As of ten minutes ago, this is what I knew about Kathleen Sebelius: She's governor of Kansas, she endorsed Obama, she has lady-parts, nobody seems to have very strong objections to making her Vice President. Sam Stein, though, offers a more thorough look. Adding more details doesn't really change my strong-strong feelings about Sebelius who continues to seem like a totally plausible choice.
« Obamanomics | Main | What Price Density »
Sebelius
10 Jun 2008 11:42 am
Comments (52)
She sounds like a good pick, but I'm a little worried about Obama picking a non-Hillary woman. How would Hillary react? Would she become a woman scorned? If so, would it matter?
As of ten minutes ago, this is what I knew about Kathleen Sebelius: She's governor of Kansas, she endorsed Obama, she has lady-parts...
If you know the last item for certain, one would think that you could have had the decency to make a little conversation and learn more about her.
Ummm...Gen. Wes Clark is the most plausible choice..Just saying.
This is a stupid pandering choice and I would be very disappointed.
So Obama's supposed to pick a woman because of Hillary, pick someone from a red state who won't help to carry that state, and conjure the unfortunate image of the "black man /white woman" that will only set the racists off further.
Pick an old white guy.
Jim Webb, Sam Nunn, Evan Bayh, all good choices. Even that former governor of Florida.
Ummm...Gen. Wes Clark is the most plausible choice..Just saying.
WinSmith, at the same time, Sebelius also reinforces Obama's message and appeal (Midwestern, history of successfully getting the other side to back their proposals, etc.) just as Gore did for Clinton. In addition, Obama and Sebelius have a good relationship.
Picking an old white guy simply to hedge the fact he isn't 100% white and old simply makes him looking like he's scared of being attacked on race and just reinforces how different he is. The balancing picks don't have the best track record of leading to a win, after all. It failed us in 2004 with Kerry-Edwards and it likely will fail us again. This isn't to say that Obama can't pick a white guy (Schweitzer, Zinni and Macleland are all high choices for me), but picking a balancer will just make Obama look weak.
Ummm...Gen. Wes Clark is the most plausible choice..Just saying.
Umm... Gen. Wes Clark has endorsed Sebelius for VP. Just saying.
Jim Webb, Sam Nunn, Evan Bayh, all good choices.
Ew. Why pick an old very conservative guy? There are plenty of old guys out there who are actually Democrats, and who didn't support the Iraq War. (It's striking that Jim Webb, a relatively conservative Democrat, looks like a dirty fucking hippie in the company you've given him.)
Sherrod Brown is my pick. He's excellent on economic issues (and other issues as well, but his focus is economics) and popular in Ohio.
I heard someone mention Bill Bradley, which I thought was a pretty interesting idea. I haven't actually done the research on him yet, though.
I like Sebelius just fine, though I am concerned about (a) losing her voice in turning Kansas bluer and (b) her really terrible SotU rebuttal. I could probably stand to do some research on her, too.
Ummm...Gen. Wes Clark is the most plausible choice..Just saying.
Umm... Gen. Wes Clark has endorsed Sebelius for VP. Just saying.
Umm...Sebelius has endorsed jbryan for VP. Just saying.
"I like Sebelius just fine, though I am concerned about (a) losing her voice in turning Kansas bluer and (b) her really terrible SotU rebuttal. I could probably stand to do some research on her, too.
Posted by DivGuy | June 10, 2008 12:35 PM"
At the same time, the DNC and Obama have both been pursuing nation-wide strategies. The future of the Democratic Party in the long term probably lies more in the direction of picking up the Midwest and the Rocky Mountain region as a group by doing more to appeal to them (while demographic changes will help bring Virginia, North Carolina and possibly Georgia and Texas into the "D" column) and having Sebelius play a leading role in that by harnessing her expertise at the national level can really help. As for the SotU response, we really don't need to have two charismatic people on the ticket. In fact, they could easily cancel each other out. Reagan wasn't hurt by Bush I's lack of charisma, just as Gore's lack of charisma pre-beard and pre-Oscar/Grammy/Nobel didn't hurt CLinton.
Sebilius is also Catholic, and the daughter of a former governor of Ohio. That hits two more constituencies he will want to appease. She is the best pick.
Plus which, Finlandia is a great tune.
Ummm...Gen. Wes Clark is the most plausible choice..Just saying.
Umm... Gen. Wes Clark has endorsed Sebelius for VP. Just saying.
Umm...Sebelius has endorsed jbryan for VP. Just saying.
Umm...ooook? Still Saying it should be Gen Clark. He is an untapped resource in the Democratic Party. Will McCain look like a schoolboy when it comes to military strategy..etc...just saying
"Ummm...Gen. Wes Clark is the most plausible choice..Just saying."
Wes Clark has no chance of being the vp pick. He's a terrible campaigner, and is not popular with anyone besides liberal bloggers. Not being much of a liberal himself, I don't understand his continued popularity among internet liberals.
Yeah, Finlandia is awesome. Hail Sibelius.
Her SOTU wasn't fire and brimstone enough for the activist base of the Democratic party, but it was the sort of thing that goes over with much of the rest of the country -- even-keeled, non-partisan, clear and even.
Besides, we don't need more charisma on the ticket. The last thing needed is a VP who could possibly, even for better, take attention away from Obama.
As for Clintonites who demand she be the only woman - I doubt this is an issue in any way.
Here's some of the stuff I know about Sebelius and why she's one of my favorite potential picks (along with Webb and someone whose name I won't utter here):
* she's the successful two-term governor of a very red state, who managed this without selling out most of her progressive principles (on the death penalty, on choice, on health insurance, and other stuff)
* speaking of insurance, she was the Kansas Insurance Commissioner prior to her election as governor -- surely a hot topic of conversation this election
* she's proven very adept at appealing to Republicans (a necessity in Kansas, natch) to the extent that she's convinced plenty of them to actually change parties (her two Lieutenant Governors, state AG); this dovetails nicely with Obama's post-partisan change narrative, much in the Clinton-Gore mold
* she emphasizes a midwestern appeal, which I think is going to be the key battleground this year
* she was pretty successful as head of the DGA, and she got some nice dings in on Bush when she challenged him on Kansas' National Guard being consumed by Iraq and unable to respond to the tornado; again, this fits nicely with Obama's messages
I'm concerned about her flat SOTU response, but I don't want to let one speech be the whole of what a candidate brings. Aside from that one speech, I'm not sure what's not to like.
I don't understand the school of thought that picking Sebelius would be a "slap in the face" to Clinton and her supporters. The implication seems to be that there is only room for one prominent woman in Democratic politics at a time. Was Bush picking Cheney a "slap in the face" to McCain in 2000? Was Bill Clinton picking Gore a major dis of Paul Tsongas? There's never been a law that says your vice presidential choice has to be someone who ran the primary race with you, even if the race was close as it was for Ford/Reagan or Mondale/Hart.
I like the optics of a Sebelius choice. The GOP machine is painting Obama as radical and scarcely American. But a gray-haired woman from Kansas isn't going to scare anybody.
"Wes Clark has no chance of being the vp pick. He's a terrible campaigner, and is not popular with anyone besides liberal bloggers. Not being much of a liberal himself, I don't understand his continued popularity among internet liberals"
I think it is becoming quite clear that Obama has to win this on his own. VP would have very little effect on the voters I think. Obama has enough charisma for both he and Wes. Wes would be hinged to the Obama political machine and i think they can manage his Campaigning style just fine..just saying
I too was a fan of Sibelius, based on her leadership in Kansas -- until I saw her give the Democratic response to the State of the Union address. I swear, she could not have been duller and more platitudinous if she had tried. Sorry, not ready for prime time. Maybe in 2012. Apparently Bill Clinton struck out in his first try before the national convention; Sibelius will likely have another chance.
My choice would be Brian Schweitzer of Montana. As much as the primary election has dominated the mindset for the past six months, it's more important to shore up the centrist white males, who are more likely to go toward McCain. Plus, by all accounts he's a very engaging fellow, extremely smart, and more progressive than Jim Webb. (Webb would be a fine choice, too, and better on national security.)
As much as it seems like Obama has to make gestures towards Hillary's supporters, remember that there are three main groups there --- the feminists, the white working class, and Latinos. Most of the mainstream feminists will all get behind Obama anyway; it's the sub-faction of Hillary dead-enders, vastly overrepresented in online forums, that he has to worry about, and I doubt choosing a *different* woman would appease them.
Sebelius might make small inroads into the white working-class vote, but Schweitzer or Webb could make BIG inroads there. These are people who might not be full-on racists, but a half-black guy from Hawaii with rock-star appeal to urban liberals just doesn't make them *comfortable*. Schweitzer or Webb could make them comfortable, and go head-to-head with McCain's "straight-shooting maverick" appeal.
Latinos -- none of these candidates would make a big dent in the Latino vote, but Schweitzer and Sebelius, at least, are Catholic.
I still think Sebelius would be a good choice --- maybe my 3rd-favorite --- but Schweitzer and Webb would be my #1 and #2.
Apparently Bill Clinton struck out in his first try before the national convention; Sibelius will likely have another chance.
Just to be clear, we're talking about the VP-slot. I defy anyone to demonstrate that Edwards, a good speaker, picked up votes for Kerry because he was a good speaker, or that Lieberman, who was pantsed by Cheney in their debated, lost votes for Gore.
or Webb could make BIG inroads there.
I seem to recall someone arguing that this isn't borne out by the demographic analysis of his own win in VA in '06.
No strong feelings here, but offhand I think she'd be good.
Let's leave aside the electoral effect (I agree with SCMT that that would likely be minimal anyway: Quayle v. Bentsen, anyone?). Instead, what I like is that she's apparently been a hugely hard-working and competent executive, and having somebody with that sort of experience as a close adviser can help complement Obama's strengths and help the Obama administration operate more effectively.
I don't know, it seems pretty clear that the GOP is going to campaign on Obama not being patriotic enough. Nothing says "loves his country" to the average American than a war hero.
Kathleen Sibelius is a popular and effective governor of a deep red state. Let's not screw that up.
Making her VP would force a special election for governor of Kansas, an election we could lose.
Also, VP isn't a particularly powerful position: Sibelius could do more for the cause where she is.
I second Schweitzer. Only problem is he's running for reelection. Of course, the fact that he speaks Arabic will be a problem for the hillbilly population - er, excuse me, hard-working white people population.
Making her VP would force a special election for governor of Kansas, an election we could lose.
If ever there was a time Dems (as opposed to KS Dems or KS folk, generally--I know nothing about the options there) could afford such a risk, it appears to be this year.
Also, VP isn't a particularly powerful position: Sibelius could do more for the cause where she is.
Glide path to the Presidency, from her perspective.
She has lady parts? You sound like Chris Matthews.
I'm firmly in the Schweitzer camp. He seems pretty suited to the roll -- and he learned Arabic for the expressed purpose of learning agricultural techniques that he could bring back home. That's got to jive with the Appalachia folk in some way. His only drawback is his relative newness on the stage...but I think that fits much more coherently with Obama's message than pulling in someone as unexciting as Wes Clark.
I think Sibelius is a fine choice, no strong feelings about her either way.
I defy anyone to demonstrate that Edwards, a good speaker, picked up votes for Kerry because he was a good speaker, or that Lieberman, who was pantsed by Cheney in their debated, lost votes for Gore.
Can demonstrate that the actual nominees in those two races, Kerry and Gore, had any effect on the number of votes they received? Oh yeah? Can you prove it?
If we're going to pick an obscure governor with even less experience in Washington or in foreign policy than Obama, could we at least find someone who might deliver more than three electoral votes?
Adding more details doesn't really change my strong-strong feelings about Sebelius who continues to seem like a totally plausible choice.
Do you mean "not strong"?
Adding more details doesn't really change my strong-strong feelings about Sebelius who continues to seem like a totally plausible choice.
Do you mean "not strong"?
Mark Warner is the obvious choice here. He's truly popular in Virginia, he was born in Indiana and he's great on the economy.
Mark Warner is the obvious choice here. He's truly popular in Virginia, he was born in Indiana and he's great on the economy.
Kathleen Sibelius is a popular and effective governor of a deep red state. Let's not screw that up.
She's on her last term anyway. I don't see the harm.
If we're going to pick an obscure governor with even less experience in Washington or in foreign policy than Obama, could we at least find someone who might deliver more than three electoral votes?
See, I don't even know if he would carry Montana (although Bill Clinton did in 1992 with Perot's help). But he would strengthen the Dems in Nevada and Colorado (which could become crucial if McCain picks Romney) and could probably appeal to the white working-class voters in Appalachia. Not because he's from Appalachia (he isn't), but because he's got the everyday Joe, gun-rack-on-the-pickup-truck appeal. He's a smart guy who doesn't seem like a "brainiac."
Sebelius exudes competence. She amplifies the things that are wonderful about the Obama candidacy. I think she would be a wonderful pick, and I do like Schweitzer also.
Next time you post about Lindsey Graham please add the phrase "he has man-parts".
Next time you post about Lindsey Graham please add the phrase "he has man-parts".
I'm not sure that's a given.
because he's got the everyday Joe, gun-rack-on-the-pickup-truck appeal. He's a smart guy who doesn't seem like a "brainiac." - Adam Villani
I wouldn't quite say that: Schweitzer exudes "nerd" with his enthusiasm, his smart guy-ness, etc. However, Schweitzer is (or at least seems to be) the sort of nerd that the cool kids love to have at their table.
sebelius exudes DULLNESS!
if obama wants to help people go to sleep, he should pick sebelius.
my mom used to say that you never get a second chance to make a first impression, and the first impression most got was her legendarily HORRIBLE state of the union response.
i'm sure she is a fine governor and i am sure that her fellow kansas citizens find her to be a good communicator.
i think that her absolutely dull and boring presentation would actually harm the obama ticket, and no vice presidential candidate should actually harm the ticket.
over at the huffpost, a supporter provided a link to a video that was designed to refute the idea that sebelius is dull.
well, i saw the video and she was just as dull in that presentation as she was during her state of the union response.
jim webb is the obvious choice. he would help bring along a toss-up state.
because of his background as former navy secretary he would add national security cred to the ticket.
he would be able to savage mccain's credentials as a supposed military expert.
he would help to bridge the gap between working-class whites and obama.
his ideas about the commonality of the black experience and the experiences of poor whites is something that no other candidate has spoken about, at all.
he would bring a pugnacious style that would beautifully compliment obama's more laid-back, intellectual presentation.
the only objections to him come from those who have to cite 15 and 20 year old statements that he has denounced and moved on from.
sometimes the most obvious choice is the hardest one to make.
if supporters want a woman on the ticket, claire mccaskill is a much better choice.
she has a lot more fire, she would be great on the stump. when imus was on msnbc she put him in his place a couple of times, showing this listener a much more lively side, a side i did not expect from her.
she might help to bring along an important swing state like missouri.
she has great chemistry with obama; it is obvious that they like each other. she looks like a smitten schoolgirl whenever she is around him, and he can't stop smiling when he is with her.
she also has, i believe, a background as state auditor in missouri.
that background would help immensely in an election when economics will be so important.
sebelius is the dull, safe choice.
mccaskill is a little riskier, but a much better choice for the actual campaign.
I don't think Obama needs any help on the stump. A vice presidential candidate that exudes dullness - or competence - says to me that not only does he want to win the election, but he wants to govern effectively. Whatever else she has done, she has governed effectively as a progressive Democrat in a state that hasn't voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1964.
As a vp choice, she would emphasize the strengths of the Obama campaign. And if the last eight years have taught us anything, it is that competence should not be disregarded.
I am in favor of the dull, safe choice.
Sebelius is a successful second term governor in a red state with term limits. She can't really do anything more where she is.
I'm THRILLED with her budgeting experience. I'm absolutely convinced that we can reduce our deficit without eliminating programs if we just cut out the waste. She knows exactly how to do this.
I don't think picking her is any kind of slap in the face, but then I wasn't a Clinton supporter, and I'm not interested in what parts my president or vice president has. She's a phenomenal choice and could bring loads of awesome policy expertise to the administration.
have dems forgotten the last two elections?
or maybe you didn't notice.
certainly both gore and kerry were responsible for their own losses -or at least for having the election be close enough so the gop could steal each one - but their veep choices hurt them immensely.
weasly joe refused to engage in the kind of combat that veeps are supposed to engage in and he outright stabbed dems in the back during the florida debacle.
a better veep choice would have eviscerated dick cheney in their debate.
john edwards also hurt the ticket because he took the safe route and refused to play his veep role because he apparently was looking at 2008. edwards' failure in '04 also hurt dems.
the veep choice definitely matters.
while it may not be the deciding factor, there is no doubt that it can help propel a ticket, as happened in '92 when clinton picked gore and took off.
a dull veep candidate who is incapable of performing the typical veep tasks - going hard after the opposition - can be dead weight.
while it may not be the deciding factor, there is no doubt that it can help propel a ticket, as happened in '92 when clinton picked gore and took off.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot#1992_presidential_candidacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Democratic_National_Convention
Don't...stop...conveniently rewriting history....
wikipedia?
are you saying that al gore did not help bill clinton?
any idiot could see that gore was a tremendous help to the ticket.
and if the argument is that gore did not help the ticket and therefore you can put any dullard on the ticket, well, that is a sorry argument to put forward in support of a possible candidate.
if possible, put the best person on the ticket.
"I don't know, it seems pretty clear that the GOP is going to campaign on Obama not being patriotic enough. Nothing says "loves his country" to the average American than a war hero.
Posted by 55 | June 10, 2008 1:37 PM"
But picking a war hero just to cover your flank just underscores how you're not. The media story line just becomes "Barack Obama isn't a war hero, so he needs a war hero around to make him look patriotic" not "good ol' Barack Obama, picking a war hero."
Wes Clark is a warmonger who carried out the illegal war in Kosovo under the guise of savior.
Comments closed June 24, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Another huge point in her favor: Armando will flip the fuck out.
Posted by Curly | June 10, 2008 11:56 AM