If It Plays in Arizona

Commenter Steve expresses the thing that most people bring up when I mention the idea of Janet Napolitano on a national ticket: "She's single, never married, and doesn't seem to have much of a romantic life, so she gets the same closeted-lesbian rumors that dog (fairly or un-) other never-married woman politicians like Condi Rice or Babs Mikulski."

Okay, fair enough. But she was first elected to statewide office in Arizona in 1998. Then she won again in 2002. And then she won again in 2006. So what's the problem, in practice? It's not as if Arizona's a super-liberal state. Bush got a higher proportion of the vote there than he got in Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Iowa, and Missouri. Compared to, say, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama there's quite a lot of evidence that Napolitano is a marketable commodity for the median voter.

Comments

Well, sad as it is, these kinds of rumors that can easily be revealed as truths (if they are the truth) with the power of the national press investigating a potential future President (remember both McCain and Obama would have to pick VP that are ready to take over for reasons better left unsaid but that will absolutely be in the mind of voters) and the bottom line most of the country is not quite at the stage where they would be ready to have a lesbian President. I would LOVE it. But most people would not. It already takes something out of parts of the country to consider a black President. I am afraid that would sort of tilt the scales to the other arguable safer choices on the other side.
Now the calculus is whether this is true or not and only Janet N. would know - and could tell the Obama campaign.

Posted by Benjamin | January 12, 2008 10:52 AM

The problem is: the Arizona media are undoubtedly more sophisticated and mature than Dowd, Matthews, Seelye, and the other giggling idiots that inhabit the national media. Not that I know anything about the Arizona media, they just have to be.

Posted by calling all toasters | January 12, 2008 10:54 AM

How much ground are Obama or Hillary expected to break in this election?

Posted by cms | January 12, 2008 11:00 AM

Eh. It's still HRC's nomination to lose, and she'll pick a Southern white male. We're at least nine years away from needing to wonder about this.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 12, 2008 11:15 AM

As governor of AZ, her immigration policies must be very different from Obama's positions. That could be tricky.

Posted by bob | January 12, 2008 11:33 AM

Wasn't Anne Richards a very popular governor of Texas before the lesbian rumor and associated slime?

Posted by aleks | January 12, 2008 11:39 AM

Matt, I believe Mikulski is openly gay. At least over the years in the Baltimore Sun they mention a partner. I will google that to make sure.

Posted by cheflovesbeer | January 12, 2008 11:40 AM

The problem is: the Arizona media are undoubtedly more sophisticated and mature than Dowd, Matthews, Seelye, and the other giggling idiots that inhabit the national media. Not that I know anything about the Arizona media, they just have to be.

Posted by calling all toasters | January 12, 2008 10:54 AM
****************
Close the polls, we're ready to declare this thread's winning comment.

Posted by aleks | January 12, 2008 11:46 AM

Being gay myself, I don't have any problem with a lesbian as a VP. But, isn't it Arizona the only state to reject a state constitution amendment banning gay marriage? That says something about that state...

Posted by Eduardo | January 12, 2008 11:46 AM

What Eduardo said.

And beyond that - maybe she'd be a fine pick, but isn't the deal with the vice presidency that you want to do as little damage as possible when making your pick? Okay, this stuff might not become a damaging national story, sure. But when you've already got Sebelius out there who's got a ton of pluses (and who I think would be a better pick regardless of all this), and who isn't single and butch (in terms of personality), why not just go with her?

Posted by Armand | January 12, 2008 11:56 AM

SomeCallMeTim:
Is Evan Bayh a Southern male?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | January 12, 2008 12:13 PM

Jeepers Matt.

Do some reading, Goldwater was the first major GOP figure to call for gays to serve openly in the military. That was over twenty years ago.

Sadly, I feel obligated to mention he was Presidential Canidate and Senator from AZ to those young folks who think Obama's Rhetoric is the sign of the second coming.

"It's not as if Arizona's a super-liberal state."

Posted by S Brennan | January 12, 2008 12:19 PM

She does seem to win elections, but does anyone remember her 2004 convention speech? Brutally dull. Any of you folks in AZ have more sense of how she comes off on the stump? (no pun -- RE this thread's main thread -- intended)

Posted by Alan in SF | January 12, 2008 12:21 PM

I'm under the impression I went to college with Mikulski's daughter. Am I wrong to think so?

Posted by Klug | January 12, 2008 12:35 PM

I'm pretty sure that Janet wouldn't have been elected if she were openly gay and I'm not sure how much the question was openly raised. It definitely would be if she was second on the Democratic ticket.

That said, western conservatives tend to have a bigger libertarian streak than their eastern counterparts.

Posted by ben | January 12, 2008 12:41 PM

Alan,

She's no good on the stump, either.

On immigration, she's basically tried to stall until the Federal government has come in. She signed an employee sanctions bill and sent some National guards to the border, but has only done what was politically necessary. I don't think her view would conflict with Obama's, but I'm not sure she could really run on her work (or add to the ticket in that capacity).

Posted by ben | January 12, 2008 12:46 PM

right.
the republicans are already smearing obama with references to his supposed muslim past.
karl rove is already making not-so-subtle, slightly veiled racist remarks about obama.
they are not really hiding the fact that they will not hesitate to campaign in an extremely ugly fashion, if it means tearing down obama and winning the election. as they have in the past. it will make willie horton look like a dr. suess story.
and you want to consider putting a woman on the ticket who will be dogged by rumors that she is a lesbian?
can you imagine the kind of attacks that republicans - and their allies in the media - would come forward with?
a black muslim cocaine sniffing drug dealer who belongs to a racist church with a butch lesbian as a running mate...
sadly, the media and a portion of the american electorate would be negatively influenced by such garbage.
its a dumb idea from the word go.

Posted by frankie d | January 12, 2008 2:08 PM

I always wonder why Susan Collins doesn't face these rumors. Because she's an R, and they're never gay?

Posted by g | January 12, 2008 2:11 PM

Like Ben said, Arizona is more libertarian in it's style of conservatism than what the mainstream Republican party represents, and much more like the Republican party my parents belonged to in the 50's and 60's--a lot more tolerant of religious differences, gender, etc.

And if I remember, Napolitano is not very happy at all with the "Minutemen Minority" approach to immigration-but neither is John McCain, for that matter.

Posted by ella | January 12, 2008 2:17 PM

The Arizona Republican party is the home of McCain, Goldwater, and the gay former congressman Jim Kolbe. It's definitely less bigoted than the national party, but that isn't saying much.

Although I have been in AZ since the summer of 2002, I haven't been a big consumer of the local media and didn't follow her first campaign very much. Apparently, in the 2002 campaign (a 3-way race between Republican Matt Salmon and Independent Richard Mahoney), there was a fair bit of gay-baiting and dirty tricks. As a result of this, she publicly stated that she was not a lesbian. I'm pretty sure her political prospects would be much diminished if she said otherwise.

Posted by ben | January 12, 2008 2:57 PM

She's all wrong. A black AND an (unattractive) woman? C'mon, wake up. Obama needs more of a good 'ol boy- maybe that Montana Governor (Schweiker?). The Senator's a gun control advocate and that won't play with a lot of blue-collar guys who might be inclined to reject the Republican this time around.

Posted by Trevor | January 12, 2008 3:37 PM

if obama gets the nomination and if he doesn't pick jim webb, or someone like jim webb, his chances of winning will be greatly diminished.
he needs to pick a good ol' boy type who has military bona fides.
webb would be a perfect choice.
imho.

Posted by frankie d | January 12, 2008 4:02 PM

Schweiker would be a great choice for someone like Obama. I'm no expert in these things but I think the running mate should reinforce the candidate's message, not dilute it.

Obama is running on a "change" platform. Picking an older white male establishment type running mate would tend to dilute that message. For example, picking someone like Levin, Murtha or Dingel would be saying, we say we want "change" but just in case that message doesn't sell we're hedging our bets. He's better off with someone like Schweiker who is an obvious change agent. Schweiker is charismatic and has broadened the Democratic constituency in the same way as Obama. Obama is running on a campaign to broaden the Democratic constituency, he needs a running mate who will enhance that message.

Likewise, Clinton is running on experience and readiness to lead. Picking some outsider candidate only dilutes that message. She would be better off picking some sort of deeply experienced foreign policy expert type of person. Someone like a Wesley Clark. Who will enhance her "ready to lead" message.

In any event, if we're talking female governors, then my pick would be Kathleen Sebelius

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Sebelius

Posted by Kent from Waco | January 12, 2008 4:06 PM

It's been my impression, living in Arizona for the last 4 years, that the lesbian rumors are generally regarded as true by those who know, but that the local media has tread with a surprisingly light touch.

I recall a Phoenix New Times feature recently (the local alt-paper that has become noteworthy for taking on the incredibly corrupt Joe Arpaio) in which their reporter in the press pool broached the issue of her sexuality, he was treated by the rest of the pool as a pariah.

It's a weird dynamic, and she's been pretty successful as a moderate red-state governor. Don't be fooled though - if she became part of a national ticket, she'd be outed within weeks, even if she's *not* gay.

Posted by Mark S | January 12, 2008 4:12 PM

Talk of female running mates aside. I would be willing to bet that both Clinton and Obama's campaigns will feel intense pressure to pick a white male running mate for one simple reason. Both Obama and Clinton will be under intense pressure to pick a running mate who's presence will say to white men "it's OK to vote for this candidate"

Therefore, I would expect to see some sort of "guy's guy" candidate picked for VP. Someone like Brian Schweitzer (not Schweiker as I wrote above), or Mark Warner or maybe someone like Jim Webb, a veteran with combat experience. Or even Wesley Clark.

Posted by Kent from Waco | January 12, 2008 4:26 PM

in addition to his military credentials, webb has talked about economic issues in a very strong populist tone. while he has not been quite as strong on economic issues as his campaign would have led one to believe he would be, his ability to articulate those issues to his constituency would dovetail nicely with obama's message.

Posted by frankie d | January 12, 2008 4:38 PM

Much as I like Webb, I would be really nervous about picking any red-state Senator as a running mate. Regardless of which Democratic candidate is on the ballot, they can hardly afford to loose any seats in the Senate. For that reason alone I'd be much more inclined to pick a governor.

Posted by Kent from Waco | January 12, 2008 5:07 PM

Arizona is not Peoria. Its libertarian self-regard make it a much less social conservative testing ground than many other parts of the country.

Posted by Wrongshore | January 12, 2008 5:07 PM

Klug, she's never been married and has no children. She was my senator for many years; Maryland is a liberal state, and Mikulski is beloved by blue-collar Baltimore; given how badly the subject backfired on Linda Chavez when Chavez tried alluding to it in... was that 1992?... I doubt it'll ever come up in a campaign again. (I don't believe that I've ever seen reference to her having a partner, but I don't currently live in Maryland; if she is gay, maybe she's being more open about it now. And I'm certainly not in touch with DC lesbian bar gossip.)

Posted by Steve | January 12, 2008 5:10 PM

Klug, she's never been married and has no children. She was my senator for many years; Maryland is a liberal state, and Mikulski is beloved by blue-collar Baltimore; given how badly the subject backfired on Linda Chavez when Chavez tried alluding to it in... was that 1992?... I doubt it'll ever come up in a campaign again. (I don't believe that I've ever seen reference to her having a partner, but I don't currently live in Maryland; if she is gay, maybe she's being more open about it now. And I'm certainly not in touch with DC lesbian bar gossip.)

Posted by Steve | January 12, 2008 5:11 PM

Janet isn't as strong a supporter of undocumented, self-service immigration as Obama, so she wouldn't be a good fit. A much better VP choice would be Kucinich. He'd bring a true progressive voice to the campaign.

Posted by TLB | January 12, 2008 5:23 PM

Another moment of inspired insanity from Matt. There are only two offices we vote for on a "national ticket"- prez and vp- so what Matt's really saying is that maybe the Dems could pull the old bait-and-switch, running Napolitano for prez now that Hillary has spent umpteen millions preparing the voters for a female president.

Because, Lord only knows, the only thing Americans are more eager to do than elect a woman president is to elect a lesbian president.

All of which coolly ignores the fact that Napolitano doesn't seem to be running for any "national office".

I guess this kind of post must be the high-toned intellectual equivalent of "And what if you put a big-block V-8 in a Volkswagon Bug?" among the beerier set. But not quite as interesting or useful.

Posted by serial catowner | January 12, 2008 5:27 PM

Part of the reason that the Southwestern states hold promise for going from "red" to "blue" is the libertarianism, or at least non-fundamentalism of those states. If memory serves me right -- and I hope others correct me if I'm wrong -- Arizona is the only state where an anti-gay-marriage initiative was rejected by the voters.

Posted by Lincoln Duncan | January 12, 2008 5:29 PM

aI guess this kind of post must be the high-toned intellectual equivalent of "And what if you put a big-block V-8 in a Volkswagon Bug?" among the beerier set. But not quite as interesting or useful.

Stop-it! My wife is looking at me strangely wondering why I spilled my wine and I'm laughing so hard.

Posted by Kent from Waco | January 12, 2008 5:46 PM

kent,

virginia is becoming more of a purple state every year.
democratic governor. soon to have 2 democratic senators.
their democratic governor, kaine, would likely pick any replacement for webb, if necessary.

Posted by frankie d | January 12, 2008 5:58 PM

That said, western conservatives tend to have a bigger libertarian streak than their eastern counterparts.

Yeah, it's Jim Kolbe's state. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Napolitano could have been elected as an out lesbian and probably couldn't win again if she came out as an incumbent, but Arizona strikes me as more live-and-let-live regarding gay rights, in the Barry Goldwater tradition. I'm probably more intrigued by Sebelius because of the mere fact that she's been elected twice as governor as Kansas, which implies some political skill.

I do not accept the conventional wisdom that Obama (or Clinton) "has to" pick a white male or better yet, a white male with military or cultural conservative overtones. Leaving aside that white males are not only a minority, but a minority where the majority votes for the other party, the sort of white male who would need "reassurance" in the form of a white guy VP slot is almost certainly going to vote for the actual white guy in the race, on the GOP side.

Posted by ChuckE | January 12, 2008 6:05 PM

Either Obama or Clinton should run with a white male, though this type of consideration, I hope, will be gone in a couple of decades. Webb should stay in the senate for the reasons given above. Clark might be ideal for Obama. The fact he supports Clinton is immaterial; Kennedy, Reagan, Kerry and others selected their running mates from among their rivals.

Posted by Henderstock | January 12, 2008 6:15 PM

ChuckE,

Janet also won two elections. Albeit they were in a bluer state than Kansas.

Personally, I'm hoping for Webb as VP. Seems like he could lay the smack down on all the repub bullshit and provide some leadership on military/fo
reign policy issues.

Posted by Ben | January 12, 2008 6:26 PM

That's what I was getting at. Napolitano won in a mauve state; Sebelius in a blood-red state. Brad Henry fits that category too, though I know next to nothing about him.

I like Webb as well, but he might be a little too colorful for Veep. His debate would sure be fun, though.

Posted by ChuckE | January 12, 2008 6:38 PM

ChuckE,

I'd rather have a 'colorful' VP performance than Lieberman's or Edward's.

Posted by Ben | January 12, 2008 6:47 PM

Serial Catowner = Perfect Crack.

Pregressives in love with diversity and multiculti intellectualize that the only thing better than diversity and multiculti on a ticket or in appointments is demanding MORE diversity and multiculti be slathered on until the divergence from practical reality is complete.

THe experience level of Obama and "Ms. Co-Gov -Co-President" looks light. No military, no true foreign affairs work as an official, no executive positions - for either in the past. If they need something at VP it IS someone like Wesley Clark but less controversial. Or Bill Richardson who looked good before he decided to run and revealed himself to be a dim-bulb flummoxed fool unfit to step into the Office.

Obama joins McCain in never having a regular full-time private sector job in their lives.

They need someone that has such qualities because for the last 30 years both Parties have recognized there is great value in the significant expansion of the duties of the VP as another workable executive staff that whole missions can be given to. Dislike of HOW Cheney has done his job does not mean that it is time to shrink the expanded duties of the office that Walter Mondale showed can add great value to running the country.

There is also an element in the Democratic Party that believe it is morally preferable, even morally imperative - to have a minority in place of any white seeking office or appointment if possible. Then they get into the "ideally" a minority with more "minority attributes" is even more preferable! way of thinking. A minority who happens to be another minority of a minority religion who has to be female and who maybe has a physical handicap and an inspiring biography --until you define "ideal" into a narrower and narrower demographic niche that few voters have any commonality or solidarity with.

Which is another intellectual vanity of the stuffing a V-8 in a Volkswagon variety.

Posted by chris ford | January 12, 2008 7:53 PM

chris ford you rascist douche,

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards are all orders of magnitude smarter and more experienced than George W. Bush and your bigoted doucheness. Each of them would govern with more care and more aptitude than anyone vying for the Republican nomination.

George W. Bush is known for failing businesses, failing sports teams, failing wars and failing goverment. His only success is filling his (and his cohorts') pockets from the coffers of the people. Go back to your cave and go worship your "European culture", you racist fuck.

Posted by ben | January 12, 2008 8:06 PM

ben,

thank you.

Posted by frankie d | January 12, 2008 8:23 PM

She would be Attorney General in an Obama administration. That is all.

Posted by underwritten | January 12, 2008 8:25 PM

A few months ago, Rasmussen even showed her leading McCain in an Arizona Senate race. (Of course, that was before his spectacular rebound.)

My own hope, however, is that whoever's nominated -- Hillary or Obama -- picks Sen. Webb for VP, thereby providing the Dems with massive new support against accusations of mindless dovishness.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | January 12, 2008 9:09 PM

Well, I *really* like Webb also. But wasn't there some other discussion thread about the dangers of having a VP who's enormously more attractive than the top of the ticket, especially for "controversial" presidential candidates?

Putting things another way, I'd personally much prefer having Webb as *president* rather than Obama or Clinton or even Edwards.

And more importantly, I'll bet that just about every American who ends up voting *against* Clinton or Obama would feel the same way, perhaps much, much more strongly!

Like I've said before, it's important to keep this blogsite as part of the Reality-Based Community...

Posted by RKU | January 12, 2008 9:26 PM

Well I have to disagree RKU. I understand Webb's political appeal and why he is a big-shot right now (although he certainly wouldn't be my pick because his red-state gun-friendly populism is not my cup of tea although it certainly fits VA to a T) but the notion that he is MORE attractive than Obama sounds really strange to me.
HE could overshadow Hillary who is not a great speaker. But if there is something Obama does not lack, it is charisma. I wouldn't worry about *that*.
Bottom line though, his being VP opens a seat I don't want opened. I would much rather have Sebelius. Went to see her pic after the previous VP thread and she is SMOKING ! (and I am gay so that tells u something !)

Posted by Benjamin | January 12, 2008 10:53 PM

Googling for info on Janet Napolitano, I came across this piece which would seem to indicate serious issues for this person being a Democratic VP candidate:

Running Scared
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2004-05-13/news/running-scared/

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 13, 2008 12:11 AM

RSH,

Because of her position (Democratic governor in a red state), Janet is a perennial candidate for VP. Because of her position (as a Democratic governor in a red state facing a majority Republican legislature), she is also forced to make a lot of hard political decisions that would make her a poor national candidate. She also has a couple of minor skeletons in the closet and she's a poor speaker. I am very proud to have her as our governor (I can only imagine the horrible state we'd be in if we had one of the Republican candidates in the office), but I am not confident in her abilities as a VP candidate.

Benjamin,

Thanks for ceding 'ben'. It was a little confusing for a bit.

Posted by ben | January 13, 2008 12:30 AM

Wow. On paper at least, Sibelius looks perfect as a running mate.

Posted by RaymondA | January 13, 2008 12:54 AM

*I* never used Ben so I am afraid there is another ben that is trying to piggyback on you LOL

On the "disqualifying issue" front, it is funny how Tom Vilsack used to be talked up as a VP for Hillary (before she lost Iowa of course) when he was deemed unacceptable in 2004 because he signed an English-only law and therefore was a turn-off for Latinos.

I also like how we are all acting as if Obama had it in the sack. I like that I am not the only one who does not think the NH thing will save Clinton over the long run.

Bring on the Veepstakes ! Btw I am fairly young so 2004 is the first campaign I really followed and it does not answer my question so ... Doesn't the choice of the other party influence the choice of a VP sometime ? And if so who is bound to choose first ... the R or the D ? If they pick Huckabee as running mate, who is the best to face him off: a sane friendly face from another Southern state (Sebelius) or a tough guy with the same populist persona as Huckabee but the foreign credentials (Webb) ? Who else is on the Rep short list ? Petraus ? Pawlenty ? I see Fred Thompson mentioned a lot as a potential VP on the Corner.
Let's not forget that all of this is going to be mightily in flux until summer. We don't know what the themes of the campaign will be then and what field the candidate will need reinforcement over. I mean if the candidate had been chosen in the summer, I would have thought Webb would have gotten it when Iran/Iraq was still at the top of the issues. Now ? I would bet on Sebelius. By summer, immigration may be back on top (not if McCain runs of course) and so on.
Who knows ?

I am looking forward to the next six months of idle guesses and pointless speculation !

Posted by Benjamin | January 13, 2008 1:32 AM

She's single, never married, and doesn't seem to have much of a romantic life

I'm single, never married and don't have much of a romantic life - this description applies to a lot of people (I'd wager around 20%) especially in urban areas (50% of the people in London are single and have never married) - but in the US that means I'm gay?!

Posted by novakant | January 13, 2008 8:41 AM

I used to live in AZ.

My impression is that Ms. Napolitano won in '02 primarily because Republican Matt Salmon made a complete ass of himself on social conservative issues in a state that is not particularly socially conservative. He also seemed somewhat sympathetic to the Fundamentalist LDS Church (Warren Jeffs et al., who has since been convicted as an accomplice to rape of underage girls by forced marriage).

Then...she did a damn good job as governor, inheriting a budget deficit and turning it into a surplus. And all with a fairly hostile GOP-led legislature. (I think her veto count is in the hundreds, now.)

Which is why she won re-election in a near-landslide and remains popular. I even voted for her in '06, and I rarely vote Democratic (usually I vote LP if at all) and almost never for an incumbent.

Nobody I ever talked to gave two shits whether she was gay or not...but I lived in Tucson. Can't speak for the Phonecians.

Posted by B | January 13, 2008 10:48 AM

A couple of people on this thread have mentioned that AZ was the only state to reject a gay marriage amendment. This is technically true, but shouldn't be taken as proof of overwhelming progressivism in AZ politics. The actual wording of the Amendment was so broad that it would have taken away all kinds of things from straight unmarried couples, and all of the campaigning against it was based upon this. (And gay marriage was already, and is still, illegal in AZ.)

Regarding Janet - I met her a few years ago at a fundraiser, and was very impressed that she continued to chat (very intelligently) with me even after I explained that I wasn't a potential big money donor, and was only a poor schoolteacher who was present at the event only because it was hosted by the parents of a student, who had been kind enough to invite me.

Oh, and at the same event was Patrick Kennedy, who gave an incredibly dull speech about how the Kennedys had always been great supporters of Native American rights. After the speech I sidled up to him, and the following conversation took place:

Me: Congressman, I'm glad to hear you're such a strong supporter of native peoples. By the way, how did you vote on Yucca Mountain?

PK: Well, that's a very difficult question.

Me: Isn't it a very simple question? How did you vote on Yucca Mountain?

PK: Well, ummm, I voted in favor of the bill.

So I guess the Kennedys are strong supporters of native peoples until we want to build a nuclear fuel dump on their sacred land..

Posted by The Sophist | January 13, 2008 3:02 PM

Arizona is not Peoria

Not even Peoria, Arizona?

Posted by The January Fool | January 14, 2008 1:50 AM