Veepstakes Revisited

Richardson's not it either, according to the report.

Here's an article on Sebelius from Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/10/kathleen-sebelius-complet_n_106219.html

Kathleen Sebelius, Completing The Obama Puzzle

June 10, 2008 10:20 AM

When weighing Kathleen Sebelius' potential as a possible vice presidential pick for Barack Obama, it's useful to consider two separate instances when the Kansas Governor confronted President George W. Bush.

In May 2007, after a devastating tornado had wiped out the town of Greensburg, Sebelius was quick to highlight one of the unspoken truths of the recovery episode: Kansas lacked the resources and manpower it needed because much of the state's National Guard resources had been sent to Iraq. Going public, she repeatedly took jabs at Bush, scolding his Iraq policies for creating a readiness gap at home. Her rebukes earned her accolades in Kansas and with the press. It also prompted the scorn of several Bush lackeys -- a not-too-unfortunate wrist slapping for an emerging Democratic official.

Less than a year later, Sebelius' national stature landed her in another prime-time position, again opposite the president. This time, however, her task was far more thankless. Asked to give the response to Bush's final State of the Union address, Sebelius stumbled, offering up what observers deemed a fairly safe, some said milquetoast, address.

Taken together, these two Bush-related episodes could be considered the polar ends of the Kathleen Sebelius experience. To be fair, the median of the Kansas governor's attributes lie definitively closer to the person who eagerly challenged George Bush's war policies. Indeed, with Obama beginning the arduous process of choosing his number two, Sebelius -- who, sources say, enjoys a warm relationship with Obama and would take the job -- presents a heap of electoral promise but with small but significant question marks.

* * *
The daughter of the former governor of Ohio, Sebelius rose steadily in the political ranks, winning six straight elections before taking over the governor's chair in 2002 and being reelected four years later. A progressive Democrat in a predominantly Republican state, she achieved remarkable favorability ratings while holding positions traditionally anathema in Kansas -- mainly by keeping focus on bread-and-butter issues.

"By and large, she's a moderate Democrat, truly pro-business, and able to convey a legitimate sense of being a competent administrator (which she is)," Burdett Loomis, a former Sebelius aide and professor of politics at the University of Kansas, said in an email. "She does exceedingly well in forums like Chambers of Commerce talks, where she exudes common sense and competence, while still maintaining core Democratic values -- education, health care, and sympathy for unions."

More often than not, Sebelius has harnessed legislative consensus for her agenda. In a special session in 2005, she was handed a budgetary bombshell when the state's Supreme Court ordered the government to provide $500 million for school funding (Kansas' budget is roughly $12 billion). Discussions went on for days in the legislature, with talk of impeachment of the justices surfacing. Sebelius stood behind the court, and recruited a slim majority of lawmakers to her side. Funds were passed for the schools and three years later the program is regarded as a success.

"She brings people together and gets things done," said Raj Goyle, a first term state representative. "Governor Sebelius has a unique record of reaching across traditional party lines in Kansas to build consensus."

But when she felt it necessary, Sebelius fought -- and often won. She vetoed a bill that would have required voters to show photo identification before voting, citing disenfranchisement concerns. She issued an executive order making it illegal to discriminate against state employees on the basis of sexual orientation. Three times in four years, she opposed legislation that would have restricted abortion access even though one of those bills passed the Kansas legislature by a two to one margin. Most recently, Sebelius offered a third veto to a bill that would have paved the way for the construction of two new coal-fired units in western Kansas, and she did it primarily on environmental grounds, a stance that a decade ago would have amounted to political suicide.

"Elected leaders are supposed to look at the big picture, at issues that may not affect citizens immediately but are extremely beneficial to the long-term condition of our society. Moving toward renewable energy provides opportunities for better-paying jobs, while helping to address concerns caused by global warming," she said of her decision.

Her position was held up by one vote in the statehouse.

"The coal industry thought that if there was one state it could buy off, it would be Kansas," said one legislator close to Sebelius. "She obviously made an incredibly risky decision to deny the permits. And never before in history had coal plant been rejected on environmental grounds."

And yet, despite the dug-in heels and the close-fought battles, Sebelius' standing has risen. In 2005, she was named by Time magazine one of the five best governors in America, lauded for eliminating a $1.1 billion debt without raising taxes. Her approval ratings, meanwhile, hover over 60 percent. Officials at the Democratic Governors Association -- which Sebelius chaired in 2007 -- repeatedly raved about her work ethic.

The Bush confrontation was emblematic of how Sebelius has curried broad support. After tornadoes hit six southwest Kansas counties, killing thirteen, Sebelius publicly declared that National Guard shortages "will just make it [recovery] that much slower." The White House responded by first putting the blame at her feet, saying it was "not aware of any prior complaints" about a lack of personnel or equipment, and then suggesting that the governor had been in New Orleans, listening to jazz, when the storm hit. Neither were true. Sebelius had made at least five separate requests for equipment, beginning in Dec. 2005, and, on the day of the storm, she had been visiting family before immediately returning to the state.

According to a source close to Sebelius, the governor didn't take lightly to the smears. During a visit to the tornado site with the president, she reportedly continued to hammer away with her guard complaints. Kansans of all political stripes loved it.

"People were supportive of her and those comments," said Tim Owens, a Republican legislator. "I'm a retired army colonel and I will tell you, I think she is right... I'm not very happy about the way the federal government went about dealing with the National Guard in regards to the war in Iraq."

* * *
Being a successful Democrat in a Republican state, showing an ability to reach blue-collar voters, and demonstrating a tenacity to challenge the Bush administration, has vaulted Sebelius into any honest discussion of Obama's veepstakes. Sharing a good relationship with the Illinois Democrat and endorsing him fairly early in the primary cycle didn't hurt either. But Sebelius also has blind spots on her political resume that even her most ardent supporters acknowledge.

The most superficial is her State of the Union response, a speech that detractors say is evidence that she can't handle the national stage, but, her office claims, was merely a product of divergent expectations.

"Governor Sebelius believes there is a time and place for everything, but she saw that time as an opportunity not to focus necessarily on the Democratic message or the Republican message, but the American message," said her press secretary Nicole Corcoran. "Governor Sebelius has tangled with the White House before and will again if needed, but the response to the State of the Union message was not the time for it."

A far more substantive concern with Sebelius could be that she doesn't provide what Obama truly needs. As governor, she has had limited direct national security experience. And a recent Survey USA poll showed that, even with her as vice president, Obama still wouldn't carry Kansas (and its six electoral college votes) in the general election.

"She can't deliver her own state," said Christian Morgan, executive director for the Kansas Republican Party. "Moreover, she has never dealt with the national issues that a vice president has to talk about. She has no idea how military budgets work, or what it is like to be a commander in chief."

Because of these concerns, Loomis, who worked in a communications capacity for Sebelius, put the governor's vice presidential prospects at "no better than one in ten," calling her a conservative choice. But he added, should she be tapped, Sebelius would be a tireless campaigner and could very well translate her appeal in Kansas onto the national stage.

"As someone who has watched lots of politicians closely for almost four decades," he said, "I find there are two types -- the ones that look worse when you see them close up, and the ones that look better. Kathleen Sebelius is definitely the latter."

 

Clark proved in 2004 that there is an art to politics, specifically national politics, and not everybody has it. You can have the greatest resume in the world and maybe even possess great charisma and still not know how to/be ready to do this effectively. Richardson proved it again in 08. Both disappointed on the national stage and it's not entirely surprising to me that neither is on this list.

Then again, I'm not confident at all that the list is real. The Obama camp's been pretty great at keeping the most important stuff under wraps. Going to Capitol Hill to ask questions of any number of senators or congressmen, and floating a list to them, smells of something else to me than straight up VP vetting.

Even the inclusion of James Jones, a perfect wild card and totally unlikely candidate (look at the boards he's sat on and his long standing friendship with McCain), seems a little too perfect. The whole list does, in a way. It's a little too close, for me, to the conventional wisdom to be right. In this year, with this campaign, it somehow feels too easy that all the names that have been trafficked most heavily in the media are the actual names (with one convenient wild card).

Kerry and Clinton and Edwards all needed to be on a list, too. In the way that Mark Warner traded an endorsement in 04 for a promise of appearing on Kerry's short list, it seems to me that these three people needed to appear on a list. Bayh is also unlikely enough in my estimation, but also needful of the credibility that appearing here provides, to meet this criteria. I found something funny too about Strickland's name appearing 'officially' on the same day he so clearly demurred. It all feels a little strategic to me, but I could be totally wrong and the leak could legitimately be a crack in a normally sound system.

With every passing day though I become more convinced in my gut that its Sebelius, one of the VA boys or a real surprise (meaning someone we've never really thought of as rimrocker's suggested or someone who's not even/not quite a Democrat).

 

The idea that the VP is going to deliver a state is a slightly outmoded concept.

And Sebelius' gender is only one quality that makes her attractive, and not even the one that makes her most so. Her main advantage is her nearly unmatched record for successfully reaching across the aisle. In a matchup with Clinton, there are so many differences as to make it ridiculous to simply say if a woman why not X?

- Sebelius opposed the war from the beginning; Clinton supported it.
- Sebelius champions progressive causes and brings Republicans over to her side; Clinton champions moderate positions and drives Republicans away.
- Sebelius has executive experience/would add governor to ticket; Clinton doesn't/would make it a two senator ticket.
- Sebelius is a fresh face of a sort that shores up O's new politics message; Clinton is the face of the establishment Dem party and, by virtue of her name alone in addition to other reasons, undercuts his message of change.

Also, Sebelius arguably does as much for Obama in OH as Clinton does.

It's a mistake to consider primary matchups with Clinton especially instructive as to how Obama will do v. McCain. Every PA poll has shown O beating M. In WV, where O lost by more than 40% to C, shows him only 8 behind M. And he's already retaken a small lead in MI.

All signs point to Obama starting to recover Clinton voters. And those voters are really the only great reason to consider her for the ticket. She still undercuts the change message, she still brings Bill with her and all the awkwardness that implies, she still energizes the right at a time when they are uniquely unenergetic and she still stars in every single anti-Obama GOP attack ad ("Shame on you, Barack Obama," commander in chief test, and on and on).

Sebelius is the very picture of turning the page. Clinton is the very picture of the old argument.

For all the talk of misogyny during the primaries, it's funny to me that you see these very different candidates as simply two women.

 

Oh, boy. Here we go... I have to say, in advance, you've gotten really prickly and defensive lately.

Nope, not because I like Sebelius and no it's not ridiculous. "Based on what?" Based on virtually every expert, right and left, saying this is old thinking. You started your last post with "Whoever he picks will NEED to bring a state." That's JFK-LBJ type thinking. In fact, with the possible exception of Mondale, LBJ was the last time a VP clearly delivered a state. Neither Cheney nor Quayle nor Bush (nor Edwards, Lieberman, Bentsen) delivered a state. And Gore likely didn't either. Actually my liking Sebelius (and Webb) is an argument FOR bringing a state, not against. VA is definitely in play and KS could conceivably be too. I know it's a stretch, but it could only be in play (at least enough to force McCain to campaign and spend money) with Sebelius. Regardless, the idea that a VP will deliver a state is old school thinking and most experts believe it is more important to find a candidate that either shores up perceived weaknesses and/or helps to underline the top of the ticket's general message. And that clearly does no harm.

Also regardless, as stated above, none of this has nothing to do with my favoring Sebelius and how silly of you to say so. I favor her because she has a tremendous and demonstrated crossover appeal (in fact, more than any other potential pick), because she's a Washington outsider and therefore fresh and in line with a change message, because she opposed the war in Iraq from the start, because she has strong executive experience, because she's very very strong on economic issues, because she's a woman and because she has appeal in KS and OH. In that order.

I base it on her father having been a popular governor of Ohio. Duh.

No. It implies the Democratic Party had them in the first place. It's taking me a little time to adjust to your weird transition from completely ignoring my arguments to parsing the tiniest of my semantics, but okay. I was talking about the Democratic Party.

Well, forgive my crassness, but those people are idiots. The primary process was over months ago, FAIR AND SQUARE. You love repeating over and over that if Wright broke earlier Clinton would have easily won, but somehow you never mention the fact that her team was outworked and outstrategized by his. That is the story of this primary. She didn't lose because of cheating or any shady tactic. She lost because he proved to be a better candidate with a far, far better team. She had every single early advantage and in any other cycle, against virtually any other candidate, she wins. Here, she loses. FAIR. Clinton got everybody all worked up over MI and FL, bizarrely trying to turn them into civil rights causes, but anyone who was actually paying attention knew that (a) that was stupid and cynical, and (b) it was never going to make a difference anyway in the end result. Obama beat her fair and square. You'd be hard pressed to find any except the most insane dead enders who believe otherwise.

Fine. How bout voting (and working) for him because he is for 99% of what Hillary was for and McCain is for 0% of what Hillary was for? How bout voting for him based on every issue other than gender? Or, screw it, how bout just going ahead and voting based on gender since Obama has a 100% voting record on women's issues and McCain has a 100% voting record against?

I have to be kidding you? When I say putting the name "Clinton" on a ticket when the last EIGHT national elections have featured either a Clinton or a Bush might undercut a change message?! No, friend. You have to be kidding me. Of course electing a woman VP would constitute a change, but running a Clinton decidedly would not. And that's not even to mention the very basic, primary argument of the Dem primaries, which was old politics vs. new. Clinton made a conscious choice to run as the one who knew how to play the game. Obama made a choice to run against the game. Clinton called that naive. Obama won and proved it wasn't. Clinton has one "change" credential: she's a woman. In every other way, she is an anti-change candidate, plain and simple. And, guess what? There are other women he could choose.

But the dumbest part of your argument is to suggest that the results of Obama-Clinton elections tell us very much about an Obama-McCain election. They don't. Ohio and Pennsylvania are good examples. Obama lost badly in both places; he is beating McCain in both places. WV is another good example. He lost by over 40 to Clinton there; he's trailing McCain by 8. Further, the NBC/WSJ poll just showed that adding Clinton makes as many people less likely to vote for the ticket as it makes more likely. For the majority, it makes no difference.

You have also repeated that old and disproved canard about Obama having trouble with women. He doesn't. He's leading by 13% among women according to Gallup and by 19% according to NBC/WSJ. (That's up from 5% according to Gallup before Hillary dropped out and endorsed.) Obama is already doing considerably better than either Kerry or Gore EVER did among women according to polls.

I pulled it out of the hat you made when you said, 'If he's going to pick a woman why not Clinton?' as though the fact that Clinton or Sebelius was a woman was the only or even the most important consideration in choosing either of them. And, worse, when you suggested by that statement that female candidates are interchangeable when, apart from gender, Clinton and Sebelius could hardly be more different in what they bring to the ticket.

I don't disagree that every woman in this country still deals with misogyny, and I don't disagree that Clinton did. It is ridiculous to suggest that any of it came from the Obama campaign, but of course she had to deal with it. Just as he has had to deal with racism. We knew this would be true of our first serious female and black candidates. I only raise the issue to point out how silly it is to (1) cry foul over misogyny, and then (2) say if a woman, why not this one? As though, again, gender is the best thing either of these women has going.

Wrong again. It's not about liking her or not and frankly it never was. I made my points many times at length about why I opposed her candidacy. You ignored every single argument and said I just didn't like her. It's worth noting by the way that I said on this board I thought her speech Saturday was amazing and had me rethinking the VP thing, but here again you continue to suggest that I just don't like her. That’s bad debating. You don't get to decide what I think, Deckard. Especially when I keep telling you in plain detail that I don't think it and when I keep telling you what I do think.

I'd like to speak to this in a later post when I have more time, but why do you have such a hard time seeing two sides of any argument?

I recognize that Bill Clinton has tremendous gifts and would be a great asset to any Democratic president. I don't "think otherwise." I think there's more to it than that. And I think that dismissing out of hand the possibility that Bill would also bring negatives is passing naive. He has shown an incredible propensity for going off message, making it about him and soaking up all the heat in the room during this campaign. Forget what he'd do for Obama -- nobody can even agree whether or not he was a plus for HILLARY! This would be an unprecedented thing in our history to put an ex-president in the role of vice presidential spouse. To act like it's uncomplicated, to act as if it's a no brainer seems to signify to me no brain. And all of that is leaving out the fact that Bill is unvetted and resistant to vetting. If he's willing to release details of his overseas business dealings and a list of donors to his presidential library, then she can be considered. If not, she can't. They need to be willing to submit to the same vetting any other candidate would. As of now, they seem unwilling to do that. But, either way, there's no way to fully handicap Bill's plus/minus until these facts are known. What IS known now is that he brings a lot of plusses (which you listed) and a lot of minuses (which you pretend don't exist).

Interesting. We've gone from she'll definitely deliver a state or more to the criteria that she won't "cost him the election." Regardless of whether she might actually cost him the election, that shouldn't even be a question. He shouldn't pick anyone who might potentially harm his chances. The first rule of VP selection is do no harm. While it is not necessarily clear that Hillary would do harm it's far from clear she wouldn't. Also, he already has her fundraisers and organization. He also has his own superior fundraisers and organization. I said what I said and I meant it. Of course Hillary would help to energize some Democrats and Independents. She will also help energize Republicans. That's the fact of the Clinton name. And it takes us back to arguments of the 90s when Obama's whole message is about moving on. If you want to try to present some empirical evidence that, while you understand that problem, it's outweighed by data, fine. For now, you seem content to pretend the problem doesn't even exist, which disappointingly seems to be your method for dealing with arguments you don't like.

Typically, your response to my argument has nothing, nada, zero to do with the argument itself. Instead you sidestep so far as to compare her to Quayle. (What???)

My argument is that if Clinton is the VP nominee the GOP will have video of the VP nominee -- the person our presidential nominee has chosen as most qualified to serve should he become unable to do so -- saying he is less qualified to be commander in chief than his opponent, saying "Shame on you, Barack Obama," saying that he is not ready to be president.

If ANYONE ELSE is the VP nominee that will not be the case.

 

I'm not Frank Burns because I lack a sense of humor? Lack of a sense of humor was Frank Burns' main trait. You're no better at snarky internet fights than you are at debating proper.

And this stuff about me going through your stuff with a scalpel? You can really be a baby sometimes. What I did was answer every single one of your points. That's all. You should try it. It's called debating.

What you do instead is to simply post every idea that supports your side and pretend arguments to the contrary don't exist. It's boring. And it makes me a little embarrassed that we're ultimately on the same side. In a debate forum, there's really no shame in debating, Deckard. You should grow a pair and try it.

So once again I've wasted twenty minutes responding to you and once again you've failed to address a single point substantively, choosing instead to address a tiny minority of my points (which refuted yours) with quick drive-by poll quotes -- one of which is flatly wrong and the other of which is irrelevant.

Very slowly learning the lesson of not wasting time talking to you in hopes of anything approximating a debate. But I'll address your poll stuff just to point out the places in which it's wrong.

Obama leads McCain by 19% among women as I said, not by 7 as you did. The 7 point advantage is among white women. You are right that McCain leads among white suburban women and you're right that everyone's calling that bloc critical, but Obama is still winning women by a stunning 19% and is still doing better among all women and among white women than Kerry or Gore did. He is also leading overall by 6%, so I wouldn't call the suburban white women bloc all that critical. I will predict though that his numbers among all women (white, suburban, etc.) will rise as Clinton's supporters come home and as women begin to realize that McCain has a horrible record wrt women and abortion rights and that Obama has a stellar one. In other words, I predict his numbers will go up when people forget the lesson of irrational Obama-hating they learned from Clinton when she was desperately trying anything she could think of to smear him so she could win. And yes, people who believe that the election was in any way unfair to Clinton are idiots and/or insane dead enders.

As for the more likely/less likely to vote Obama with Clinton on the ticket, unless McCain added Romney to his ticket and I missed it, the only truly relevant data point is this: 22% say more likely, 21% say less likely, 55% say no difference. Even the McCain-Romney/Obama-Clinton matchup you cite shows a bump that is within the margin of error, putting the lie to the idea that Clinton is some great advantage.

In other words, both of your corrections were wrong. You tried to correct the 19% number with 7% and that was wrong. You tried to correct the more likely/less likely number and that was wrong. All the data's in the link you provided. (I noticed you left Obama's huge lead among Hispanics out. I guess that's because it pokes another hole in the idea that he needs Clinton on the ticket.)

But you're fighting an old fight.

I'm not here to convince anybody Hillary shouldn't be VP. First of all, I don't feel that strongly about it anymore. I still stand by all my arguments (cited in my above post and ignored, as usual, by you), but I don't have any burning passion to stop her as VP. First of all, I think she'd be fine. Second, it doesn't matter since it's almost definitely not going to happen. Why? The answer lies in one more among a hundred of my salient points which you pretended I didn't make...

Bill Clinton reportedly refuses to be vetted.

Every time that you pour your soul into arguing for Clinton as veep, try to remember that it is the Clintons themselves that are reportedly taking themselves out of contention.

If Hillary wants to be VP (and she does), she can only be considered when Bill agrees to open up about his overseas business dealings and the contributor list to his presidential library. But you would never call for any Clinton to do anything they wouldn't want to do. If they don't want to be vetted, after all, of course they never should be.

 

Go for it. After all, it's not exactly a boxing match when only one guy is fighting. And it's not like Deckard has ever even attempted to address the points you mention above.

 

Zero replies on substance just like it was in the primaries. No great loss. The above post was as meaningful as any you've posted to respond to me during this season. For someone so offended and scared by debate, you sure do post a lot in a debate forum.

Anybody want to talk about the election?