Oh God. Please no. Stop with the Sebelius meme. She would be a disaster as a running mate, and drag Obama down. Yessirree Boob, let's reprise that great SOTU rebuttal. Zzzzzzzzzzzz. Please.

Kevin,
Shouldn't you be working on Inkblot's bio, so that he could be considered for the position?

No, for two reasons:

1) Women aren't fungible commodities. Anybody who thinks picking this woman will placate Hillary's supporters is crazy, or cravenly misogynistic, or both.

2) She's boring. She's fairly conservative (and is that what we want a heart beat away?)

Who?
Seriously, I consider myself moderately informed re: Politics yet I had never heard of the woman until a couple weeks ago. I should think Obama would like a VP candidate with SOME inkling of name recognition. My personal preference would be Richardson, or maybe Wes Clark.

Well, I've been pushing for Sebelius for quite some time, so of course I'm mostly going to see positives here. Or rather, I'm not very impressed with the negatives cited:

1. Foreign policy- Obama's already said that it's not a running-mate issue as far as he's concerned, and I applaud him for not being the typical cowardly, what-will-the-bullying-Republicans-say type of Democrat. He has a good team and good sense, and has already been more right on FP in this campaign than any Republicans and most Democrats have been since 2001.

2. Delivering her state- when was the last time a VP pick actually did deliver a 'home' state that wasn't already leaning towards the ticket? If it was that sure a thing, Kerry would have won NC, right? Again, such transparently electoral picks signal weakness, and that's not Obama's style. And Sebelius has positives that seem to drift into Missouri via the KC media, and a family political history in Ohio; both are much more important states within Obama's reach.

3. The SOTU response- other than Webb in 2007-- and he memorably tore up the committee-written one and wrote his own instead-- can anyone think of a really *good* SOTU response? It's designed to be lame, with a speech by committee, an artificial setting, and too much time talking directly to a camera. Meh.

Good presidential tickets are thematically strong and complementary instead of 'balanced,' like Clinton-Gore '92. In some ways, a Senator Obama/Governor Sebelius ticket would be a mirror image of that structurally strong operation, IMO.

It's weird to hear people pushing for Clark and Richardson and Hagel and Webb. Clark and Richardson are smart guys with a ton of experience that would be absolutely over-qualified for VP. And would well serve the country in much more high profile positions like SecState or SecDef. They also have proven to be terrible candidates. And Hagel or Webb? I don't agree with any of Hagel's positions except for the war. And I'm sorry, but social issues are a much bigger concern for me: economy, same-sex civil unions, a women's right to choose, national healthcare, transit funding. And Webb is just fine where he is in Virginia, where we are lucky to have him there. And before you say it: Evan Bayh is so 1996.

Except for her SOTU response Gov. Sebelius has a lot going for her. She has a knack for getting things done. She knows how to find common ground with Republicans where necessary and how to be tough when she needs to be tough. She has been at the front of a fight against some coal fired power plants in Western Kansas, pushing instead for a mixture that includes wind and solar.

The commenter who said women aren't fungible is right. Obama should never nominate a woman just to placate Hillary's supporters. That doesn't mean Obama shouldn't select a woman. There are only a few politicians, men and women alike, with the kind of real life experience necessary to be Vice President. I happen to think Kathleen Sebelius is one of that select group, and because she has had executive experience would make a better Vice President than Hillary ever could. I put her up near the top of my list, right next to Bill Richardson.

Sibelius sounds good to me. I also like Clark...

Bleeding-heart liberals (like myself) too often think of the VP slot as a consolation prize for Democrats who lost races in the past. It's like reparations for a historical injustice - give it to Gore! He so deserves it! Or Clark! He would have been the perfect president in 2004!

That's one very bad way to approach the VP question. The other is to follow what we might call the Chris Matthews method: who's the manliest man and leader of men in the room? As if Democrats were all wimps, who needed a manly man's man to keep them from breaking out into tears every time someone on Fox said something sorta mean.

When you're trying to make an argument for who should be VP, first try to exorcise both of those pernicious fantasies from your mind.

Once you do that, the virtues of a Sebelius VP become a little clearer. To me at least.

I agree that women are not "fungible commodities", but this woman has achieved a great deal of success over a 22 year political career. She was the first Democrat elected statewide in Kansas and has managed to build her popularity while keeping her progressive values. She has pushed for progress on the environment, is pro-union, pro-choice, against the death penalty, and opposed the state's anti-gay amendment.

As state insurance commissioner, she refused funding from the industry, while leading a major reform.

Should we be against her because she is a woman?

Obama's VP will become the front runner for the presidency in 2016. Whomever Obama chooses to become VP, should be strong and appealing enough to be that person.

Sebelius = HRC - Bill Clinton + self-knowledge

I totally agree with Brojo. We want someone who can run in 2016. I think Kathleen Sebelius, based on what I know (not much, granted), would make an excellent president and so she's my pick for 2008 VP.

If that sly Inkblot character is on the ticket, I'll vote for McCain.

She was the first Democrat elected statewide in Kansas

Actually during about 26 of the last 42 years Kansas has had a Democratic governor. We even had a Dem. female for four years who was terrible and lost in her re-election bid. John Carlin who served two terms in the '80s and was appointed by Clinton to run the National Archives. Bush finally forced him out.

If it weren't for the fact that he's running for Senate, Mark Warner would be nearly a shoo-in pick for VP. He'd still be a good pick, if you could convince the Virginia Democratic Party that it'd be a good position to give up for the opportunity to get a crack at the Vice Presidency and solidly deliver Virginia to the Democrats in November.

I said this yesterday and I'll say it again, it doesn't matter how good she is, you can't have a bumpersticker that reads "Obama / Sibelius". He needs a "safe" name on the ballot like Edwards, Clinton, Brown, Smith, Doe, whatever. My $0.02.

Mike, was that Joan Finney? She was in there between Hayden and Graves, wasn't she? (Hayden was governor when we shipped out and Slattery was the nominee in 1994 by the time we returned to Wichita.)

Mike..

I misread her bio. I believe that she was the first Democrat in more than 100 years to win as state insurance commissioner.

Sebelius? For 6 Electoral Votes? WTF???

You just spotted Florida's 25 Electoral College votes to McCain. Even if you carry Kansas, you are down 19 votes. Once again, it's about winning numbers of electoral votes.

How about going for Pennsylvania with 21 electoral votes? All we need is one additional big state. To win four (or more) additional little state is way too much of a strech.

Just make it not Biden and not some other eastern Beltway insider.

You just spotted Florida's 25 Electoral College votes.

That should have been 27 EC votes. :-(

If that sly Inkblot character is on the ticket, I'll vote for McCain.

Posted by: mcgruff the crime dog on June 10, 2008

Watch it puppy! I's gots me some very nasty swirling paws of death.

Bumper sticker best?

Obama/Clinton
Obama/Edwards
Obama/Gore
Obama/Feingold
Obama/Biden

Obama/Sasquatch

That "fungible commodities" phrase is either the prescribed talking point or the same person is posting it all over the tubes. Hundreds of annoyed Clinton supporters aren't simultaneously coming up with that wording on their own.

I think I would be a cool vice president. I wouldn't demand my own branch of government. I like to swear as much as the next girl, but I never tell people to fuck off at work. I behave beautifully at funerals (really!) and have an extensive black wardrobe. I have never once asked a lawyer I employ to look for ways to get around the Constitution. And I know enough not to go to Holocaust remembrance services dressed like I'm about to snowblow the driveway.

Seriously?

The first black president is NOT going to get elected alongside the first woman vice president, HRC or other. Not to mention, he needs someone to offset the Harvard elite and black radical labels.

Sorry, but he needs a good ol' southern populist white boy.

Seriously?

The first black president is NOT going to get elected alongside the first woman vice president, HRC or other. Not to mention, he needs someone to offset the Harvard elite and black radical labels.

Sorry, but he needs a good ol' southern populist white boy.

I keep coming back to Wes Clark...

I do think at some point during the campaign, Obama is going to have to ask voters to trust him on Iraq. Trust that my new approach is better. Trust that we can leave Iraq and be better off. It may be the right thing but's it's still a foreign concept to many people. But Obama has no standing on this issue beyond his words. People will need someone like Wes Clark, not just a decorated vet like Kerry, but a decorated US commander to tell them that Barack Obama's foreign policy vision is the right approach and we should listen to him.

Sebelius may very well be the better president in waiting and future standard bearer of the Democratic Party, but the present value of that is pretty slim right now. It's not Obama's responsibility to decide who would be the best Dem candidate in 2016. He'll have no shortage of policy advisors, Beltway operators, etc. to chose frome one in office.... he needs to completely neutralize McCain's perceived advantage in the campaign and besides, Clark is a bright, progressive, high character man in his own right... he's just a lousy politician.

Sorry, but he needs a good ol' southern populist white boy.

I tend to agree, though I don't think he necessarily needs to be Southern (he could be Midwestern or Western) or overly populist.

Let's put a stop to this "Women aren't fungible" bullshit argument. Nobody is arguing that. What they are arguing is that there are more talented women politicians out there than just Hillary Clinton.

I can't believe how horribly sexist these people are. They demean women by implicitly arguing that strong, intelligent, capable women politicians are so few in number that they can be counted on one finger. And they then project this sexist attitude onto their critics. The people who argue there are other talented women politicians out there.

So stop fucking calling people "misogynist" simply because they've got better sense than to join the cult of personality surrounding Hillary.

Once upon a time all the wiser heads were saying that the Democratic candidate needed to team up with a Southern good ole boy if he wanted to win the Presidency.

The year was 2004; the candidate was John Kerry; and the good ole boy that he picked was everyone's favorite, John Edwards.

Fat lot of good that did. Edwards couldn't even carry his home state.

I wouldn't expect Obama to repeat that mistake.

I said this over at Yglesias', but I'll say it here too, because I'm a big fan of her as a potential VP pick and talking to myself like this grants my the illusion that I'm in some way boosting her candidacy:

* 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 the environment, on choice, on science, on health insurance, and plenty of 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, and one I think she'll make an excellent surrogate on
* 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 of message accentuation
* she emphasizes a midwestern appeal, which I think we all agree is going to be the key battleground this year; she's got this homey, friendly nature (and her father was governor of Ohio)
* 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 about how the war has hurt us at home
* and what I forgot to mention there: aside from her reportedly getting along great with the nominee, she's young enough that she'll be a natural standard bearer for the party in the future and I can easily see giving her this platform as a way to launch her to the presidency in her own right eight years from now

The idea that she cannot be picked because no woman can be picked other than Hillary Clinton is just offensive. Man or woman, the stuff Sebelius has accomplished and the resume she's built should earn her consideration for this slot. She shouldn't be nixed *because* she's a woman. How is that the right message to send? Hillary put eighteen million cracks in the glass ceiling so long as she's the only one that can ever go through, and no other woman is qualified?

Obama/Clark

Obama/Clark

Her dad was governor of Ohio. Her husband is a federal judge - his dad was a US Representative.

Okay, whatever.

Lets assume Hillary squeaked it out over Obama. And lets then assume she picked Harold Ford as her VP. Are you beginning to see the problem with Sebelius in this year? It would be a politically tone deaf and self defeating move and I am astonished so many of you dont get it. Only one way she can get it, publicly offer it to Hillary first and have her refuse it. Other than that, as far as I am concerned its a non-starter. If we are going to elect Obama people had better start thinking with more political deftness.

No, this isnt a talking point. It is my judgment based upon a very real and deep knowledge of Hillary's supporters, the people Obama needs to get elected.

Sibelius may be a fine person, but she's hugely unknown to the vast majority of voters--it would be a terrible idea to pick her for Veep. P

icking Joe Biden, by the way, would also be ill-advised. He would just bring more windbaggery to the ticket than Obama already brings; one speechifier is a enough. Biden's loquaciousnessis easily leads to verbal gaffes on the stump. He may be a good pick for a cabinet position, but not as a fellow campaigner.

Thanks for reiterating my point from the other VEEP thread, Jammer.

We have to hope that Obama isn't as tone-deaf as members of his fanclub are.

Sure - Kerry's problem was Edwards.

Though I do like the Clark option. He'd be able to attack McCain on defense and foreign policy issues.

HRC needs to consider that she'd have a long and powerful senate career, with the ability to pass some really meaningful legislation with Obama in office. Her supporters will come behind Obama with the right encouragement.

I'd also like to deep-six the Sam Nunn speculation. NOBODY's interested in Sam Nunn but old white pundits.

I would be fine if Clinton picked Harold Ford.

I personally support a Obama/Clinton ticket. What I don't support is Clinton supporters making demands regarding who the nominee can not be.

According to Clinton supporters, it can't Richardson (or anyone who supported Obama for that matter). It can't be a woman. It can't be anyone too popular or too appealing. Did I leave anything out?

(And I'm serious. If Clinton won the nomination, I'd be OK with her picking Harold Ford.)

(And I'm serious. If Clinton won the nomination, I'd be OK with her picking Harold Ford.)

I'm sure you're both serious and sincere. However, once the MSM got through chewing over the topic: "Harold Ford: how big a slap in the face to Obama is he really?", you might change your mind. And I guarantee you there would be plenty of Obama supporters who would be insulted from the git-go.

According to Clinton supporters, it can't Richardson (or anyone who supported Obama for that matter). It can't be a woman. It can't be anyone too popular or too appealing. Did I leave anything out?

For the record, I never said it can't be a woman, just that adding 'just any ol' chick' to the ticket to shut up the Clinton supporters will backfire badly. Why is no one mentioning Pelosi? Not that I'm her biggest fan, but she's surely got the background and more name recognition than Sebelius.

And I honestly can't think of anyone too popular or appealing that's even been mentioned, with the exception of Edwards and Gore, and I'd welcome either of those gentlemen, although I think they would both eschew it for different reasons. Frankly, it's kind of beneath Gore at this point.

This notion that has been kicking around this blog and others that Hillary does not want to be V.P is completely ridiculous. Hillary is in what is commonly referred to as a Catch-22 situation: She has to campaign hard for Barack whether she likes it or not. Just consider her options:

a. Don’t campaign hard for him and he loses – she crawls back to the Senate as a junior member and a pariah

b. Don’t campaign hard for him and he wins – she crawls back to the Senate as a junior member and, at best, not a team player

So, let's be realistic, okay? She has to campaign hard for him. The only question is: not as V.P. or as V.P.? Again, consider her options

c. Campaign hard for him, but not as V.P., and he loses – she crawls back to the Senate as a junior member and runs again as someone who couldn't deliver "her constituency"

d. Campaign hard for him, but not as V.P., and he wins – she crawls back to the Senate as a junior member and/or takes whatever he'll give her

OR, LISTEN UP:

e. Campaign hard for him, as V.P., and he loses – she crawls back to the Senate as a junior member and runs again as a loser who couldn't deliver "her constituency"

f. Campaign hard for him, as V.P., and he wins – and THEN she is the freakin' V.P.

Now factor in that this is a democratic year. I know which option I would choose if I were Hillary. She's not stupid.

And please don't tell me wants to spend 10-20 years becoming Senate leader, or be AG, or wear a black robe the rest of her life and hang around with Scalia, or hang around Albany as governor.

Fuck, I don't even want to do any of that.

Why is no one mentioning Pelosi?

Seriously? Because she's the freaking Speaker of the House of Representatives. She runs the Congress. Why would she be on any list for VP? And if she made any list, why would she want to be on it?

What an insane question. Pelosi's spent years cultivating broad support in the House and learning its ways and rules and members, and you think two years after winning election as the highest-ranking woman in US history and a major player and powerbroker, she's just going to go off and run for VP? I don't.

Lets assume Hillary squeaked it out over Obama. And lets then assume she picked Harold Ford as her VP.

If Clinton picked Harold Ford as VP, you're absolutely right there would be plenty of anger -- but not because he's black. People would be annoyed at her picking someone who's barely a Democrat on his best of days (you know, who praised the McCain speech that everyone else in the universe panned) and who just two years ago bungled an election to the Senate.

Put simply, he's not on the same level as Obama, or Sebelius. He hasn't spent multiple years in higher office -- he ran for higher office and HE LOST. He doesn't deserve serious VP consideration. Him being picked obviously would be a "well, he's black, let's pick him" move, and that is NOT the case with Sebelius who has, aside from being a woman, earned consideration and short-list contention. Anyone with her record, her age, etc. would merit a look. And saying she deserves to be nixed simply because she's a woman is wrong and offensive.

For the record, I never said it can't be a woman, just that adding 'just any ol' chick' to the ticket to shut up the Clinton supporters will backfire badly.

That's clearly not what Sebelius is, though. She's not 'just any ol' chick' and she sure isn't Harold Ford.

She's not 'just any ol' chick' and she sure isn't Harold Ford.

Well, I've hurt the feelings of the Sebelius fans and I didn't mean to. I'm not saying she's not worthy in her own right - I don't think anyone is. I'm just saying she would be PERCEIVED as a cheap substitute for the white woman Obama doesn't want on the ticket and as such, she would be unjustly resented.

And if you don't think the media wouldn't make that leap, you haven't been paying attention.

... you think two years after winning election as the highest-ranking woman in US history and a major player and powerbroker, she's [Pelosi] just going to go off and run for VP?

In a fucking heartbeat.

Well, I've hurt the feelings of the Sebelius fans and I didn't mean to.

Oh, my feelings aren't hurt. I just think false equivalences should be shot down when presented.

And if you don't think the media wouldn't make that leap, you haven't been paying attention.

Considering Sebelius has, along with Webb, been amongst the most talked-about VP choices for Obama since going back at least to Super Tuesday, no, I don't think the media would interpret her being picked as a slap at Hillary Clinton. A few might initially take it that way, but the figures who mostly shape the conventional wisdom that the others herd after -- the Chuck Todds and Mark Halperins -- wouldn't present it that way and it wouldn't sink in as a narrative. (and yes, I've been paying attention)

But your argument seems a bit twisty at this point. You say that you aren't saying it can't be a woman, but then you say that any woman who would be picked would be tagged as a Hillary-substitute and we can't have that... so, effectively, it can't be a woman. I just don't agree, and I don't think our nominee (and I'd say this if Clinton had won) should start off on their first major decision by being cowed by the media.

Most people don't even know who Sebelius is, or care. Forget her credentials. I'm willing to bet that a National poll would show most voters don't even know if she is a Democrat or Republican.

She is a total snoozer of an idea. How about just runnig VP-TBN?

Most people don't even know who Sebelius is, or care.

Most people didn't know who Barack Obama was before his campaign began, either. Most people didn't know John Edwards in 2004, or Joe Lieberman in 2000. And most people don't know most of the other names being batted around either, whether it's Mark Warner or Jim Webb or the unthinkably awful Sam Nunn.

I'm not sure where the idea came from that a VP pick needs to have some sort of preestablished universally national profile prior to being selected. Few people will ever fall into that category. Most people who run for president don't even have that. I guarantee if she's picked (or if any of the above are picked), people would get familiar with them pretty quickly.

Most people didn't know who Barack Obama was before his campaign began, either. Most people didn't know John Edwards in 2004, or Joe Lieberman in 2000. And most people don't know most of the other names being batted around either, whether it's Mark Warner or Jim Webb or the unthinkably awful Sam Nunn.

How about backing up your opinions with some facts. Might I respectively suggest that you do a little research on the National news coverage of the people you mentioned (and you can use your dates if you like).

It's not that hard to do. I think even you can get a rough idea of the who has better name recognition...or maybe not.

Arachnae, I think your analogy would work better as a representation of the world if you replaced Harold Ford with John Conyers. It might not work better as an argument however...

I've been thinking that McCain is going to nominate a woman probably Kay Hutchinson or the Gov of Alaska, Sarah Palin. He's obviously going after angry Hillary supporters and thinks that this will surmise.

Obama is going to have to respond in kind. Jane Harmon, Dianne Fienstein and others come to mind to give him cred on foreign policy...but, probably not likely. Sebelius is an obvious choice.

Brian Schweitzer. I know he's a dark horse from a small state (electoral vote-wise) out west, but his background in agriculture, ranching, and water-development makes him potentially very appealing to rural midwestern and western voters, his jovial, unpretentious and very man-of-the-street personality would contrast nicely with Obama's, and he's a great campaigner. Plus, he speaks Arabic, and it would be fun to watch heads explode on Fox.

Considering Sebelius has, along with Webb, been amongst the most talked-about VP choices for Obama since going back at least to Super Tuesday, no, I don't think the media would interpret her being picked as a slap at Hillary Clinton.

Heh, yeah. All the pundits are saying 'Obama should consider Sebelius - she could bring in the Hillary voters.' Then of course the second he does, the narrative becomes 'How could he have been so tone-deaf? didn't he know how the Hillary voters would react to that?'

You don't think the media is going to drop the 'strife' storyline, do you? They love that shit. If there's no strife, they'll create some.

Bluestatedon, I am 100% with you on your pick. I'm hoping that the media's lack of attention to Schweitzer is a harbinger of his actual presence on the shortlist-- we all know how absolutely tone-deaf the media is! Obama/Schweitzer '08!!!

You don't think the media is going to drop the 'strife' storyline, do you? They love that shit. If there's no strife, they'll create some.

So then yeah, you believe there should be a "no women need apply" rule. That's unfortunate. I certainly don't agree.

So then yeah, you believe there should be a "no women need apply" rule. That's unfortunate. I certainly don't agree.

How did you get that out of what I said? My point is, Obama's going to have enough trouble in the 'Hillary demographics' without presenting the appearance of Ferraro-style tokenism. And putting a woman on the ticket just to put a woman on the ticket is not a winning strategy.

Whether or not Sebellius is the right pick or not, she certainly is qualified. 22 years in public life, re-elected by a large margin as Governor.

Reportedly, Obama is considering the Governor of Montana. He happens to be a man so no charges of tokenism there. She also as much, if not more, experience and success than Governor Pawlenty, who is reportedly on McCain's short list.

I mean.. can we at least consider her without it being seen as tokenism?

The "we-all-think-alike-bloggers" have been touting Sebelius for months. I think it started with Markos who likes Sebelius because she's brought some Republicans over to the Dems in Kansas, which is a very good thing, but irrelevant to the Vice Presidency.

It's a stupid choice for one major reason: If Obama picks a woman-not-Hillary, that would inflame the Hillary supporters who would see it--correctly--as a diss of their candidate.

I mean.. can we at least consider her without it being seen as tokenism?

But that's why she's being considered (by pundits and bloggers, if not Obama) in the first place - to 'get the female vote'. I have never heard her name mentioned in a context other than 'getting the female vote'.

OK, let's put it this way. Sebelius is a popular second term governor. Apparently Sebelius and Obama mutualy respect each other and Sebelius is doing in Kansas what Obama would like to do in Washington, which is bring people together while maintaining progressive principles.

Sebelius has stood up to Bush on use of National Guard, up to the Coal Industry on the environment, and up to the Insurance industry while bringing real reform while serving as state insurance commissioner.

Apparently, the more one gets to know Sebelius, the more one respects Sebelius.

Again, no one is saying to McCain that you can't pick Pawlenty because he is a man.