelius??? (5.00 / 0) (#196)
    by Doc Rock on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:19:10 PM EST
    I don't know enugh about the strategic and tactical paths believed necessary for Obama to win, but I love the idea of Sebelius for veep.

    Wouldn't you love (5.00 / 3) (#197)
    by oldpro on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:23:55 PM EST
    to be a fly on the wall in those meetings?

    Then we'd know how much of a say 'the campaign' is going to actually let Obama have in choosing a veep to run with.

    Not much is my bet.

    Of COURSE it won't be Hillary.  He couldn't choose her even if he wanted to.  The whole point of drafting him was to take over the party and get rid of the Clintons...even if the Dems lose doing it.

    And why not?  They're used to losing!  And now they can try to paint Hillary as a Clintonloser too.

    Agree (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:39:27 PM EST
    And it would be something to be a fly on the wall. The change meme, as bs as it is, does at least relate to both Clinton and BushCo, imo.

    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.

    Sad but true.


    Well then, maybe (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by oldpro on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:45:00 PM EST
    we'd better look for a lesbian or transgender person to add to the ticket.

    I gotcher change right here!


    Good Theory (none / 0) (#27)
    by Niffari on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:19:14 AM EST
    I don't necessarily think it will be Sebelius but I think that you may be on to something as to the Obama team strategy. It feels as though kaine was floated to guage the reaction, kind of like a barometer. We'll soon see though. It's fun speculating!

    Geez I hope if it ain't gonna be (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:36:57 AM EST
    Hillary, Sebelius has always been my second favorite choice. She's a stronger progressive than any of these other guys mentioned.

    Why hasn't this been touted? (none / 0) (#46)
    by Xanthe on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:17:04 AM EST
    Many people don't know her at all.  Is it because Obama doesn't want an "tree hugger."  Don't laugh - we don't feel that way but he is trying to be all things to all people.  So let's keep her ideas as quiet as possible.

    Hey I'm all for someone in office who is strong on alternative energy - even if it is a VP.

    All Obama needs to do is keep the Kerry states and carry Ohio -Sebilius is a buckeye gal --the daughter of one of Ohio's most popular Democratic governors -Mark Shields was his chief of staff.
    Her marriage is a perfect of example of the post partisan era :)

    She's done a good job as gov.  I think she would be a good choice although my first choice is the gov of az.   But in the end I think Obama will pick Biden.  

    I hope you're wrong about Biden. (none / 0) (#68)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:44:16 AM EST
    But it wouldn't surprise me if you're right.

    Biden is a deal breaker for me (none / 0) (#109)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:31:50 AM EST
    as I've explained several times. I'm pretty confident Biden won't be the choice.

    I hope you are right but (none / 0) (#126)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:13:40 AM EST
    ...from the same article

    Biden has been a heavily discussed possibility because of what some see as his ability to mitigate questions about Obama's foreign policy experience. These flames were fanned when Biden adviser Tony Blinken accompanied Obama last week to the Middle East.

    On July 15, Biden came to Obama's defense on his foreign policy stances: "[Obama] has the judgment, he has the intellect, which no one doubts, and I guarantee you he has the steel in his spine to lead this country of ours out of the deep hole we have dug ourselves into."....

    and Fast Eddy likes him too


    Biden also said (none / 0) (#149)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:48:53 AM EST
    Obama was a 'Johnny come lately' on issues and copied Biden's positions.  With the impression sensed during the primary (remember 'me too' as Clinton was asked questions first? xerox?) Biden's comments can be used to continue that meme.  Because of this, Biden's age and length of time in politics (definately not new)  I thought Biden would be very low on the list.

    Smokescreen? (none / 0) (#73)
    by liberalone on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:49:54 AM EST
    I'm not sure that Kaine is a smokescreen or not.  I believe that Kaine is an attempt to put the solid south in play.  Sebelius has been the choice of many Obama supporters since the primary.  (Not because of Hilary, but rather many felt she was a good compliment.)

    There is nothing that Obama can do or say to please some disgruntled Hillary supporters.  I doubt very seriously that Hillary would want  the VP slot, she seems to enjoy calling her own shots.  I doubt very seriously that she would want to play second fiddle.  

    I agree with those who say that Obama should choose a white southern male.  Unfortunately, anything short of that probably won't have a positive impact on his campaign.

    Sebelius would have been perfect (none / 0) (#83)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:57:42 AM EST
    for Obama if there had never been a Hillary.

    If Obama can succeed in creating that illusion, then Sebelius might work.  I think he is confident that he can create any illusion he wants, so he just may do it.

    I think Bayh would be a much smarter pick.

    OR (none / 0) (#89)
    by Faust on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:00:06 AM EST
    the smokescreen is that he's actually going to pick Hillary anyway :D

    I'm seriously curious as to whether (none / 0) (#90)
    by dk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:00:14 AM EST
    anyone can convincingly cite to an example of a case where the identity of the vice-presidential nominee actually had an impact on the election results.  Let's not forget that even Dan Quayle didn't stop George Bush senior from winning in '88.

    I think, empirically, the only immediate significance of the choice is that it gives us some insight into the presidential candidate.  Is he confident in his (and his management team's) ability to run the government, and thus would prefer a neophyte who won't expect to exert much imput?  Does he recognize a deficit in his own ability to manage, and therefore want a more experienced person whom he can rely on?  Etc.

    true (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:10:40 AM EST
    but I think this year could be different.  for several reasons.

    Absolutely. (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by pie on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:15:00 AM EST
    Because of the inherent weaknesses of both candidates, people will be looking more closely at the VP pick.

    Perhaps, but I tend to doub it. (none / 0) (#105)
    by dk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:26:11 AM EST
    I'm not disagreeing that there are big inherent weaknesses in both candidates (which is the reason why I don't plan on voting for either of them, frankly).  I just have a hard time thinking that that alone would make the vice-presidential pick so much more important this time than in any other GE.

    I think the major reason is (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by frankly0 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:31:57 AM EST
    that the real issue is not so much who the VP candidate is, as it is who she isn't -- namely Hillary.

    Having Sibelius as VP candidate is not likely to make the rejection of Hillary easier to swallow, but rather harder. It just invites the question: why this woman, Sibelius, and not Hillary? What does Sibelius have that Hillary lacks?

    There is no answer to that last question for the Obama campaign that might satisfy Hillary supporters.


    Yes, dk, I can.... (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by oldpro on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:09:41 PM EST
    JFK and LBJ.  Without LBJ, Jack wouldn't have won.

    Texas, ya know.


    I would love to think Obama is (none / 0) (#96)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:09:02 AM EST
    going to show his progressive colors with his VP pick.
    but I am not holding my breath.
    I think a Kaine or a Nunn is far more likely.

    CAROL MARIN Sun-Times Columnist (none / 0) (#107)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:28:46 AM EST
    The Obama campaign has a woman problem. How big? How small? It's not clear, but in a close election, small can be big.

    It seems pretty clear that if Obama is not going to pick Clinton as his running mate, he'd better not pick a woman at all. That, Sarah made clear in our conversation Tuesday, would be unfair.


    I saw the headline (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:36:39 AM EST
    and read with interest.  But I didn't think there was much substance.  

    true (none / 0) (#160)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:58:01 AM EST
    just happened to be reading it and it was OT

    Interesting theory and possibly true (none / 0) (#108)
    by kempis on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:31:42 AM EST
    I guess the way I see it, however, is that it all depends on which direction Obama intends to turn in order to increase his coalition.

    If he intends to lead the sort of movement that The Nation and some Kossacks seem to think he does, then he chooses Sibelius and shoots for those unregistered disaffected voters who want something entirely new in a ticket. They want BIG symbolic change and will be content for that to come in the form of a black man and a white woman on the ticket. This presumes that a lot of disaffected voters are progressive at least in the sense that they are socially liberal. I'm not so sure that's the case.

    If, however, he thinks it's more prudent to expand his coalition by picking off moderate-to-conservative independents and disaffected Republicans, he'll pick Kaine. I think it's more likely that there is a larger number of disaffected voters in this camp. Just a gut feeling based on experience: most "progressives" I know are not really disaffected voters. They may be disappointed voters, but they follow the political process and they vote. If Obama seeks to get to the polls people who tend NOT to vote, then he's not thinking of these people. He's putting them in the same wagon with the Hillary-supporters: who else ya gonna vote for?

    Obama has shown that he is above all else a politician, and above all else politicians care about getting votes. He'll choose the VP who'll net him the most votes. I'm just not sure that's Sibelius because I think people who'd LIKE such a ticket are already on board for him, albeit unhappily in many cases. Kaine maybe more of an "outreach" candidate. But I guess we'll find out soon enough who the Obama campaign decided upon. :)

    P.S. (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by kempis on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:35:32 AM EST
    While I think the Obama camp may decide that Kaine is the "outreach" VP that will broaden Obama's appeal, I don't necessarily agree with them. In other words, I think they'll pick Kaine--and it will alienate a significant number of those 18 million Hillary supporters and more than a few of the "progressives" who thought that Obama was really about progressive principles. It will be a mistake, but I'm not sure they know this. They may be about to jump the take-the-base-for-granted shark.

    but but, we are suppposed to be thrilled (none / 0) (#117)
    by hellothere on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:58:24 AM EST
    thrilled i tell you. naw! yawn!

    I hope so (none / 0) (#118)
    by CST on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:58:57 AM EST
    The more I learn about Kaine the less I like.  The more I hear about Sebelius the more I like.  Her biggest detraction seems to me that she's a woman who isn't Hillary.  Given that Kaine is a man who isn't Hillary, I really hate that her being a woman is somehow a "slap in the face" while picking a man wouldn't be.  Anyone who isn't Hillary would be a "slap in the face" so why not go with Sebelius who is clearly more progressive than Kaine, comes from a "red" state and seems to get along with Obama.

    I agree with you logically (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:47:44 AM EST
    And I hope I would get over my slap in the face quickly and learn to appreciate Sebelius for who she is and not resent her for who she is not.

    But I'm not sure I would bet an election on that if I were Obama.


    I no longer care who he picks as his VP. (none / 0) (#127)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:15:29 AM EST
    It won't be Hillary, of that I'm sure. No other running mate adds anything to the ticket as far as I am concerned. Some would actually piss me off. Sebelius is one of them for reasons that have nothing to do with her. I guess I would prefer Bayh at this point, though that would be a status quo for me. So for me Obama may as well stand alone, his veep choice seems irrelevant if it isn't Hillary.

    I have been holding back (none / 0) (#138)
    by eric on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:34:55 AM EST
    from saying this, but because this name keeps coming up, I have to say it:  Sebelius?  I had to look twice just to spell it.  Nobody knows who this person even is.  I live in the Midwest, in Minnesota, and even I don't have a clue.  On top of being hard to spell, I don't have the first hint how you even say it.

    Americans are simple and conventional.  They vote for people they know - people who have names they can spell.  Bush, Clinton, Carter, Nixon, Reagan, Johnson, . . . Jefferson, Lincoln, Washington  - all the way back.  Notice anything about these names?  The strangest name that has ever been attached to a President is probably Van Buren.

    It's hard enough getting people to accept a non-conventional name like Obama, although people are doing pretty well.  Putting a name that people can't pronounce or spell on the ticket is political suicide.

    Flame away.

    Classical musicians (none / 0) (#195)
    by oldpro on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:17:55 PM EST
    won't have a problem with it but they're a pretty small group to bank on for an election.

    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!?!



    Different Spelling (none / 0) (#199)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:30:30 PM EST
    Sibelius, but probably phonetically the same. I have never heard her name uttered, so that is a guess.

    Finlandia. Boring. (none / 0) (#200)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:31:28 PM EST
    He Is Not My Favorite (none / 0) (#208)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:44:20 PM EST
    And that is an understatement. The string quartets are nice though particularly the famous Opus 56 quartet "Voces Intimae".

    Yes. (none / 0) (#201)
    by oldpro on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:32:32 PM EST
    Pronounced the same.

    What does Governor Sebelius bring (none / 0) (#166)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:07:36 AM EST
    to the ticket?  The governor of a small, very conservative, red state (with the exception of Lawrence). The chances of capturing its few electoral college votes are slight even with Governor Sebelius's presence on the ticket. While these are all campaign considerations rather than qualifications, it is what we presently have to evaluate the idea, and probably, what is most being discussed by the Obama campaign.  The governor is obviously well-liked by the Pelosi wing of the Democratic party having been given the golden opportunity to present an important national Democratic response--an uninspired attempt that would have flat-lined most hopefuls.  Ms. Sebelius's being the un-Clinton woman is less important, in my view, than that she is the non-Kaine or non-Biden (or almost all others mentioned, including Ann Veneman or Sam Nunn--oh my goodness) prospective running mate. Off topic, but after reading about the Men's only grill at the Phoenix Golf Club, I wondered if McCain is a member of this club, or, if not, what is his view on this archaic membership practice.

    Bayh, not Sebellius (none / 0) (#168)
    by santarita on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:11:59 AM EST
    Obama doesn't appear to be the type to pick someone as VP who will actually have much of a role.  In other words he'll go with a Quayle instead of a Cheney.  

    So Sebellius is still in the running because she doesn't bring much in the way of necessary experience (e.g., foreign policy) to the table.  But Sen. Change wants to be the Star and doesn't want anyone else on the ticket that will upstage him in the Change Category. And Obama doesn't need to pander to progressives or women - the campaign already knows that those groups won't allow a McCain victory.  So Sibellius is out.

    Bayh on the other hand has good senatorial experience, is from a conservative state in the heartland that loves Bayh.  He was a big Hillary supporter so he'll bring in reluctant Hillary voters.  He got a real down-to-earth quality about him and appears mild-mannered and respectable.  He's got traditional WASP good looks.  In short for many voters he's the spoon full of sugar...

    Lowered Expectations (none / 0) (#175)
    by Desider on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:24:11 AM EST
    I blogged on this a couple days ago, steal any ideas you find useful:

    Lowered Expectations

    I read your post (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by samanthasmom on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:13:25 PM EST
    Not bad until you got to the end and suggested that the JSND folks would find it hard to contest a ticket with a decent female VP on it. They will continue to work to keep Obama out of the White House with Sebelius on the ticket. It won't phase them in the least. I promise. Only Hillary on the ticket would divide them.

    I've always felt he would pick a Latino (none / 0) (#181)
    by laurie on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:34:30 AM EST
    heard yesterday he was thinking of Salazar, Colorado

    Where? Link? (none / 0) (#212)
    by sj on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:07:58 PM EST
    Seriously?  As a Coloradoan, I can tell you definitely that such a decision would stink big time.  Salazar has been a disappointment from Day 1 at everything except having that D after his name.  But hey, he votes for Reid, so it's all good, right?

    Doesn't matter that he hasn't voted on the side of the angels on any important issue.  He has voted exactly as Ben Nighthorse Campbell would have.  Remember him?  The guy who ran and won as a Dem and then changed party affiliation?


    Ugh (none / 0) (#185)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:45:20 AM EST
    Sounds like you are on to something, either that or your imagination has run wild in an attempt to blot out the possibility of Biden as VP. In any case,

    I do not know anything about Sebelius, and am lamenting that Hillary does not seem to be in the running anymore. Big mistake, imo. Hillary and Obama would be an awe inspiring team.

    I figure Hillary has already told him (none / 0) (#188)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:56:57 AM EST
    she doesn't want the job.  Otherwise, I don't think do anything so stupid as deny her the job.  

    Correcting myself... (none / 0) (#190)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:58:35 AM EST
    I don't think HE'd do anything...

    Make Fear the Other Guy's Problem (none / 0) (#213)
    by WakeLtd on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 06:43:46 PM EST
    If Obama had the political and I would add, moral courage, to make an announcement like this: "After our long, arduous search for the best VP to join me in this historic campaign, I have come to realize that SHE has been the one who said from Day One that if I am the Democratic nominee for President she would work her heart out of me and for this great nation. For that reason, I have asked Hillary Clinton to join me as my choice for Vice-President of the United States"... or something along those lines. You know that landslide victory they wish for? This would deliver it. Fear of the "problems" that may occur by having such a powerful figure as Hillary as his Vice-President is the only thing holding back Obama from making what would probably be the boldest decision of his campaign. This fear makes him seem common & ordinary. He needs to overcome this fear. Between them, Obama & Hillary electrified this nation during the primaries. This ticket would combine what are now two warring factions within the Democratic Party. It's seems like a no-brainer. Again, it seems to be only fear that is preventing this decision. Fear loses elections.