Daily VP Discussion: Kathleen Sebelius

[Meeker]

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS)

Governor of Kansas (2003 - Present)
State Insurance Commissioner of Kansas (1995-2003)
Kansas State Representative (1987 - 1995)

[Secretary Polnut]

Should help with women, might... help with white working class types.

Won't make Kansas competitive.

[Grumps]

A "do no harm" choice......and a woman on the ticket wouldn't hurt (but I know others disagree).

[Erc]

A "do no harm" choice......and a woman on the ticket wouldn't hurt (but I know others disagree).

I'll agree with that.  Essentially, the default option if he can't think of anyone better.

[Lunar]

I strongly disagree.   It WILL hurt with some people since she will be seen by some Hillary supporters as Hillary-lite and some people will be more uncomfortable with a minority as president without a white male as VP.  Furthermore, it will reek of tokenism, especially post-Hillary, as Sebelius isn't THAT qualified as to dispel criticisms of her novelty value.

Her advantages may very well outweigh her disadvantages though, but I think the safest choice may very well be North Carolina Governor Mike Easley.  I prefer her strongly over Easley,  but I just thought I'd argue against the notion that she's completely "do no harm."

[Senator Ben]

A "do no harm" choice......and a woman on the ticket wouldn't hurt (but I know others disagree).

I'll agree with that.  Essentially, the default option if he can't think of anyone better.

^^^^^

[All life is a blur of Republicans and meat.]

Too conservative.

[J. J.]

A "do no harm" choice......and a woman on the ticket wouldn't hurt (but I know others disagree).

I could look like tokenism, but Sebelius isn't an overall bad choice.  Just what the Democrats need, a successor to Alf Landon on the ticket. 

[8 out of 11 is not deserved]

Obama support among white woman and catholics needs improvement.

She comes from heartland and her record is not as conservative as her image.  Pro-choice, anti-tobacco (state wide ban), anti-capital punishment, strong education funding, and advocate of alternative energy allowing her to present herself as a moderate vs a conservative. These would be generally consistent with Obama's opinions ( except maybe banning tobacco - not sure where Obama is here ).

She will re-enforce his 50 state strategy ( governor from red state ) with no association to Washington ( another plus ).

She is married for 33 years, her husband is a a federal magistrate judge.  Unlikely
( not impossible ) that there are skeletons in the closet here.

She will not upstage Obama as opposed to Clinton as a VP.   

Biggest problem is no foreign policy experience.  You cannot get that without picking somebody from Washington unless you go with a former Washington Player who can say he left due to the poison atmosphere ( Sam Nunn - not sure he could claim this ).

This would be a good VP pick if he feels he has the national policy strength and can take on McCain.

I'd give her a 50% chance to be the VP pick

[zombones]

Too conservative.

How so?

[8 out of 11 is not deserved]

Too conservative.

How so?

  I've seen people post this about her before.  I think the concept that she is a conservative comes more from the state she represents then her positions.   Unless of course, you call balancing budgets without raising taxes as a conservative versus just plain what you are supposed to do if you can

[zombones]

I'd like to hear it because I haven't heard any good reason to not put her on the ticket.  I don't count 'HRC supporters will be pissed' as a good reason.  I want reasons against her character or positions.

[8 out of 11 is not deserved]

I'd like to hear it because I haven't heard any good reason to not put her on the ticket.  I don't count 'HRC supporters will be pissed' as a good reason.  I want reasons against her character or positions.

You're 1000% correct. 

[Lunar]

I'd like to hear it because I haven't heard any good reason to not put her on the ticket.  I don't count 'HRC supporters will be pissed' as a good reason.  I want reasons against her character or positions.

Err, why are strategic, tactical considerations not valid, 'good' reasons?  Fears of tokenism and possible backlash are both things I promise you that Obama's camp are going to count as potential downsides.  Lack of foreign policy credentials is another possible downside. 

The vast majority of potential VP candidates don't have incompatible positions (except maybe pro-Iraq war in 2003) or character issues (except Rendell/Biden).

[zombones]

Err, why are strategic, tactical considerations not valid, 'good' reasons?  Fears of tokenism and possible backlash are both things I promise you that Obama's camp are going to count as potential downsides.  Lack of foreign policy credentials is another possible downside. 

I understand your point, but I am horribly optimistic that Obama can make the case for her, since her being a blue gov of a red state underscored Obama's unity message.

[8 out of 11 is not deserved]

Err, why are strategic, tactical considerations not valid, 'good' reasons?  Fears of tokenism and possible backlash are both things I promise you that Obama's camp are going to count as potential downsides.  Lack of foreign policy credentials is another possible downside. 

I understand your point, but I am horribly optimistic that Obama can make the case for her, since her being a blue gov of a red state underscored Obama's unity message.

No tactical considerations are a recipe for defeat.  Those Clinton supporters who are yelling sexism will be satisfied with nothing but Clinton who will upstage Obama and make him look weak.  Those woman will only support Obama if he picks Clinton.  So they will yell Tokenism, they are yelling sexism today.  Obama needs to move on and pick on qualifications not on tactical nonsense.  To win the Presidency, you need to appeal to the center not the fringes of either party

[zombones]

Has there been any poll suggesting the small section of Clinton supporters who voted for her because she is a women will not vote for Obama if he picks any woman?  I do not think they would make up anything but a small portion of votes, scattered nationally.  They would have such a small effect on the winner-takes-all electoral college.

But getting back on point, what criticisms of Sebelius' character or positions are there? 

[Lunar]

Err, why are strategic, tactical considerations not valid, 'good' reasons?  Fears of tokenism and possible backlash are both things I promise you that Obama's camp are going to count as potential downsides.  Lack of foreign policy credentials is another possible downside. 

I understand your point, but I am horribly optimistic that Obama can make the case for her, since her being a blue gov of a red state underscored Obama's unity message.

No tactical considerations are a recipe for defeat.  Those Clinton supporters who are yelling sexism will be satisfied with nothing but Clinton who will upstage Obama and make him look weak.  Those woman will only support Obama if he picks Clinton.  So they will yell Tokenism, they are yelling sexism today.  Obama needs to move on and pick on qualifications not on tactical nonsense.  To win the Presidency, you need to appeal to the center not the fringes of either party

I disagree completely.  Picking someone to 'appeal to the center'  is a tactical consideration!  There are dozens and dozens of qualified candidates out there, so Obama needs one of them who can underscore his message, carries minimal baggage, and that he gets along with.  Part of that 'baggage' is what criticisms are going to be levied against the VP candidate.

I support Sebelius, but it's silly to ignore the risks.  The trouble is that there is a reasonably strong movement for Obama to select Clinton as VP and selecting what the vast majority will see as a less qualified woman could antagonize a small part of his base.  Yes, it won't be THAT much, but VP's rarely result in direct votes either, so it's a potential loss.

Again, I'm not saying she's a bad VP, it's just that the vice presidential pick is unquestionably one of the most purely strategic decisions a campaign makes.  Cheney was chosen to be part of Bush's 'competence' message, Edwards was chosen to unite the party and bring Southern appeal, Gore was chosen to emphasize Clinton's Southernness, etc.

I think Sebelius wouldn't be a bad pick honestly.  I'm far more skeptical than you all are though of her chances.

[zombones]

I think that most people are not going to care that Obama picked Sebelius over Clinton in the long run.  There may be a kneejerk reaction for some former Clinton supporters, but they will vote Obama/Sebelius.

[8 out of 11 is not deserved]

Instead ob being consummed and frozen by the "Clinton" hard noses, how about discussing the Gov's strenghts and weaknesses

[WalterMitty]

im sick to death of hearing about her.  just like im sick to death of hearing OMG MARK SANFORD!

but im sure both obama and mccain will pick someone boring and unimaginative like sebelius and sanford.

[Lunar]

Instead ob being consummed and frozen by the "Clinton" hard noses, how about discussing the Gov's strenghts and weaknesses

Well, those sorts of questions are her main downside along with her lack of national and international experience.  Her strengths have been discussed already: appeal to women, governor of a red state, age-balancer, early endorser of Obama, solid but not mindblowing campaigner (I think), etc.  She really doesn't have any obvious skeletons in her closet or personality defects.

I still think it's a fascinating question to ask to what degree a non-Clinton female VP affects feminists and Voteboth.com diehards, as well as to what degree a generic female VP with a black president could generate Ferraro-like antagonism towards the ticket overall through feelings of tokenism.  I think these are bigger concerns than her stance on Tobacco since she really isn't pro-life or anything that could cause her trouble.

[Ogre Mage]

It is unwise to make assumptions at this point about what Clinton's supporters will or will not do.   If it was done right, Hillary's most ardent supporters might view a Sebelius selection as an important step for women's rights.  But it could also easily be seen as tokenism and a diss of Clinton.

Like it or not, a Sebelius selection is inevitably going to draw comparisons to Clinton.  On one hand, she has the executive experience which neither Clinton or Obama has.  She comes with far less apparent political baggage than Clinton and reinforces Obama's "change" message in a way that Clinton doesn't.  However, Obama is criticized for a lack of foreign policy experience.  Sebelius does nothing in this area.  Clinton served on the Senate Armed Services Committee for 6 years and has been praised for her work there by fellow committee members on both sides of the aisle.  She also has established relationships with many international leaders from both her time as First Lady and Senator.  Furthermore, Hillary did very well with other crucial voting blocs resistant to Obama -- the white working class, seniors, Hispanics, Jews.  There is no evidence Sebelius would help Obama with those demographic groups.

All in all, Sebelius is a name worth keeping on Obama's short list.  We will see where this goes.

[Keystone Phil]

She satisfies the base as liberal from the heartland and could help with women.

[zombones]

OMG