Why not Sebelius?

[crimsonblue]

Of all the Veep speculation here on DU, I've seen very little mention of Sebelius, and she is usually written off because: a)her selection would offend feminists and Hillary supporters (because ONLY Hillary is qualified to be VP); b) she would have negligible draw; or c) nobody knows her.

To answer those concerns:

A) Hillary, although she ran a historic campaign, is not entitled to the VP, nor does Obama owe her anything. Obama ran a dignified campaign against her, and refrained to the best of his ability from attacking her character. It seems, to me, to be completely antithetical to equal rights to support only 1 woman for the highest office. Kathleen Sebelius has been a fantastic governor for Kansas, and she has stood up repeatedly to the area's near-violent pro-life faction (especially concerning the Dr. Tiller matters). She has proven to be a progressive in the mold of early Kansans with her opposition to new coal plants, demands that the state balance its budget, and her dedication to providing more funds to the state's public universities (Just 4 years ago, the total deferred maintenance bill-- a lovely leftover of the Graves admin-- for the colleges here was over $600 million. Now, it is under $200 million, and the universities are actually able to prevent further degradation of buildings).

B) No VP will ever have the same aura as Obama, mainly because he is a once in a generation politician. So, what's the point in trying to overshadow Obama? Sebelius can and has gone to bat for progressive causes, and she has tremendous street cred in the Midwest, not mention that she is highly liked by her fellow governors (and she was even the president of the national governor's association). In her SOTU rebuttal, it may not have played well in the traditional blue states, but it played very very well here in Kansas (and I think probably similarly in other red states). She came off as smart, logical, and tenacious, all without appearing vindictive or angry. We need a VP that is willing to go against public opinion (her vetoes of new coal plants, as well as her thrice vetoing of a Voter ID act). She is clearly effective in this respect.

C) It's true that she is relatively unknown outside Kansas and the midwest, but I can guarantee that any skeletons would have come out already, especially since the state GOP has dramatically more funds every election cycle. She would have 3 months for the public to get to know her, which is more than enough time. She can hold her own in debates, she is articulate, she is very intelligent, she is attractive, and she is likeable.

Having a VP from a state that elected one of the first women to the US Senate (Nancy Landon Kassebaum) would be a fantastic and symbolic choice.

--------
all that being said, I don't know if she would take the job, especially since Brownback is not running for reelection in 2010. However, Sebelius on the ticket could move a Kansas Senate seat to the Democrats (Slattery is running a tough race against Roberts).

[KansasVoter]

1. I don't think she adds anything special.....

And I live in Kansas and voted for her.

No national Security help which I think we need in a VP.

And she cannot win Kansas in the general election.

I love her but not for VP.

[Muttocracy]

3. I agree with no National Security - don't want a VP (potential Pres) without it

Also her response to the State of the Union, my first exposure to her, was pretty weak :boring:

[crimsonblue]

5. i call bullshit

she sure hell can bring in Kansas. She easily won reelection, plus there are a whole helluva lot of moderate republicans in Shawnee, Douglas, Wyandotte, and Johnson Counties. Who gives a damn what the 700 person counties in Western Kansas think? Obama's rally in El Dorado before the primary saw unprecedented crowds, and El Dorado ain't exactly in the middle of blue country. Obama doesn't need a Nat Sec. VP, he needs one that can go out on the offensive, which Sebelius has proven she can do.

[LostInAnomie]

2. She wouldn't be able to bring in her home state.

[democrattotheend]

26. Obama's already said geography is not his main criteria

Which is good, since it doesn't work. The last VP who really made a difference geographically was LBJ (though you could argue that the reason Gore came so close in Florida in 2000 was because of Lieberman. Please no flames...I'm certainly no fan of Lieberman now!)

[crimsonblue]

27. one could say that Gore did win Florida...

but that's a discussion for another thread.....

[democrattotheend]

59. I agree. I almost said that

But the sentence sounded funny. I absolutely believe that the majority of voters in Florida went to the polls with the intention of voting for Al Gore.

[rpannier]

4. Who would be governor of the state if she was the Veep???

If it goes to a republikkan (which I think it does) then I'm not really behind her as the pick.

I think she's a good candidate.

[Alexander]

6. Mark Parkinson - A Democrat and the current Lt. Governor.

[rpannier]

8. Thanks

[Alexander]

7. The only arguments I've seen against her are from bitter Clinton supporters.

And these people mindlessly repeat points A, B, and C, and are not above using all of them in the same argument.

What they don't realize is that this stuff isn't important to people who are over the primaries - in other words, 99% of the population.

[crimsonblue]

10. I think anyone that can bring considerable "draw"

is too tainted to be selected and will be a distraction. This election is about Obama, not his VP. We need to get back to the good ole standby of the President being in charge, with the VP being a largely ceremonial slot. Cheney's level of involvement is unprecedented. I want a VP that will attack when needed, and otherwise stay in the shadows and not make mistakes.

[Alexander]

19. Just remember Gore was an influential VP in the Clinton administration.

Yes, Clinton ignored a lot of his environmental issues, but Gore did have considerable sway in other areas.

I'm hoping for a VP with the clout of Al Gore or even Walter Mondale. I wouldn't want a figurehead in that position.

[TheDebbieDee]

25. There you go again, assuming you know what other people

are thinking, the arrogance! There's nothing sadder than a bitter winner!

Yes, the primaries are over and any Hillary supporters that are still unable to accept Obama as the nominee are sure as hell not hanging out on this board!

As far as I can tell the people on this board that can't get past the primaries are the Hillary-hating, sore winners that still seem to take personal offense at the fact that she even DARED run for the nomination.

[Alexander]

53. Just stating the facts. Sorry if you're too sensitive to hear them.

"There you go again,"

Isn't that a Reagan quote? Why are you quoting Reagan, of all people?

"assuming you know what other people are thinking, the arrogance!"

Uh, no. I stated my personal experience with people opposed to Sebelius.

So far, the only people opposed to a Sebelius VP whenever I mention it have been bitter Clinton supporters.

Don't like it? Too bad. Go cry somewhere else.

"Yes, the primaries are over and any Hillary supporters that are still unable to accept Obama as the nominee are sure as hell not hanging out on this board!"

1) Some of them still are, trying to concern-troll us into submission.

2) There is no point in trying to please these people. They will hate Obama even if Hillary is the VP.

3) If the primaries are over, what's wrong with picking Sebelius?

"As far as I can tell the people on this board that can't get past the primaries are the Hillary-hating, sore winners that still seem to take personal offense at the fact that she even DARED run for the nomination."

When you have blinders on, it's hard to see what you don't want to see.

Obviously you haven't seen and/or cared about all the concern trolls here bashing the potential VP candidates who don't have the name "Hillary Clinton". That's not my problem. It's yours.

By the way, even though I'm not a Clinton supporter, I'd still trust Obama's judgment if he chose her as VP. What do you think of that? Kind of pokes a hole in your "arrogance" meme, doesn't it?

[proud2BlibKansan]

34. I am not a Clinton supporter and I don't want her on the ticket

I am also a Kansan. I love her and think she is a great governor but I don't think she is the best choice for VP.

[Alexander]

48. Why? I'd like to hear your reasoning, particularly since you're from Kansas.

[crimsonblue]

51. Most people from here that don't want Sebelius on the ticket

(i'm talking Dems) want her to run for Brownback's vacant Senate seat in 2010.

[Alexander]

54. So your argument against Sebelius is that she should run for the Senate?

That's not a bad argument.

On the other hand, Mark Parkinson would be the new governor and he would get the name recognition necessary to run for re-election - or even the US Senate - in 2010.

I feel similarly about my governor - Janet Napolitano - in that I'd love her as Obama's VP or in his Cabinet, but I would also like her to take McCain's or Kyl's Senate seat.

[crimsonblue]

57. I hadn't thought about the Parkinson angle...

It is well known secret that Brownback is going to run for Gov in 2010. Giving Parkinson 2 years experience would help with his name recognition in the state, and would better allow him to fend off a Brownback challenge (for some reason, the stupider of the people here still seem to like Brownback).

[proud2BlibKansan]

64. He needs someone stronger on foreign policy

She is a great executive and has also done a wonderful job standing up to conservative Republicans here. But she has literally no foreign policy experience. That is my main reason for opposing her as VP.

And selfishly I want her to stay here and continue fighting the right. We have won some major battles but still have work to do.

[paulk]

65. bullshit

that everything gets reduced to that level bu you says a lot about your inability to let go of the primaries, not the reverse.

[Stop Cornyn]

9. She doesn't bring any electoral votes and her son is a vetting problem, but she's awesome and I hope

she's goes far in our party.

[democrattotheend]

36. What's wrong with her son?

I didn't even know she had a son...what's the issue with him? Is he a lobbyist or something?

[PBS Poll-435]

43. Nah....He was the "genius" behind a "Don't Get Raped in Prison"

Board Game...

[crimsonblue]

44. well I think McSame's banker son

who lost his company something like $119 million dollars.... (is it coincidental he left and cashed out before the stock plumetted?)

[PBS Poll-435]

45. Well....Then McSame is DEFINITELY not on the "short-list" of Obama's potential VPs

Thank GOD.

[crimsonblue]

47. har har

I'm just saying that there's more than enough skeletons to be trotted out on the repug side.. Plus, I bet the right wingers love prison rape jokes...

[PBS Poll-435]

49. If they have skeletons, then we will use them. We don't need to hand the ammo to them for our side

[Beregond2]

11. I have nothing against her.

I just don't see her as bringing much to the ticket. The choice MUST have a lot of foreign policy experience, to balance Obama's perceived lack of it.

[pinto]

20. I disagree. It's a meme that has some traction in media world, and perhaps in the electorate.

The selling point for Obama may be just the opposite. The President *isn't* foreign policy. He's the team leader for a group of skilled professionals. If we are to have an end to the unitary executive, it would be well that he and his campaign counter that point effectively.

That said, in the same media world, seeing an American politician greeted so overwhelmingly in Europe is no small matter. Regardless of how the RW spins it. It's been a *long* time.

[crimsonblue]

22. Obama has proven his foreign policy judgment

is vastly superior to McCain's. It is judgment, not experience, that matters. Dick Cheney had decades of foreign policy exp, but that didn't prevent him from being a complete douche who convinced Georgie to invade Iraq.

[StevieM]

12. I don't think she delivers Kansas. And her State of the Union response wasn't so great.

I like Clinton, Clark and Vilsack, none of whom seem to be under consideration.

Steve

[democrattotheend]

32. Obama doesn't need a charismatic VP

You could argue that he needs a VP with either foreign policy credential or executive experience, but the one thing I think even his detractors will admit he doesn't need to compensate for is a lack of charisma. And he's already said he's not picking based on geography. Sebelius is a 2-term governor with a strong track record, she was named one of the 5 best governors in the country, she has been surprisingly progressive in a very red state, and she's shown political courage taking on powerful special interests. Her governing philosophy seems very much in line with Obama's (for example, she refused to take money from insurance companies when she ran for insurance commissioner), and I honestly think the main reason she's not higher on the short list is because she's a woman whose name isn't Hillary, which would really be a shame. I think if Obama picked a token woman who wouldn't have otherwise been on the radar screen the way Mondale did in 1984 it might be legitimately insulting to Hillary's supporters. But Sebellius is someone who has enough positives to make her a good addition to the ticket even if she were a man, so I don't think it should be seen as a slight or a pander if he picks her.

[crimsonblue]

35. I think she would have run for President

if she were a man... but being a woman, she'd obviously be in Hillary's shadow in the primaries (I mean that as no slight or disrespect to Hillary. Clinton is a BIG draw and ran a great campaign).

[CitizenLeft]

50. I agree with everything you said...

...and they look FABULOUS together, too!

[MercutioATC]

13. What does she add to the ticket?

I can't think of a thing.

There's also the danger (when trying to attract Independents and Republican crossover voters) of too much "change". It may be politically incorrect to openly state, but a black guy and a woman will scare some voters. Obama would do much better with a white guy who appeals to rural America.

[crimsonblue]

16. what better symbol of change

than a Black man and a woman from a heavily republican state? She adds intelligence, she can think on her feet, she is conducive to progressive values (pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-voter). She is a great pick. Who appeals better to rural America better than an incumbant Governor from a rural red state?

[MercutioATC]

28. You're thinking like a Democrat.

Stop it!


To win, we have to appeal to a broader group. That can be done without compromising our principles, but it requires that we understand how the target audience thinks. A black guy and a woman would worry a lot of people.

That said, line up Sebelius and Schweitzer and you tell me who appeals more to rural America.

[crimsonblue]

30. obviously it's the white guy....

but how much of the country is truly "rural"? I'd say that most of the voting public is either in the suburbs or cities. I think she would do excellent in both locales.. I'm thinking about Overland Park and Olathe, KS as examples. These are big suburban areas that went heavily to Sebelius in her reelection.

[MercutioATC]

40. Republicans seem to have done quite well with the rural vote for decades.

(and it's about 21% of the population...that's almost 70 million people)

[crimsonblue]

46. well it's a good thing it's decided in each state

The rural voters in every state is far outnumbered by urban and suburban voters. There's no point wasting your time on 700 person counties in any state-- they aren't going to vote for you anyway.

[crimsonblue]

33. plus, I think Sebelius adds more to the Moderate Bloc

of voters. The so-called "swing voters." I think they are already heavily leaning towards Obama, and having a progressive VP would help, especially if McBush chooses Mittens or Fiorina.

[MercutioATC]

42. I really don't think "moderates" want "progressive".

People are just animals with opposing thumbs and slightly larger brains. They are uncomfortable with change, even when their current reality doesn't meet their needs.

Obama is more than enough "change" for a lot of the demographic to which we need to appeal (rural voters, Independents, crossover Republicans, etc.). Another minority or a woman on the ticket would scare a lot of these people. They might be willing to accept change...but not something as "radical" as a ticket comprised solely of minorities and/or women.

[pinto]

14. It's unfortunate that you partially framed this in terms of Gov. Sebelius or

Sen. Clinton. I doubt few in Obama headquarters see it as such. They are probably vetting a handful of folks from across the party.

From what I've seen, I think she would be a good choice. I'm not real well versed on all her positions, or her record as Governor, yet I've heard her speak - very well - with the SOTU rebuttal. Am familiar with her stand on new coal fired plants and her midwest, kind of populist with an edge approach - all in a very Republican state. I hear she's effective. I'd support that ticket in a heartbeat.

As always, it remains to the nominee and his advisors to make a VP choice. I expect Obama to be thorough, detailed and publicly clear when it comes time to announce the second on the ticket.

In broad, general political terms I like a Governor for a VP slot in this election. Just my take. We'll see in a few weeks I assume.

[crimsonblue]

18. I wasn't meaning the OP to be an either/or

I've just seen all this talk about Kaine, Biden, and Bayh recently... and I wanted to remind people that there is a good option from here in the heartland.

[pinto]

21. Ah, yeah. Agree. I don't see Gov. Sebelius mentioned on TV much either.

Not sure why that is...

[crimsonblue]

23. it may be that the media, more than anybody

is pushing the meme that "if not Hillary, then NO woman".

[pinto]

41. I don't think that is it. I've seen much more talk of the other possibles on the media list, of late

Yeah, Sen. Clinton is mentioned. And it's understandable due to her strong primary run with Sen. Obama.

Yet, again, I'm sure the vetting process is ignoring the media hype, or any one talking head's particular take. They all seem to have one, which is fine - that's *their* job. It remains the job of Sen. Obama and his staff to form a ticket that will carry effective national support in the polling booth. That's the poll that matters.

[Bullet1987]

15. I personally think many people don't want her because she's a woman

But no one is saying it.

[cliffordu]

17. I think the PUMA crowd would go apopleptic.

Blood in the streets,

[Alexander]

24. Good. Anything that pisses them off makes me happy.

They are racists and nothing more.

[cliffordu]

29. Yes. Yes they are. Sexist racists.

[jobycom]

31. She's a decent choice, but to address some of your points.

A) No one's arguing Clinton is entitled. The argument is that she brought a lot of people to the polling booth who had never voted before, and many who had never voted Democrat before. Putting her on the ticket would bring in a lot of those voters. Sebelius would not.

Also, a lot of Clinton supporters do not feel that Obama ran a dignified campaign. I don't care to argue whether he did or not--that's not my point. A lot of Clinton supporters are angry at him. Not all of these are Democrats, so they won't necessarily vote for Obama. Some are Republicans, but most are moderates who vote either party. Again, including her on the ticket might bring them in, whereas including Sebelius might anger them, as they would feel it was one more insult from him.

None of that means Obama has to do anything one way or the other. But if he chooses Clinton, he gets a group of voters he otherwise won't get. The question is whether Sebelius brings equal numbers to the ticket.

B) Obama's biggest weakness is lack of national experience. It may not hurt him much, but that's where he will be attacked. If he chooses a running mate that is viewed as light, or as inexperienced like him, it will compound that weakness, and then maybe it starts to affect his numbers. If he chooses a running mate whose experience no one questions, he can focus on his own record. Doesn't have to be Clinton--there are plenty who would work. But Sebelius is weak there, and Obama needs to consider that. He doesn't need to a VP he has to defend.

C) Three months is also time for the Republicans and their PR Department (the media) to paint her how they want, and not enough time for her to overcome that image. Maybe they fail at this, maybe they succeed. But again, it's something Obama has to decide if he wants to deal with, or not. Does she bring him enough for him to risk that? Maybe. That's what he has to decide. But does he take a risk on someone with questions, when there are other candidates who bring him more and risk less?

The bottom line is Obama doesn't owe anyone the spot. He doesn't have to give it to Clinton, and he doesn't have to give it to Sebelius. The question is only who will help him win. He has to put together a plan that gives him the most voters with the least chance of losing. How he does that will depend on what the polling data shows him. What group of states should he go after? Should he try for a southern state or two, or should he just try the normal strategy of battling in Florida and Ohio and trying to win there? Does he need a regional VP or a national one? What are his weaknesses, what does he plan to make his primary issues, how will he try to portray John McCain, what does he think John McCain will do? Each of those questions and answers will suggest a different strategy, and he has to decide which strategy works for him and works against McCain. His VP choice will fit in with his strategy.

[jonestonesusa]

52. Good reply - but I agree with the original poster. A couple of points...

A) You can find the argument in many places on the web that Clinton is entitled to the VP slot and I think that some of the voting public shares that view. You won't see this argument on DU now because it's banned.

More to your point, I believe there's a possibility that putting Clinton on the ticket will cost Obama some voters, whether it's conservative leaning voters or left of center progressive voters. For the most part progressives will probably go with the Dems this year, but having Clinton on the ticket is bound to cause some polarization. I just do not agree with the assumption that Clinton on the ticket automatically equals a net gain in votes.

What Sebelius would bring to the ticket is national interest and a proven progressive record in a red state. While she is not seen as a champion of women's issues compared to Clinton, I think that to see her campaigning for a full season would strengthen the ticket's appeal to women and by election day would be a plus.

B) The question of national security would come up, so the Democratic ticket must have a response to that question. I think that to continue to tie McCain to the Bush foreign policy would work well if that point is argued hard. But Sebelius certainly isn't politically inexperienced, and I think that point can be made effectively. It also fits with the change theme to emphasize that there is fresh energy coming to Washington.

C) Anyone can be swiftboated - ask John Kerry. All one can do is come out swinging from the start and respond vigorously to Republican attacks.

I do support Sebelius as a VP candidate over the long list of others who have been largely ineffective at sustaining the Democratic agenda in the face of the Bush presidency. I hope she gets a long look during the vetting process.

[crimsonblue]

55. to add to your comments...

Sebelious vetoed anti-choice legislation in 2003, 2005, 2006, and this year. She was scolded by the local catholic diocese for taking communion, and she has been endorsed by Planned Parenthood. Her pro-woman credentials speak for themselves. Sebelius remains personally pro-life, but she opposes any legislation that imposes restrictions on abortion. She favors reducing abortions by better sex education, better health care, and abortions have gone down 8.5% during her time in office (which I think anybody can say is a good thing).

[jobycom]

60. All very good arguments, and I can't refute any of them.

I can, however, disagree to some extent. :)

Sebelius might bring a strong progressive record, but progressives don't win national elections. It's simple math--if a progressive doesn't vote for the Democrat, they stay home or vote third party, and you've lost one vote. If a moderate doesn't vote Democrat, they vote Republican, and it takes two votes to overcome that loss. Obama has been making every indication that he will campaign for the middle votes, not for the progressives. Still, he could decide that he will carry the middle and choose a progressive VP, anyway.

B & C) Maybe. I just think there are stronger candidates that won't require as much work or be as much risk. Not necessarily Clinton--like the OP, I'm not trying to make this a choice between Clinton and Sebelius.

One more thing to consider. The Democrats have not won an election without a southerner on the ticket since 1948, and if you include the borderline southern states of Kentucky and Missouri, since 1944. And only once since 1932. That's once in twenty elections (we won ten, lost ten). That can change, but it's worth a thought.

I wouldn't object one bit if he picked Sebelius. She's a great choice in a lot of ways. I just don't think she's his best strategy. Then again, she's not his worst, either. :)

[crimsonblue]

61. I'd admit that Sebelius isn't the safe pick...

that'd probably be Biden or Kaine. However, I think Sebelius would be a great pick for building a sustainable Democratic Presidency.. She would gain invaluable experience, and would be essentially groomed to be Prez in 8 years. Assuming Obama doesn't fuck up between now and then, I think she would make a great President, and being hand-picked by the man that saved the Union (why does it always take a man from Illinois to save the Union? And yes, I think Obama can and will be that transcendent). But, I'm probably more than a little biased (being from Kansas and a current KU student).

[jobycom]

62. I won't be sad if she's the one.

I hope Obama lives up to your expectations, too. :rofl: No pressure on the man, he just has to save the world.

[crimsonblue]

63. The RNC told me he's "The One"....

so it has to be true.... :rofl:

[Phredicles]

37. How about Janet Napolitano of Arizona?

Would she give the ticket a leg up in the Sounthwest/Rocky Mountain states?

[crimsonblue]

38. she'd be a good choice too...

plus that's make McCain spend lots of money on Az... He couldn't be seen as losing his own goddamn state.

[bigmoon]

39. Good choice

She would snatch Arizona away from McSame

[Alexander]

56. There is no Lt. Gov. in AZ, therefore the Gov. would be a Republican.

Jan Brewer is the Secretary of State, next in line of succession, and a Republican.

While I thought this was a good idea at first, a DUer (ironically, a PUMA DUer) reminded me why this would be a horrible idea.

[dontforgetpoland]

58. Strategically speaking, I don't see her helping the ticket very much.

She could solidified most of the Dem women voters and prevent McCain from stealing woman voters if he chooses a woman as his VP. PUMA voters will be angry no matter who Obama chooses if it's not Hillary anyways. Unfortunately, Sebelius selection will not carry Kansas or guarantee any state pickup in the general.

I also find her speaking style to be very dry. I guess I need to see her more to decide, but so far I haven't been really impressed. She's not an attack dog either, in which, I think Obama's staff is definitely lacking. Obama camp may disagree that don't need one, but if McCain goes weeks and weeks of untrue attack ads with little or no responses (ala Kerry) it will shape the perception on how people will perceive Obama.

That being said, from the MTP interview on Sunday, I believe Obama will probably pick Sebelius or Kaine. It depends if Kaine passes the "test" this week. Obama trust factor seems to decider of who he selects. The selection will not be this week.