Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius (Now with NEATO Photo Spread)

As the officiant says, "speak now, or forever hold your peace."

Will anyone object if Governor Sebelius is the VEEP?

I offer no judgment on her selection.  

I look at this coldly - I don't like Hillary, but if she's the VEEP  I will salute.  Look, I saluted when Al Gore put Lieberman on the ticket, even thought he didn't represent my opinions.  The last thing I wanted was the Texescutioner in the White House and the return of the Bush-Crime-Family.  I was right.  

Tags: Sebelius (all tags)



Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius

I will jump out of my office building.

by rfahey22 2008-08-19 08:44PM | 0 recs

i will take off my shoe and beat myself unconscious!

by canadian gal 2008-08-19 08:47PM | 0 recs
See, i wasn't make this up

check out Lakrosse's comment, post directly below yours.

by Al Rodgers 2008-08-19 08:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius

If I did that, I'd probably get a scraped elbow and some puzzled looks from the stoners who hang out in the alley.

by the mollusk 2008-08-20 07:05AM | 0 recs
I will not vote for him

if Kathleen Sebelius is on the ticket. That is an insult to me, the Democratic voter, and a lot of other voters too who voted Hillary. Plus, Obama will piss off a lot of delegates by doing that. If he tries to pull such a stunt this week, I hope the delegates make an idiot of him at the convention.

by Lakrosse 2008-08-19 08:45PM | 0 recs
Re: I will not vote for him

lol i got hide rated for stating this is the actual opinion of the dead enders, good to see teh old Hillary hide rate squads are still in effect.

by Brandon 2008-08-19 08:51PM | 0 recs
Re: I will not vote for him

Tread carefully, or register some new accounts  -- Armstrong in the hizzouse tonight, so banning is a real possibility.

by username 2008-08-19 09:26PM | 0 recs
are you advising a blatant troll

to sockpuppet?  wow.

by canadian gal 2008-08-19 09:35PM | 0 recs
Re: are you advising a blatant troll

Not to "sockpuppet," in the sense of "use multiple accounts simultaneously," but I have absolutely no respect for the admins here WRT banning.  And since new accounts suffer a 1-week delay on posting, it helps to have some accounts in reserve in case you incur the admins' capricious wrath.

by username 2008-08-19 09:51PM | 0 recs
Re: are you advising a blatant troll

wrong answer.  if you get banned, it's not the username that's banned but rather the person. thanks, but no thanks for your offer to have banned people just keep coming back with new names...  NO.

by swissffun 2008-08-19 11:54PM | 0 recs
Re: are you advising a blatant troll

Then how do you explain catfish2 coming right back with gatopescado within a day?

by bottl4 2008-08-20 05:51AM | 0 recs
Re: are you advising a blatant troll

Or the fact that he was catfish2 in the first place.

by Jess81 2008-08-20 07:51AM | 0 recs
ain't gonna happen

the air is too thin in Denver.

The Hillary supporters will tire out, easily.  Really, they're not in good shape.

by Al Rodgers 2008-08-19 08:54PM | 0 recs
That isnt right, it is more then bitter old ladys

They also have um..... gay guys, and more bitter old ladies.  The coalition of bitter old ladies and gay guys is gonna really bring the house down.  

by Brandon 2008-08-19 08:57PM | 0 recs
Re: That isnt right,

Wow, an agist, sexist, homophobic comment. Brandon, you hit the trifecta!

by itsthemedia 2008-08-19 09:09PM | 0 recs
so why would it be an insult

I appreciate your honesty, but can you expand on that.

I don't get the emotional view of Hillary's supporters.  I say this as a crazed Deaniac who didn't see his candidate on the ticket and still supported Kerry in 2004.

by Al Rodgers 2008-08-19 08:58PM | 0 recs
Its just old fashoined bitterness

The thing about that kind of bitterness is that it just feeds off itself and wont end because the person has come to rely on its strength to get them to act like complete idiots.

I just laugh, and when Obama wins without them, the drama queens will just realize they have no say in his administration and will deserve none.

by Brandon 2008-08-19 09:02PM | 0 recs
I just trouble getting this

I was ANGRY with Gore for putting Lieberman on the ticket, but I still weighed the alternatives, and i knew Shrub wasn't a "compassionate conservative."

by Al Rodgers 2008-08-19 09:08PM | 0 recs
Re: I will not vote for him

Why is it only an insult to Hillary if he picks Sebelius? Why are you not worried about insulting the voters who voted for John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel? What makes you think you speak for the delegates? How exactly is his picking the person who he thinks is the best candidate an insult to anyone?

by Cincinnatus 2008-08-19 11:10PM | 0 recs
Re: I will not vote for him

Well hardly anyone voted for those other guys, so just insulting a few Quixotic fools is not a big deal.

Sebelius?  Insulting beyond belief.  Pure proof that he doesn't get it.  

And clearly she is not the most qualified.  If you continue to pretend to not see this, then no further discussion of it is possible.

by emmasaint 2008-08-20 06:24AM | 0 recs
Re: I will not vote for him

Do tell.  What EXACTLY are the qualifications for VP?  On what merits are VP's usually chosen.

In your mind, what characteristics (apart from firstname HILLARY lastname CLINTON) must the VP have?

Simply can't wait to hear your response.

by fogiv 2008-08-20 07:26AM | 0 recs
Re: I will not vote for him

Male genitalia.

by Jess81 2008-08-20 08:21AM | 0 recs
Re: I just don't get it

It's only an insult to the misogynistic portion of Hillary's voters -- that portion of Hillary's voters that only voted for her because she's married to Bill, and are hoping for a repeat of Bill's presidency from behind the scenes, and would never ever vote for any other woman that can't promise them that.

Since Sebelius isn't married to Bill, you see, it's an insult to Hillary. Only women that are married to Bill are worth anything at all.

by Aris Katsaris2 2008-08-20 04:49AM | 0 recs
Re: I will not vote for him

Interesting factoid from Lifetime poll of Clinton supporters:

However, Obama would benefit twice as much as McCain from offering the second slot to a woman (29% more likely to support Obama if he picks a woman vs. 15% who would be more likely to support McCain). Selecting a woman #2 would result in a net negative for McCain. While 15% said they would be more likely to support McCain if he picked a woman, 20% said they would be less likely to pick him if a woman were on his ticket.

Forty-seven percent of Hillary Clinton's primary voters said they'd be more likely to vote for Obama if he chose a woman running mate, and 4% said less likely. This is the exact breakdown of current Obama supporters overall. However, Hillary's primary supporters were largely unmoved by a woman on McCain's ticket (59%)..

47% percentage of Hillary supporters (those that voted for her in the primary) Like the idea of any woman on the ticket, not just Hillary.

by jsfox 2008-08-20 04:52AM | 0 recs
that's actually a negative for obama picking fem

... if he doesn't, mccain will.

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-08-20 05:21AM | 0 recs
Re: I just don't get it

It's a really bizarre version of sexism that I find completely baffling.  If you figure it out, let me know.

by Dreorg 2008-08-20 05:09AM | 0 recs
If the situation were reversed,

with Clinton winning the nomination and Obama a close second, would you find it offensive if she picked Harold Ford Jr so she could say she had a black man on the ticket, would it be offensive to Obama supporters?

by georgiapeach 2008-08-20 05:38AM | 0 recs
Re: If the situation were reversed,

Are you saying that Sebelius has no redeeming virtues besides her ovaries?

Because, if you are, that would be incredibly shallow and ignorant.

Besides, as I've said several times before, if Obama picked Sebelius, the first person to go on national television and praise the move would be Senator Clinton, since she knows perfectly well that there are other qualified, capable, and strong women in government besides herself who can make a real difference in this country.  I just wish more of her supporters agreed.

by Jay R 2008-08-20 05:47AM | 0 recs

She is a boring speaker from an unwinnable red state.  She is an unknown and would not help BO at all with the Dems he has not closed the deal with.  So if she is picked, it IS just because she is woman (plus she has kissed his ass so well).  That is why it is an insult.  

She is not more qualifed that HRC.  

You Obama people with your feigned confusion about is disengenuous...It really gets old.  You get it...but please keep pretending..As that old fool McCain is now tied and probably ahead of Obama.

It is so hard for those of us who saw this coming months ago - who were derided and shouted down - to just not scream outloud with frustration.  I am so sorry to say that my worst predictions are coming true.  

But please keep on pretending this Sebelius' qualifications are anything more than chromosomal.

by emmasaint 2008-08-20 06:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes

This is willful ignorance on your part: Sebelius has a record as an effective administrator with bipartisan support.  She has ties to two battlegrounds in the industrial midwest, "an unknown" means "definable to the public," and polling says that she actually could help Obama with undecided Dems, not to mention independents and moderate Republicans.

But you HRC zealots (and let's stop pretending you're "supporters"-supporters want someone to achieve success, but you guys want to deify a candidate to the exclusion of all others; you passed "supporter" a few miles ago) are dead-set against anyone other than Hillary, and you'll attack anyone in your incredibly short-sighted and misguided attempts to prop up your also-ran of choice.

We aren't "feigning confusion": we're pissed at the incredibly misogynistic hypocrisy of people who have deluded themselves into thinking that a woman as Vice-President is a shonda unless that woman is Hillary Clinton, qualifications and positive characteristics be damned.

But please, keep on pretending that you have any interest in furthering the party or gender equality, and that anyone other than Hillary would ever meet with your approval.

Christ, and they called US "cultists"!

by Jay R 2008-08-20 06:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes

Whatever little boy. I have been a Democrat for decades and a feminist since the day I was born.  Don't have to take crap from the little spoiled brats who think they invented being a liberal. Why do I get the feeling you are just a grown up little Alex Keaton - who deep down loves Reagan but since you got your tat' (nothing too outrageous of course) and ride your mountain bike to work being a D is cool and Obama is the coolest.  Whatever...that is what being a D is to me.  

And what I always like about being a D was the big tent and the tolerance.  But tolerance has just disappear this year with the arrival of you little snots.  And that is what I reject.  I reject what you stand for, what you have done and how you did it.  And I will do that, in part, by what I have done everytime since I have been 18 - vote.  So call me whatever....sweetie.  

Your anger is just a reflection of Obama's flop sweat at that idiot McCain creeps past him.  Don't say we didn't warn you.

I quite frankly don't want Hillary anywhere near this guy.  It is not about her at all anymore.  It is about Obama - whoever he may be.  And that is the problem.

by emmasaint 2008-08-20 06:45AM | 0 recs
"It is not about her at all anymore."

It never was, was it?  It was always about those other things--the mountain bike, the lattes, the festering resentment, etc.  Clinton was a cipher, and now as she becomes less relevant, the true colors show.  It's like how at His44, to this day, the "Why not Obama?" FAQ page is full of scurrilous tripe while the "Why Hillary" page--the very reason for the existence of the site, in theory--stands empty and "under construction, coming soon."

PUMAs were never for anything, only against one thing.

by Koan 2008-08-20 07:06AM | 0 recs

Damn straight.

by fogiv 2008-08-20 07:22AM | 0 recs

You've been a feminist since the day you were born?  On the day I was born I was a nuclear engineer and helicopter pilot.  Sounds slightly silly, doesn't it?

You praise "big tents" and "tolerance", and in the same breath castigate someone whom you literally know NOTHING about.  Not their gender, nor age; ideology nor social circumstance.  You know what that makes you?

At best, an imbecile.

by fogiv 2008-08-20 07:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes

WATB, get over yourself.  Sebelius has been a Democrat and a feminist since the day she was born.  She's also been a 2-term governor overwhelmingly supported in a red state, and been surrounded by politics her entire life.

I don't have to take crap from a self-righteous relic who won't let the party progress until she's damn well ready for it to.

The "big tent and tolerance" canard is hilarious coming from someone who won't support any woman who isn't named Hillary Clinton, qualifications be damned.  You stuffed-shirt antiques have no interest in any facts beyond your own damned preferences, and no intention of listening to debate, facts, reason, or common sense.  It's either Hillary on the ticket or McCain in the White House.  PUMA Pride!

What I stand for is a progressive court, protecting women's rights, advancing science, providing health care, and keeping the country secure.  What you stand for is hatred of a candidate.  And that kind of myopic bullshit is something I proudly reject.

Your intransigence is just a reflection of your being a sore loser and an unwillingness to accept that your Chosen One was beaten by a relative nobody.  Try and accept defeat with a modicum of grace.

I quite frankly don't give a shit about you or anyone who's so trapped in their hatred of Obama as to reject anything he does, or might do, that doesn't have the imprimatur of HRC attached.  Vote, don't vote, whatever--just for the love of God GROW UP.

by Jay R 2008-08-20 07:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes

I just don't get the view that's being expressed here. I've been watching it for months and I just can't wrap my head around it.

Here's what I see as contradictions -- please tell me how you see them, because I just can't quite make them make sense. Now, not all of these are anything you said here, and if you don't stand by them just let me know, maybe someone else can explain it.

"what I always like about being a D was the big tent and the tolerance" -- great sentiment, and I agree. However the entire thrust of your post seems to be a huge dollop of intolerance about Obama, Obama supporters, anyone who's ever been anything but a hardcore Democrat, or pretty much anyone who believes anything other than that Hillary was the right choice all along.

"Any woman but Hillary is an insult" How's this work again? There are NO other qualified, competent, solid choices for national office than Hillary? Every other woman needs to "wait her turn"? Those "18 million cracks in the glass ceiling" are Hillary-specific? Honestly, to me this seems extremely anti-feminist, in that it puts any woman but Hillary in a worse place than we were before the primaries. How can Hillary's success mean that Sebelius has less of a shot at VP than she had before the primaries -- in what way does that advance feminist goals? It's somehow more feminist and less insulting to women to chose a male VP than a woman who isn't Hillary?

"I quite frankly don't want Hillary anywhere near this guy." In that case, then why complain if he picks someone else? Is it that he should pick Hillary so she can publicly turn him down -- thus damaging both of them with half of the party? Maybe he already knows she'd prefer a prominent, powerful office in the Senate to the subordinate, limited powers of the VP office? She certainly would have far more power to work on her agenda in the Senate than as VP; VP only makes sense if 1) she's thinking about 2016 or 2) the (hopefully unlikely) possibility of succession to the Presidency is worth giving up a great position in the Senate. So why do people who say they want Hillary nowhere near Obama also express mortal outrage at the idea he might not want her near him either?

There are more questions like this, of course, but these will do for now.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-08-20 08:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes

HR'ed for unprovoked personal insults

by duende 2008-08-20 08:49AM | 0 recs
Since you more or less politely

called me shallow and immature, I will try to respond in kind. I don't think I said anywhere, or even implied anything about Sebelius' only qualification being her ovaries. I don't know a lot about her, but I'm sure she is an accomplished and intelligent woman. She could probably bring many positive qualities to the ticket. What she couldn't automatically bring would be a large percentage of the people who voted for HRC. If we are going to talk about incredibly shallow and ignorant assumptions, then assuming that everyone who voted for HRC because she has ovaries might qualify. The point that I was trying to make is that women are not interchangeable any more than black people are. Many people would perceive any other woman on the ticket as a "token female". A woman on the ticket, any woman, would be cause for celebration in any other year. This time, it would feel like being offered the bone after watching someone else eat the steak that you bought and cooked.

by georgiapeach 2008-08-21 01:05PM | 0 recs
Re: If the situation were reversed,

"offensive if she picked Harold Ford Jr so she could say she had a black man"

I would certainly find it offensive if she admitted that's the only reason she did it. And certainly, you may consider it offensive if Obama only brings up Sebelius' gender as a reason, if asked to justify his selection of her.

Now what's your excuse for assuming that it's only Sebelius' gender that would lead him to such a choice?

by Aris Katsaris2 2008-08-20 06:11AM | 0 recs
Re: If the situation were reversed,

So as long as Obama does say outloud that he is picking Sebelius because she is a woman (and only thinks it in his head), then it is OK?  

by emmasaint 2008-08-20 06:22AM | 0 recs
Re: If the situation were reversed,

Like I said, shallow and ignorant.

by Jay R 2008-08-20 06:31AM | 0 recs
Re: If the situation were reversed,

Oh that hurts so much...your logic, your arguments are so persuasive....

by emmasaint 2008-08-20 06:46AM | 0 recs
Re: If the situation were reversed,

And your intransigence is so compelling--really convincing stuff as to why we should reconsider our decision not to write off someone with an extensive record of governing and electoral success.

by Jay R 2008-08-20 07:14AM | 0 recs
Re: If the situation were reversed,

Seriously, if your only reason for objecting to Sibelius is her gender, please have the good sense to keep it to yourself.

by Jess81 2008-08-20 07:55AM | 0 recs
Re: If the situation were reversed,

Sadly, with telepathy still fictional, we're not able to know the thought-processes of politicians, only their actions.

You're revealing your own thoughts however, and they're sexist beyond belief -- according to you the only reason a woman can possibly be chosen is her gender.

by Aris Katsaris2 2008-08-20 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: I will not vote for him

Huh? So Obama must chose a Man (or Hillary) to get your vote?  Wouldn't that be sexist (of Obama, and strangely, of you too)? No offense, I just don't understand how Sebelius' gender matters in this context and would appreciate your rationalization.

And, screw McCain.

by Iago 2008-08-20 07:43AM | 0 recs
Re: I will not vote for him

Its a insult to you to support a woman who sat idly by and allowed her husband to screw anything that moved. Who pissed away 250 million dollars and couldnt make one executive move. Its an insult. Get real. I am so sick of these whiney Hillary supporters. She blew it. It wasn't sexism it was her poor campaign.

by Sylden37 2008-08-20 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: I will not vote for him

"Plus, Obama will piss off a lot of delegates by doing that"

Yeah and then he'll lose and Hillary will be the nominee OMG LOLZZZZ!!!

by Dale Johnson 007 2008-08-20 12:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius

we all should if he  picks her, it's a sign that he doesn't want to win badly enough, that he's more interested in his own pride than in getting over himself and going for the winning ticket. but, don't worry, he won't.  

by anna shane 2008-08-19 08:55PM | 0 recs
yeah but why.

I appreciate the sentiment and honesty, but why.

The reason I have trouble understanding this is I come to the issue from my prior experience as a  Deaniac.  I didn't get Howard, it was a let down, it was sad, to be sure, but I didn't I didn't freakout or worse, vote for Bush.

Ditto with Gore putting Joementum on the ticket.

by Al Rodgers 2008-08-19 09:02PM | 0 recs
Al, you're a tribute to this site..

...and what you've brought out is the reductio ad absurdum of a bankrupt identity politics. For the last six months I've been hearing.

1.Obama supporters only support him because he's black (ergo they're reverse racists)
2. Feminism means voting for Hillary Clinton.

So here we have the ne plus ultra of that false syllogism. Obama is black, so black equals Obama. Hillary is a woman, ergo woman equals Hillary.

When will we get back to some real politics instead of this celebrity symbolism? i.e. which candidate male/female/white/black/transgendered abyssinian will actually do something?

by duende 2008-08-20 08:47AM | 0 recs

I'm a white guy with green eyes, who naturally gets along better with women.   Based on this profile, I should have supported Hill instead of Barack.

by Al Rodgers 2008-08-20 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Exactly

Hehhh. Great diary. I couldn't wait until the comments piled up to laugh at the hypocritical rants of "the usual suspects". Not wanting to vote for Sebelius because of her gender? Hmmm. Seems sexist to me.

Pathetic display as usual people. Keep it up!

by spacemanspiff 2008-08-20 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: yeah but why.

the explanation lies in the feminist movement, the idea that the most qualified applicant who is a woman should be hired.  The women who back Hillary don't see her as a symbol of women, and thus replaceable with any other woman, but as a person who prepared for the job and made herself the most qualified. She even talked about it that way, as a job and the campaign as a long job interview.  She got that NYT endorsement against their inclination because of the interview. Not one question stumped her, she knew her stuff and her solutions were practical and doable.  She wasn't just a girl candidate to us, some girl, but the best candidate who also happened to be female. That's why we're pissed at Dean, for not speaking to the sexism, and pissed at Barack (although many of us will vote for him, like me) because of the charges he made. These things were heard differently by women of a certain age, and they may have passed under the radar of many men and some younger women who had not been there for the equal rights amendment failures.  When I got out of college, Hillary and I are the same age, I had to learn to type, any male college grad had a guaranteed entry level job in most businesses, but no women. We had to be better prepared and we often lost promotions to younger less qualified men.  it happened to me more than once, and I once got a settlement from a class action suit, and I ended up returning to graduate school and getting a professional degree, where I at least had a fighting chance, and even then I faced sexism, it got to be funny. You know, some staff meeting and I make some suggestion and then later I hear how great the suggestion I made was, only they forgot it was me and attributed it to one of the guys, who didn't correct anyone and maybe thought he'd made my suggestion. Things have improved, no doubt, but not as much as you'd think.  Even women tend to blame the woman who got passed over, because they want a reason that is under their own control.  Look at Maureen Dowd, who has written about sexism but claims it played no part in Hillary's defeat.  To us this stuff is plain weird.  

That's the past, but if he passed her over to pick a women who is less qualified and hadn't even applied in the first place? It would be seen as an insult and even if he didn't mean it that way, he'd have to be completely unwilling to listen to us, to do such a thing. He'd be saying to us, you only backed her cause she's a girl, here's another one, you're all replaceable.  If he picks someone who isn't Hillary that person must be at least as qualified as she and have at least tried to run for president on his own. And even then, since HIllary would help him most to win, it would be wrong of him, he'd be picking his personal comfort level over the best ticket to win.  

Still, things are what they are, and it's not up to me, although I've ben trying to help him avoid these mistakes, by giving him a heads up on how what he says comes across to women.  But, I'm a nobody, he isn't listening to me.  

by anna shane 2008-08-20 05:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius

Or it could be a sign that he does want to win badly enough and he believes that Sebelius is the best candidate for the job.

by Cincinnatus 2008-08-19 11:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius

I guess. What's the winning ticket? Clinton brings a few deadenders back into play, but she also is hated by pretty much 60-70% of the country at this point...

by Dale Johnson 007 2008-08-20 07:38AM | 0 recs
Hide rate Nazis

On the prowl tonight.  Good times.

Obama doesn't need their crap, no kissing of teh ring or meeting some bitter old crones series of demands.  Your vote is yours, that is all.  I will be voting for Obama, vote for who you want.

by Brandon 2008-08-19 09:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Hide rate Nazis

Wow - thanks for your permission.  I was just sitting here waiting for it.  Phew!

by emmasaint 2008-08-20 06:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Hide rate Nazis

Calling someone a Nazi = Being an Ass.

Don't be an ass.

by Jay R 2008-08-20 07:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius

I stand exactly to the reverse of you Al.  I want to see Hillary, and I'll be disappointed with anything else, that's just how it is.

If Sebelius is his choice, I'll accept it and he'll have my full support for the presidency.  And I'll try to put my heart into it...though it won't be easy.

by mtnspirit 2008-08-19 09:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius

Good on you.

by Cincinnatus 2008-08-19 11:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius

I hated Bill Clinton in 1992, yet I cast my vote for him.  Over the years I came to admire the man and saw him as MY guy.  

The same would probably be true of Sebelius.  By the end of Obama's first term, she'd be one of my heros.

by mtnspirit 2008-08-20 08:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius

I agree with this comment. I think it's probably highly representative of the real situation. Choosing Sebelius will cause a minor stir amongst Hillary fans. But after getting to know her, they might change their mind.

by Dale Johnson 007 2008-08-20 12:28PM | 0 recs
I will not freak out, whoever it is

I made up my mind a long long time ago to vote Democratic for President even if I have to hold my nose to do it. I have had to hold my nose a few times along the way, too, but Republicans just do too much damage with the Executive branch in their hands, because they have no respect for the rule of Law. The one clear constant from Nixon on down is contempt for the law and norms of behavior.

As for Joementum, please, please, please let McCain pick him this year! That guy was the all time albatross of VP candidates. I still remember Cheney saying in the debate that Halliburton had never benefited from government largesse, and waiting in vain for Elmer Fudd to drive his rhetorical moped through that truck-sized opening. And we only got to enjoy 6/7 of his worthless help, because he is so much holier than the rest of us, and the future of the planet is not important enough to warrant an exception.

by itsthemedia 2008-08-19 09:47PM | 0 recs
Re: I will not freak out, whoever it is

HR'd for the slam at the end of Orthodoxy and sticking with someones moral values regardless of politics etc. I certainly don't agree with those values but I don't think this is a place for attacking someone because of their commitment to them.

by swissffun 2008-08-20 12:00AM | 0 recs
Re: I will not freak out, whoever it is

I apologize if my post hurt your feelings, but you were wrong to hide rate me. Please uprate the post to at least a 1.

1) You are wrong on the rules. From the trusted user guidelines:

Please use your "zero" rating with care! It is only for use on comments that are wholly content-free. If you think the poster is clueless, or an idiot, or you just don't agree with them, that is not grounds for a zero rating. Zero is for comments that are offensive, script-generated, or otherwise content-free and intended solely to abuse other readers.

My post was not content free, and it was not posted solely to abuse other readers. It is not even slamming Democrats, because Lieberman is not a Democrat. He is a member of the Connecticut for Leiberman Party, and it looks like he may soon officially become a Republican. So what it comes down to is you hide rated me for having a different religious outlook than you. That is not enlightened behavior.

2) You are wrong on the facts. I was not slamming Leiberman's commitment to his moral values, I was slamming the phoniness of his commitment.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/36/story_ 3609_1.html

Lieberman is doubly interesting because he is the Senate's first Orthodox Jew: genuinely observant--walks to synagogue on Sabbath--though a member of the "modern Orthodox" movement, which is strictly observant of religious rules but open-minded on political and cultural matters. (Lieberman has already clarified that he could perform White House work on Saturdays if vice president, because Orthodoxy allows a Sabbath exception for those whose jobs serve the general public interest.)
(emphasis mine)

Do you see how facile Leiberman is with his application of Shabbat rules? He makes sure we all know how very observant he is by not campaigning on the Sabbath, but he also makes sure we know his observance will not disqualify him. He is one of those people who like to shove their religion in everyone's faces, for their own aggrandizement.

by itsthemedia 2008-08-20 09:05PM | 0 recs
Re: I will not freak out, whoever it is

thanks for the clarification. explanation accepted. thanks also for the quote with highlight - didn't realise he had that qualification in his observance.  if we could edit comments i'd do that and hope you'd as well. also if i could remove the rating i would. i'll uprate to 1 and mojo this one.

by swissffun 2008-08-23 02:06AM | 0 recs
Re: I will not freak out, whoever it is

Thank you. Yes, I should have made my original post clearer. I did not notice how my words could be read.

I just get so mad at Leiberman. I really think Gore could have pulled it out if not for him. (Well, and the butterfly ballot, and the voter suppression, and the hanging chads, and the press hating his guts, and Bill Clinton getting impeached, and ...)

by itsthemedia 2008-08-23 02:26AM | 0 recs
Re: I will not freak out, whoever it is

oh recalling the 2000 election is just a recipe for getting blue - that was a perfect storm against Gore from the start. everything that could go wrong did. i appreciate the anger.

by swissffun 2008-08-24 12:05PM | 0 recs
Part of me is hoping

that Obama picks Hillary and McCain picks Lieberman.  I'd love to see that, just to see what happens to Lanny Davis, torn between cheering and shilling for his two biggest most favoritest BFFs in the world.

My own speculation is that he will vibrate for a moment and then split in two, down the middle, like an amoeba, and then ooze to schmooze for both candidates.  We can only pray that it is caught on camera for our youtube delight.

by Dumbo 2008-08-20 12:06AM | 0 recs
Gender politics

The reason so many Hillary supporters find the Sebelius nomination so insulting is that it looks like an obvious pander. In other words, he wouldn't pick the candidate whom so many women supported and is - on paper - the most qualified (Clinton) and so figured he could pander to them by picking another woman.  And there's some truth to that. It isn't like Sebelius is the most experienced or dynamic candidate out there. She won't carry her own state. And she's virtually unknown. What's her advantage over, say, Phil Bredesen of Tennessee or Mike Easley of North Carolina or Dave Freudenthal of Wyoming? All are Democratic Governors of red states. And all are very popular. The only difference between Sebelius and the others is that she's a woman - and so it looks like pandering when the best female candidate is already available.

Now, there could be other reasons Obama wants Sebelius. He has a rapport with her similar to his relationship with Tim Kaine and Clair McCaskill.  He's campaigned with her before and he trusts her. Her gender may be irrelevant to his decision.

If that's the case, he needs to convince Hillary supporters that he picked Sebelius because she's the best person for the team and not because she was a woman. I suspect that most women would agree and end up endorsing Obama/Sebelius enthusiastically. In fact, many women might find Sebelius even more attractive a candidate in her own right once they see she's legitimate.

But that's a gamble.

by elrod 2008-08-19 09:54PM | 0 recs
rapport, plus endorsement

she endorsed him early, and she doesn't have the same issues as Tim Kaine.

It would only be a pander if she had the issues, and not Kaine, yet he still selected her in spite of the issues.

by Al Rodgers 2008-08-19 10:07PM | 0 recs
On paper...

I think Gov. Sebelius is actually more qualified than Sen. Clinton. I do think Sen. Clinton is more charismatic though.

by Liberal Monk 2008-08-20 03:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Gender politics

My only issue with the objections to Sebelius is what if Obama genuinely believes she'd be the best fit? I like Hillary and actually like her campaign, but for her supporters to suggest blocking any other woman from VP slot seems an overreach, to put it kindly.

by niksder 2008-08-20 05:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Gender politics

I'd hate for Bill Clinton's legacy to be the following:

1. Cheated on wife, impeached (unfairly)

  1. Made serious gaffes during wife's primary, helped her lose
  2. Worked to block first viable female VP (Sebelius).

by Dale Johnson 007 2008-08-20 12:29PM | 0 recs
Best Damn Governor Period

Twice picked as one of the 5 best Govs in America (by Time and Governing magazine).

Turned around a sputtering economy with a budget deficit. Real executive & economic experience.

Most progressive red-state governor, and one of the most popular. There is NO ONE IN THE COUNTRY who has had more success in converting moderate Republicans into Democrats. She turned the former head of the Kansas GOP into her Democratic Lt. Gov.!

Has ties to Ohio, early Obama supporter, helped deliver overwhelming numbers of white Kansas votes. And Obama has Kansas ties too - a long shot, to be sure, but few VPs ever win a state over the past 50 years. Midwestern appeal is a good thing in general (and  she might actually win over NE-1 or NE-2).

by X Stryker 2008-08-20 05:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Best Damn Governor Period

also has ties to Michigan.  There aren't that many people with ties to both Michigan and Ohio AND have executive governing experience AND a progressive record AND a clean enough background to be on the national ticket.

It amazes me how short people are selling Sebelius--even if Obama doesn't pick her (and I don't think he will) she's an incredible asset to the party.

by Jay R 2008-08-20 05:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Best Damn Governor Period

If he doesn't pick her, that will be one of the main reasons.  The Kansas Democratic party really needs a Sebelius.  One of the major stipulations for picking a VP is "do no damage".  And while that usually refers to picking a VP with low negatives, considering Obama's interest in party building it could also refer to putting Kansas back into GOP hands.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-08-20 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Best Damn Governor Period

Is it worth 2 years?

The issue is that Sebelius is term-limited, and while she might want to run for the Senate seat in 2010, she's out of the state capitol in 2011.  If we could move a Kansas politico into the West Wing, that might do more to show Kansans that we're the party for them than leaving her there to become a lame duck and watch her term expire.

And there's still Stephen Six and Mark Parkinson (granted, the former KSGOP head) waiting to potentially run for higher office, so we're not totally without bench strength (it might help Parkinson against Thornburgh in 2010 if he's the incumbent governor, too).  But your point is well taken.

by Jay R 2008-08-20 12:35PM | 0 recs
Xenia, OH & Flint, MI don't care re:Topeka, KS

They don't care who sits in Topeka and don't know where it is in the state.  

She'll do nothing and pull nothing in those states, anymore than Hillary was able to leverage so "ties" to Illinois against Obama, even though she was born and raised there.

So much for the so-called "ties."

Take it from this Olathean Democrat, as far as VP material, Sebelius is "all silo, no grain".

by dcrolg 2008-08-20 01:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Best Damn Governor Period

Oh well - Time and Governing?  How can I disagree?  Count me in - not

by emmasaint 2008-08-20 06:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius

I vote for president, not vice president.

by Gobama 2008-08-19 10:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius

Which is why on his most important decision prior to the election Obama better not show that he doesn't have the right stuff to be president.

If picking the best VP is something he can't manage then maybe he needs a few more years before he is ready...

by dtaylor2 2008-08-20 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius

Agreed: The worst VP he could possibly choose is Clinton, and it'd be making me reconsider my support for him.

by Aris Katsaris2 2008-08-20 02:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius

He managed picking his VP quite well.

by Gobama 2008-08-23 01:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius

Not only will I freak out, but I'll be sure to make my freak-out as public as possible, dragging family, friends, and any media people I can find over to witness my melt-down and record it for Fox news to broadcast later.

Then I'll write lengthy blogs about how freaked-out I am and post them under multiple names at as many blogs as will allow me posting privileges. And then, under a variety of clever pseudonyms, I'll fill comment threads with encouragement and approval of my freaked-outedness and commiserating with it, all the while pointing my finger, forecasting doom and pestilence, and wringing my hands most metaphorically. Finally, I'll chug a 64 oz bottle of Mountain Dew, snarf down a bag of Doritos, and freak out some more.

Are you kidding? I live for this. It's guaranteed attention, and I need all I can get.

by BobzCat 2008-08-19 10:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius

That said, I'm voting for Obama, and I'm doing so because I trust his judgment. And that means I'll trust his choice for VP, whoever it turns out to be.

It's really that simple.

by BobzCat 2008-08-19 10:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius

That is a slap in the face to that person named Hillary Clinton. Sebelius will put the entire crowd to sleep. Obama is energy, she is the complete opposite of him. A stimulant and a depressant on the same ticket is never a good move.

by bsavage 2008-08-19 10:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius

Right, because that certainly sunk Bush/Cheney, Clinton/Gore, and Reagan/Bush.

Vice Presidents are SOOOO charismatic!

by X Stryker 2008-08-20 05:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius

Oh I see - any ole' woman'll do, huh? Well why not Barbara Mikulski?...or how 'bout Liddy Dole...or  Jordan Spaks...or Carolyn Kennedy....or Ellen or Oprah?

you know





My God - you wouldn't want to pick one that actually WINS you the whitehouse would you?

by nikkid 2008-08-19 10:34PM | 0 recs
Sexist argument

You seem to be implying that women are interchangeable, and that any non-Hillary woman is just as good as any other non-Hillary woman. That is pretty damn sexist. Believe it or not, there are other women than Hillary who are qualified to lead.

by Cincinnatus 2008-08-19 11:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Sexist argument

No not in the democratic party.

No not this close to the election.

No not covering the flaws in this particular candidate who is in trouble.

He really doesn't have a choice its Hillary or defeat.

by dtaylor2 2008-08-20 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Sexist argument

Since Hillary doesn't want Obama to win, choosing her for VP would be inevitable defeat, with the VP candidate actively sabotaging the ticket.

So, I very much hope he takes his chances without her (which are much greater than his chances with her) and picks a VP that actually wants the ticket to win.

Or you gonna pretend you and your fellow PUMAs want Obama to win?

by Aris Katsaris2 2008-08-20 09:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Sexist argument

I personally think Hillary for VP along with a COMPLETE clearing of the slate is the best way forward at this point.  If the slate isn't cleared it may still be better to lose.

Obama is a one shot pony.  Blacks will never again vote 90% to 10% for a black candidate in the dem primary if he wins.

Any damage to Hillary vis a vie the racist lies will damage our party's chances in 2012 or 2016 as we may select another flawed nominee.

If Obama doesn't pick Hillary then the best outcome is for him to lose as large as possible and Hillary to be proven powerful relative to him and thus her chance in 2012 will be better.

Obama doesn't know what he is doing and is out of his depth.  His true believers can't see it but anyone who has studied politics at a serious level for a few cycles can see that demographics, expectation relative to reality,  issue ownership, current position ownership, history of switching due to the other guys orders,  and base support relative to current standing all favor McCain.

Again I say Obama is just plain out of his depth.

by dtaylor2 2008-08-20 10:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Sexist argument

What's a one shot pony? Remember kids, don't mix your metaphors...

by Cincinnatus 2008-08-20 12:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Sexist argument

What the hell does "Complete clearing of the slate" even mean at this point?

It seems to me you're using mumbo-jumbo words that you will redefine any way you choose to keep explaining your opposition to Obama, even if he does prove stupid enough to choose Clinton.

And Hillary as "unflawed"? That's a laugh...

by Aris Katsaris2 2008-08-20 02:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Sexist argument

You are slandering another Democrat by saying she doesn't want him to win. You cannot read her mind. She has aleady campaigned for him and raised money for him. She cannot win the race for him. He has to win it himself. He has not looked or sounded like a winner since February. The last few months have been a disaster.

It is not all his fault. The nation is in two wars and Russia just invaded on of our allies. He is a one term Senator who has spent much of his short time in national  office running for president. But he is the horse we are stuck with so I hope he has the good sense of picking Clinton, who the generals all respect a great deal. If he is worried about either Clinton over-shadowing him then he is weak and pathetic. I think he is much wiser and stronger than that.

by mmorang 2008-08-20 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Sexist argument

Raised money for him? You've got the situation backwards it seems to me, since news were that she was asking HIM to help retire HER debt.

Asking someone for money, that's a new and bold redefinition of the word "helping", I guess.

Hey, mind giving me a million bucks? I am only helping you with this request, you know.

by Aris Katsaris2 2008-08-20 02:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Sexist argument

Yes but an ordinary woman may not be ready to lead until day two or even three...a frightening prospect.

I think they're of the opinion that only a hawkish, second-wave feminist type is ready to lead (on day one). And that is the only type of woman that would be "experienced" and "tough".  

There seem to be many PUMA's that are still living in a second-wave feminist universe and they're battling the third-wave feminists with the same zeal they used to take on patriarchal society.  They still consider feminism in purely reactive terms for example: if a patriarchal society thrives the only way to break through that barrier is by taking on the worst traits of the male sex.  Hence you have the ridiculous neo-con jingoism that you saw from the Clinton campaign, which the second-wave PUMA types wholeheartedly responded to.

Maybe someday I'll write a diary on the topic since it was one of the more fascinating aspects of the primary wars.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-08-20 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Sexist argument

Hillary lived in the white house for something like 2900 days.



Are you starting to get a picture how much more ready on day 1 she is?

by dtaylor2 2008-08-20 10:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Sexist argument

We know, and you even informed us yesterday that she used to sleep in the oval office.  Incredible!

by Tenafly Viper 2008-08-20 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Sexist argument

She's also one of the most respected Senators in either party by the generals because she knows her stuff. Really incredible!

Hillary is not a neocon. She is a centrist, center-left. The attacks she made against Obama in the primaries were obvious choices that anyone would have made.

by mmorang 2008-08-20 11:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Sexist argument

While I would argue that it is primarily the center-left who makeup the majority of the neo-cons (they are in no way mutually exclusive)--I never said she was one.  

If you read over my comment I said she used "tough" neo-con language in order to appeal to second-wave feminists who believe the only way to be an ambitious woman in a patriarchal society is to reactively take on the worst traits of "maleness" (which is the main substance of the Republican plumage).  It's a self-defeating battle because it still forces women to function constantly and only, in relationship to men.  And if it's the only accepted form that means that the patriarchy gets to tell women they will be accepted into positions of power only if they yield their female identity.

Within the second-wave societal view, there is no place for women who don't conform to their notion of feminism.  That's why you see this other kind of sexism coming out in many PUMA comments throughout this diary.  It's not just that they want Hillary Clinton to be VP.  It's that Hillary embodies the feminist theories they espouse which have been unable to regain it's former relevance in the onslaught of new feminist theory.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-08-20 12:59PM | 0 recs
Re: so did Nancy Reagan and Laura Bush

You really aren't serious are you?  Just like to argue. No comparison.  But here's one differece...one was a Yale education practicing lawyer - the other was a washed up B Movie actress and the other a pulled too tight face-lift, Zanax popping librarian.

by emmasaint 2008-08-20 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: so did Nancy Reagan and Laura Bush

For that matter, so did Nixon's cat.

by Cincinnatus 2008-08-20 11:58AM | 0 recs
Re: so did Nancy Reagan and Laura Bush

unfortunately nixon's cat isn't available to save Obama's bacon...

by dtaylor2 2008-08-20 04:14PM | 0 recs
Re: so did Nancy Reagan and Laura Bush

Obama has a pig? A white house pig would be awesome!

by Cincinnatus 2008-08-20 09:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Sexist argument

You're using a bad argument, since SHE WON'T BE PRESIDENT ON DAY 1.

On Day 1, Obama will be President.

If VP Hillary did become President, it would be in the wake of an incredible tragedy during a time of national crisis and high military alert.  Nobody in government today has the experience for that, no matter how many days they slept next to the Commander-in-Chief.

by Jay R 2008-08-20 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius

I have a question, though. Speculation has been that if Obama DOESN'T pick a woman, McCain would pick someone like Meg Whitman. So if you're a woman, would you consider voting for McCain/Whitman out of retaliation too? Is it only Obama that can't get away with naming a different female VP? Particularly considering that if you're comparing experience, Sebelius is WORLDS more experienced in public service than Whitman.

by vcalzone 2008-08-19 11:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius

And here we have on display the misogynistic portion of Clinton's voters, the portion that despises all women that weren't married to Bill.

by Aris Katsaris2 2008-08-20 04:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius

Oh for god's sake.  First, if we failed to worship at the alter of Obama, we are racists. Now if we still like Hillary, we are misognysts?  Talk about Rovian.  Really.

by emmasaint 2008-08-20 06:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius

There's a big difference between "I like Hillary" and "any female Democrat who isn't Hillary is automatically unqualified and unfit to run on our ticket by virtue of Not Being Hillary."

Big difference.

by Jay R 2008-08-20 07:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius

The only reason you bash Sebelius is her gender.

There's nothing wrong with liking Hillary. The problem is that you hate and show contempt towards every woman that isn't Hillary. There's no other reason whatsoever that choosing Sebelius causes such fits -- only her gender.

Which reveals these people as misogynists.

by Aris Katsaris2 2008-08-20 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius

That is one of the most misogynistic things I've ever read on this site.

by Dreorg 2008-08-20 05:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius

Oh, so I guess that because Sebelius is a WOMAN, it doesn't matter than she was twice voted one of the best governors in the country? Or that she turned around a major budget deficit and economic crisis in her state? Or that she's been more successful than any politician in America in getting moderate Republicans to switch parties (not just vote for a Dem - actually switch registration)?

They'd be impressive achievements if Tim Kaine accomplished them, but Sebelius is a WOMAN so in your book only her gender counts! I'm sick of this!

by X Stryker 2008-08-20 05:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius

I'm getting more and more convinced that a large portion of the deadender Clintonistas are simply misogynists that were hoping for Bill to be in control of a Hillary presidency from behind the scenes.

Nothing else justifies their hatred towards all other female candidates other than Hillary.

by Aris Katsaris2 2008-08-20 06:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius

Karl is that you?  Love Anne Coulter

by emmasaint 2008-08-20 06:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius

you are bonified sexist covering yourself under Hillary.

its a big world, there are many racists and sexist there is no shame to admit it.

by Fistjab 2008-08-20 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius

I was pro-HRC, but my issue with Sebelius has nothing to do with HRC ... it has more to do with ... really?  Kathleen Sebelius is the best we can come up with?  Can she attack effectively?  Can she excite?  Look, the VP is a very honorary position, we all know that, but symbolic actions have their place in our society.  I can understand the political reasons to pick her, I do.  I'm not against that.  I'm just not sold that she's the right candidate.

by toonsterwu 2008-08-19 10:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius

this is just an outdated conception that the VP is honorary and not important in the voter decision. it should be nearly as important as the president if we think long-term. in modern history, the VP has 1) become a co-president with major responsibilities and input into running the administration; 2) become THE spring-board for subsequent presidential bids. Thus, if Obama wins with Sebelius, you better be happy with Sebelius because she'll have the in-road on the next nomination cycle after Obama.

VP should really be considered a co-prez and a prez-in-waiting more than ever in US history.

by swissffun 2008-08-20 12:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius
Frankly, I don't want to see a repeat of the "co-presidency" we witnessed in the Bush Cheney regime.
Abusing executive powers is not what Democrats are about, I hope.
by skohayes 2008-08-20 03:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius

There's a difference between giving the Vice-President substantial duties and giving him/her immunity from oversight.  The former isn't a problem, the latter is.

I agree the Office of the Vice-President needs to be contracted from its current incarnation, but that doesn't mean it can't still be a partnership with the Presidency.

by Jay R 2008-08-20 06:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius

WEll, I think you're half-right, but I think you're overlooking something about Obama's short list: with the exceptions of Tim Kaine and Evan Bayh, nobody on it is really "future nominee and leader of the party" material, if you look at their ages.  Biden was born in '42, Bayh in '55, Sebelius in '48, and Kaine in '58.  And none of the other potential veeps being bandied about, including Hillary, are younger than that.  After eight years--assuming an Obama/Whoever win in November, and an Obama renomination in 2012--these names are largely going to be past their campaigning prime, and certainly past their "future of the party" potential.

I think Obama is trying to make sure that he is the future of the party, and is going to look for a Veep who specifically won't be campaigning in eight years, because that eliminates the tension between his agenda and his Veep's ambition.  I think he wants to have an open nomination in 2016, and let someone from the Cabinet, or another upstart, take up the torch (putting it another way, Lloyd Bentson was never planning to run for President himself after a Dukakis term, but Quayle and Gore both were after their respective administrations).  I think Obama wants a Veep who'll govern with him, not one who'll want to inherit from him.

by Jay R 2008-08-20 06:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius

That would be a mistake and is probably my only objection to Sebelius is that she's a bit on the older side. I think Obama should find a new rising star someone who can give us a good shot of 16 years of progressive rule.
The alternative would be to pick a 1 term VP someone who can be replaced in 2012 with a younger VP who could carry us on to 2024 which is about the minimum needed to fix the mess the GOP created.

I was really pulling for Edwards I think he would have been a good choice. Truth is I think he's still a good choice, but as it stands he'd get crucified over an issue that shouldn't matter.

by Skex 2008-08-20 09:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius

You are making very good points

by epiphany 2008-08-20 10:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius

Don't tell me stuff like that: you'll only encourage me.

by Jay R 2008-08-20 12:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius

Can she excite? Are you kidding me? You think what the Obama campaign lacks is the ability to excite? Seriously?

She can turn a budget deficit into a budget surplus! She can fix an economic slump! She can turn the head of the Kansas GOP into a Democrat to be her Lt. Gov.! She can be pro-choice and progressive and still be the most popular politician in Kansas! She's exactly what the ticket needs. And I will enthusiastically vote for Sebelius for president in 2016.

I say this as a guy born in New York, living in Delaware, who thinks Joe Biden is a swell guy. Sebelius has the skills!

by X Stryker 2008-08-20 06:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius

She can also fry up bacon in a pan and never, never let you forget you're a man.....

by emmasaint 2008-08-20 06:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius

You can't help yourself, can you.  You would never ever talk about a man this way.

by Jess81 2008-08-20 08:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius

Sexist aren't welcome here, go back to no quarter deadender.

by Fistjab 2008-08-20 09:12AM | 0 recs
Maybe she came
From Allergy's Corner.
What's with all the misogynistic women?  I don't get it.  And they truly believe that Hillary Clinton is the "most qualified" woman to be president.  What the hell does that even mean anyway?  And what does it matter?
I'd say Barbara Mikulski is more "qualified" to be president than Clinton: she's been in Congress since 1974.  But what good does that do by itself?  "Qualification" is just so much bullshit.  You could make a good case that McCain is more "qualified" to be president than Obama, but I'm happy to give up a whole lot of extra "qualification" if it means we get somebody whose judgement I trust.  Qualification is useless if the person who has it is dead wrong about everything that matters; sure, maybe McCain can handle the paper pushing involved in the presidency, but he wants to start a war with Iran.  That pretty much trumps his top-flight paperpushing skills for me.
And one last thing about Clinton's vaunted "qualifications": she couldn't even run a competent, "qualified" presidential campaign; what makes anybody think her administration would be any better?
by Mumphrey 2008-08-20 11:05AM | 0 recs
I will freak out, whoever it is

If he would just pick a candidate with no weaknesses whatsoever who guarantees an electoral college landslide, I would be fine. But no, Obama insists upon choosing a real person as a running mate. If he continues to cling to his arrogant devotion to reality, I will freak right the fuck out.

by Cincinnatus 2008-08-19 11:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius

Yes.  She is not qualified to be VP.

by khyber900 2008-08-19 11:04PM | 0 recs
why not?

by Al Rodgers 2008-08-19 11:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius

I'll check the rules again, but I'm pretty sure she is.

by Cincinnatus 2008-08-19 11:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius

If Sebelius doesn't qualify, then NO GOVERNOR IN AMERICA DOES.

by X Stryker 2008-08-20 06:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius

(except Richardson)

by X Stryker 2008-08-20 06:02AM | 0 recs
An observation.

Apparently the only purpose of the veep slot is to make assholes feel less unloved.  Unfortunately, other assholes feel left out and thus feel more unloved.  It's a real asshole universe.

by Dumbo 2008-08-20 12:15AM | 0 recs
No, but there might be *media* problem

She is way much better than Kaine. The only thing is that the media
is going to go crazy and say the following--

1) She has no national security experience.
2) Clinton supporters will not support her.

And in this day and age, you repeat lies enough times, they become true. So this would be risky, but maybe, some risk is needed.

by ann0nymous 2008-08-20 01:04AM | 0 recs
Re: No, but there might be *media* problem

Here, let me give you the inevitable narratives in advance:

     "A slap in the face to Clinton supporters, and a sign of lingering bitterness between the two from the Primary.'
     "An incredible cave, and a sign of his weakness and of how easily he can be coerced into doing something he obviously doesn't want to."

Let's not pretend anything else is going to happen--we just have to accept the things we cannot change, and change the things we can.

by Jay R 2008-08-20 06:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius
I would be quite happy to keep Sebelius here in Kansas to run against Brownback for Senate in 2010.
That being said, I would be happy if he picked her, as she's been a very good Dem governor in a very red state (65% approval rating, and the anti-abortionists despise her).
Too many people are judging her on her SOTU speech, but forget times like when she called out Bush for taking the KS Nat'l Guard to Iraq.
by skohayes 2008-08-20 03:27AM | 0 recs
Won't freek out regrardless

If It's anyone but Wes or Hillary, I will be disappointed.

Anyone after Biden and those two makes no sense to me, given the current world climate.

But, I think this Animise towards Sebelius is BS.

Be pissed if he picks anyone else, but to single her out shows me a lot about the narcissism of those making the comments....

by WashStateBlue 2008-08-20 05:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius (Now with

I wouldn't care a whole lot personally, but I know my wife would be very unhappy if some anonymous woman other than Hillary were the pick.  Whether it would actually make her not want to vote for Obama, I don't know.  My wife doesn't follow politics very closely and so I have to think she's representative of some number of non-political junkies on this.

I don't get the sense that people are actually trying to understand this point of view, but simply waiting for people with that point of view to post so they can pile on and tell them how stupid they are, so I won't bother trying to explain what I see as the motivation.  Feel free to post comments about how stupid you think my wife is, if that's what gets your rocks off.  She won't be reading them anyway.

by Steve M 2008-08-20 05:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius (Now with

Anonymous? The best Governor in America is "just some anonymous woman"? Is Tim Kaine "some anonymous man"? Just because the media doesn't see anything other her gender doesn't give you a right to overlook her accomplishments. Check her bio!

by X Stryker 2008-08-20 06:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius (Now with

Yes let's go to her website just like we all had to go to Obama's website.  She is a nobody in terms of national politics.  Fact.

by emmasaint 2008-08-20 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius (Now with

So was Bill Clinton when he ran in '92: he was just that hick governor who wouldn't shut up in '88.  Until he wasn't.

And who the hell was Jimmy Carter when he started out?  A peanut farmer from the middle of nowhere.

Why do you think it's automatically worse to start with someone that HASN'T already polarized the American public than with someone that has?

by Jay R 2008-08-20 07:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius (Now with

Yeah - but a couple of caveats...Bill Clinton actually won the nomination...she has won nothing nationally.  And Bill has Charisma....while Kathy - um - does not.

by emmasaint 2008-08-20 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius (Now with

There's a difference between Pres and VP.

by X Stryker 2008-08-20 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius (Now with

You know who else hasn't won anything nationally?

Yeah, you do.  I'll add that hypocrisy to the tote board.

by Jay R 2008-08-20 12:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius (Now with

Uh, she's not anonymous to me.  She's anonymous to the 95% of America that doesn't follow this stuff obsessively.  She's anonymous to people like my wife.  Even if you and I go around vouching for what a great governor she is in Kansas, we're going to get a lot of shrugs in response.

by Steve M 2008-08-20 07:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius (Now with

I think your putting too much stock in the way Democrats view political celebrity.  Generally speaking, As a party we've never had an abiding veneration for political power--the way that Republicans do, which is why they will run political celebrities (like McCain) over and over and we'll say give someone else a chance.  

I think that was a factor in Hillary's loss.  She had the advantage and disadvantage of name recognition.  For every person who voted for the name Clinton there was at least one other person who felt that it was too akin to Bill naming his succesor.

If Sebelius is chosen, it will be because Obama is certain he will be able to define her to the American public.  And of course if she's VP she will no longer be just an anonymous Governor and many people who don't obsessively follow politics will be curious enough about her to listen to some punditry.  

Many people who will be shrugging will be people who think can survive another 8 years of poor policy decisions.  I know many people who were previously uninteristed who realize they don't really have that luxury any more.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-08-20 10:54AM | 0 recs
Freak Out? In the Best Way Possible!

She's been one of my top picks all along.  A very good friend lives in Kansas and has been singing her praises to me for months.  I think she'd rock.

by Dreorg 2008-08-20 05:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius (Now with

Sebelius would be a great choice.

I'm bothered by some people suggesting that if Obama picks a woman, he has to pick Hillary.

I think that both Clinton and Sebelius are part of a group of candidates who would be well suited. Neither of these two are more or less qualified because they are women. Nor should either of them cancel the other out because both are women.

Each would bring different things to the ticket. Though I think Hillary would be the better choice, Sebelius would be a prefectly good one.

by carrieboberry 2008-08-20 05:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius (Now with

I'm definitely bothered by that.

It's ironic. The Clinton folks have been pressing to block Sebelius, a qualified female VP candidate. Is that their real legacy?

by Dale Johnson 007 2008-08-20 07:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius (Now with

Politically speaking, Sibelieus is a dwarf, Clinton is a giant.  Sibelius leaves me as underwhelmed as any of the other dwarves.   No stature, no excitement.   Just a bland checklist.  Feh.

by InigoMontoya 2008-08-20 09:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius (Now with

"Politically speaking, Sibelieus is a dwarf, Clinton is a giant."

Do you folks know just how condescending AND totally demented you all sound?

by WashStateBlue 2008-08-20 10:34AM | 0 recs
I'm up on Sebelius

She'd be cool with me.

But I really, REALLY need some red meat right about now.  And it seems only Clinton and Biden would deliver that in a Veep.  

Part of me wants to see Clinton as Veep just to have her uleash hell on McSame and that Fudgepacker Romney.

But I'd be okay with Sebelius.

by Sam Loomis 2008-08-20 06:38AM | 0 recs
I know, it's Kos' favorite

She's likeable, plus she has a whole Barbara Stanwyck thing going on.

I wrote this cuz to get everyone on record, but also as bait and proxy bait.  Some backseat bloggers have lobbied against Biden and thrown tantrums.  

by Al Rodgers 2008-08-20 06:59AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm up on Sebelius

Fudgepacker?  Are you serious?  Um - isn't that a little offensive?  You all aren't really Democrats are you... this is a joke right?

by emmasaint 2008-08-20 07:02AM | 0 recs
he's mocking mcSame

he's referring to primaries when McSame ran around Florida using robo calls, etc. implying mitt was gay.

by Al Rodgers 2008-08-20 07:16AM | 0 recs
More a reference to that awesome picture

With Mitt stadning in front of the FUDGE sign putting on that rubber glove.

by Sam Loomis 2008-08-20 10:03AM | 0 recs
"She's a boring speaker"

Can I just point out one thing?

Kathleen Sebelius gave a fairly dull reply to the 2008 SOTU which is exactly what the situation called for.  Her job was to go out and seem, above all, non-threatening.  She was supposed to present a unifying and optimistic message that wouldn't scare the swing voters, and she did precisely that.  Go check out the transcript of her response and see if you don't think she did the best she could with the material she had to work with.

Play around on YouTube a bit, and you'll see that she actually has much the same speaking style of another Democratic politician: Hillary Clinton.  Sebelius's endorsement of Obama, in terms of cadence and tone, is pretty close to the game that Hillary brought in the majority of her speeches.  And her off-the-cuff remarks follow similar patterns to Hillary's, too--thoughtful, with an increase in speed and inflection when humor is injected, and above all dignified.

Sebelius has been around politics and politicians her entire life, and she's held elected office for over 20 years, winning over Republican-majority electorates and making it look easy.  The woman can give a speech: let's not make the mistake of thinking that her first appearance before a national audience--an appearance where understatement was the entire point--is indicative of all she's got.

by Jay R 2008-08-20 07:03AM | 0 recs
Re: "She's a boring speaker"

Exactly. It's a hard speech, too. You're sitting there talking to the camera. No audience, nothing exciting going on. She did fine.

by Dale Johnson 007 2008-08-20 07:37AM | 0 recs
Re: "She's a boring speaker"

I think part of what's going on is that Jon Stewart did a very funny bit about it the next day that was, frankly, a lot more memorable than the response itself: http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index. jhtml?videoId=149037&title=Democrati c-Response

But I'll tell you, I was sitting in a room with one of our Senate candidates watching the SOTU and the response (I was helping draft his response to it), and we all thought it was spot-on for what it was supposed to be.

by Jay R 2008-08-20 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: "She's a boring speaker"

Yeah and she wasn't feeling well and her dog threw up on her speech and there were lots of big words.  Whatever. You all's spinning is making me dizzy.

by emmasaint 2008-08-20 09:54AM | 0 recs
Why don't you tell us
Once and for all, what it would take to make you deadenders happy?  What, exactly, do you want?
Really, do you think you're the only people whose candidate lost a nomination?  We've all been through it, trust me.  I went through it in 2004 and again this year (I was for Edwards both times).
So I know, it sucks.  But do you know what?  The world didn't come to an end because John Edwards lost in 2004 or because he lost in 2008, and though I have no conclusive proof of this, I think it's safe to say the world won't end because Hillary Clinton lost.
Come on.  It's been two and a half MONTHS.  Deal with it.  Get over it already.  It's time to get on with your lives.
As loathesome as a lot of you people are, and you're way up on that list, I feel sorry for you, too, you and Allergy and all the other sad, bitter people who just can't get over the fact that not everybody saw your boundless wisdom and fell in line with your choice.  It must suck to be so wrapped up in this bilious, seething qnger that the world didn't do what YOU said it should.
I've said this before, and I meant it, and I mean it now: please get some help.  This isn't healthy.  And you don't have to live this way.  Your friends and family (if you have any) will thank you.  And someday, later, you'll thank yourself.
by Mumphrey 2008-08-20 11:21AM | 0 recs
I'd be fine with her

I find her slightly more qualified than Clinton for the Veep spot, what with the executive experience and lessons learned on how to win in a red state.  
And more qualified than the other governor, Kaine, who rode Warner's coattails to office and hasn't done much.

But I doubt it'll happen.

by Koan 2008-08-20 07:15AM | 0 recs
Re: I'd be fine with her

Agree on all points, especially the last one about it being unlikely.

by Jay R 2008-08-20 07:33AM | 0 recs
This is the most ridiculous idea since

George McGovern floated the names of (a)Cesar Chavez and (b) UAW's Leonard Woodcock as possible running mates at the 1972 convention. Thank God that reason prevailed, and he managed to find Tom Eagleton.

Folks, for the love of God, wake up! We are making this much too hard. This economy and liquidity crisis are in far worse shape than anyone is willing to admit. Yet for no apparent reason, people still float names for the VP slot like Mrs. Sebelius, Russ Feingold, Tim Kaine, and so on.

And at the same time, Russia invades Georgia, and people start wailing about how we need someone with foreign policy expertise. If Obama caves in to that sentiment by picking Biden, I will truly lose all hope.

Come Saturday, we'll have three of the top 4 spots settled, and quite possibly, not one with any significant knowledge of the  financial sector or economics. McCain actually made it a bragging point that he knows nothing about the economy. That's when people like me scratch our heads and say that the system truly is not working.

Come October, maybe the four top picks (Pres and VP) can have a summit meeting/tag team debate about foreign policy....all while Fannie, Freddie, and a score of regional banks slide into bankruptcy.

by BJJ Fighter 2008-08-20 08:04AM | 0 recs
who do you suggest?

Baucus is head of the Finance committee and Dodd is head of the Banking committee.

by Al Rodgers 2008-08-20 08:35AM | 0 recs
Dodd would be outstanding, except that....

he's got this ethical mess related to the Countrywide Loan ("friends of Angleo") he received lurking out there. While I don't consider it to be a major scandal, it wouldn't be helpful against the backdrop of sub-prime/people losing their homes to foreclosure.

If we could get him, Mike Bloomberg would be a ten-strike. A success in both the public and private sectors, who built a financial empire...and who definitely knows who to call/what to do to get us out of the current economic mess.

by BJJ Fighter 2008-08-20 09:44AM | 0 recs
I'd be happy.

On the merits she's pretty close to perfect: she's a two-term governor of a red state whose father was the governor of Ohio.  She and Obama get along well.  She's progressive - moreso than most of his VP choices.

If she were a man it would be an easy choice, but her gender disqualifies her for a lot of people.

by Jess81 2008-08-20 08:19AM | 0 recs
Another "all hat, no cattle", I fear

We had eight years of marginal governorship from a marginal state.

I dont look forward to "all silo, no grain".

by dcrolg 2008-08-20 08:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Another "all hat, no cattle", I fear

I'm not the biggest Clinton fan but I don't think Bill's was a marginal administration while I don't agree with everything he did he was competent.

by Skex 2008-08-20 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Another "all hat, no cattle", I fear


He was the best president in my lifetime and this fifth column within the democratic party needs to end.

by dtaylor2 2008-08-20 09:55AM | 0 recs
you're the one

who won't vote for Obama if your demands aren't met.  I guess it takes a Fifth Columnist to know one.

by JJE 2008-08-20 10:21AM | 0 recs
Bill was very active, very much a leader

on the national stage, with a national stature within the Democratic Party -- to a extent only dreamt by Sebelius.

The comparisons end at the marginal governor point.

by dcrolg 2008-08-20 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Bill was very active, very much a leader

Not prior to 1992. I'd never heard of the guy until he was the nominee. Of course everyone seems to have missed the joke.

by Skex 2008-08-20 11:07AM | 0 recs
He was the head of DLC for 2 yrs

before 1992.  So he was working and schmoozing with many, many national Democratic leaders.

Sebelius? Schmoozing at that level?  When? Where?

by dcrolg 2008-08-20 01:56PM | 0 recs
Re: He was the head of DLC for 2 yrs

Yeah I guess they let her give the SOTU response because she wasn't known by national democratic leaders.

What ever admit it you were served wasn't her anyway.

by Skex 2008-08-24 06:13AM | 0 recs
Would you freak out if he picks Clinton?

With all the finger wagging and brutal put-downs against Clinton supporters, I want more than ever for her to be the VP.

Also, I get a little put-off by this feigned confusion on why Clinton supporters are vocalizing our support and our honest desire to have her on the ticket, especially after the recent Evan Bayh flurry of robust online activism which generated the outcome desired by the netroots.

We're vocalizing the one outcome we truly want for the ticket and until the VP pick is made I solute her supporters for organizing and lobbying on her behalf. The Evan Bayh experience is a great example of online activism making a difference. Don't begrudge Clinton supporters the same tools and techniques just because you don't agree with us.

by JerryColorado23 2008-08-20 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Would you freak out if he picks Clinton?

I won't freak out. I'm fine with whoever he chooses (within reason). I see a lot of pros and cons to picking Clinton...but if it's going to help him win he should do it. I'm just not convinced that that's the case.

by democrattotheend 2008-08-20 12:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Would you freak out if he picks Clinton?

Some of you are, and some of you are screaming to the heavens that anybody except Clinton on the ticket will be completely unacceptable, doom the party to defeat, be a slap in the face to Hillary/her supporters/the deadenders/women/18 million voters/whomever the victim du jour is, etc.  And the latter group tends also to impugn, ignore, or otherwise attack the qualifications and positive attributes of other Democrats in some horribly misguided attempt to demonstrate Clinton's superiority.

Supporting Clinton is no big thing.  Opposing any Democrat not named Clinton is bullshit.  Those who tend towards the latter have earned every piece of vitriol coming their way right now.

by Jay R 2008-08-20 12:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius (Now with

Wow.  Kathleen Sebelius is a genuine progressive-- what in the world would anyone be upset about- she'd be much better than Biden, Kaine or ol' Evan.  

by Bob Beard 2008-08-20 09:55AM | 0 recs
Nope, not, no -- she's a thorough centrist

To be a politically viable, let alone a politically successful Democratic politician in KS, to be a progressive is to be DOA.

by dcrolg 2008-08-20 10:06AM | 0 recs
Yeah but but but

her name isnt Clinton, who has as I understand it zero executive experience.

by Brandon 2008-08-20 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah but but but

I'm from Kansas.  Those of us who 'knew her when...' remember her as being in the most progressive wing on the KS Dem Party-

This year she vetoed coal power plants THREE TIMES and survived an override attempt.

Last year she vetoed conceal-carry (and was overridden).

The year before she held the Republican legislature hostage until they increased funds for education, including universities.

She has consistently been pro-choice and governed as such.  

What more do you want?

by Bob Beard 2008-08-20 12:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah but but but

And I'll add...

WHen tornadoes destroyed a KS town, she sprung into action, got the town rebuilt AND zinged the Bush Admin by admonishing Bush over all her Nat Guard troops stuck in Iraq.

Again, what more do you want???

by Bob Beard 2008-08-20 12:48PM | 0 recs
Political risk, that's what

there's been no call to fellow kansans to help Greensburg for a one time tax increase to help rebuild the town...there's no common-good progressive ideal in her.

by dcrolg 2008-08-20 01:41PM | 0 recs
I have -- every day -- I live here

What you call "progressive" are progressive at all -- they are all moderate, very low politically risky positions -- every one.

She was re-elected because, 1) by taking low-risk centrist positions, how could she offend any one but the extreme ends of the continuum? and 2) her opponent was right-right-wing himself.

This bron-raised east coast progressive Democrat calls Sebelius which she is through her deeds -- DINO.

by dcrolg 2008-08-20 01:38PM | 0 recs
I don't want to jump on Obama before he's made his

choice but I sure hope he has the sense not to pick Sebelius. We are in two wars and Russia has invaded Georgia an ally of ours.

Obama needs to choose a heavyweight who is seen as presidential material on day one, not someone who needs on the job training.

Obama is already down by 5 points. What is he and his campaign thinking? They need to get serious, pick Clinton and be done with it. Another boring white guy or inexperienced female will not do the trick.  

by mmorang 2008-08-20 11:18AM | 0 recs
inexperienced female

Slight quibble: Gov. Sebelius has two terms' more executive experience than Sen. Clinton.

I disagree with the rest of your post too but that's just my opinion.

by Koan 2008-08-20 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: inexperienced female

Sebelius has NO foreign policy experience and we are occupying two countries and our ally was just invaded. She is a great future prospect but not a good choice for Obama in this cycle. He is a first term senator and has spent much of his time running for president. He needs someone like Clinton who the generals have a great deal of respect for.

by mmorang 2008-08-20 12:30PM | 0 recs
Re: inexperienced female

True, but that same lack of foreign experience didn't stop Gov. Clinton from getting elected in 1992 in the midst of the Bosnian war and the highly uncertain breakup of the Soviet Union.  And that was at the top of the ticket!

Given that generals on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan seemed to completely approve of Obama's proposals during his tour abroad last month, I don't think he needs foreign policy on his ticket as much as you seem to.  And if he did, he'd choose Biden or Richardson, by far the most experienced of the candidates he's said to be vetting.

Sen. Clinton has other strengths, of course.  But I think you're undervaluing Sebelius's.

by Koan 2008-08-20 12:35PM | 0 recs
Clinton was elected when the country was not

involved in any wars...and Russia didn't invade our ally. Bill Clinton would not have won in 1992 had the country been at war.

Sebelius is a terrible choice this year. Obama was a throw of the dice. He needs a solid VP. If he doesn't choose Hillary (who the generals have a great deal of respect for) then his advisors should be shot for incompetence.

by mmorang 2008-08-20 12:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton was elected when the country was not

The generals may respect her but many Democrats remember she voted to get us into these two wars in the first place.  The AUMF is the great stain on her record and I think it precludes her from the VP spot in Obama's eyes.

But if he chooses Clinton, more power to them, it would be a strong ticket.

by Koan 2008-08-20 12:49PM | 0 recs
Joe Biden voted to authorize military force as

well and Obama apparently loves his judgement.

by mmorang 2008-08-23 12:32PM | 0 recs
Re: inexperienced female

How does "the generals respect her" translate into a major credential?  They respect the office of the President as well: it's not like if Obama is elected without Hillary as VP they're suddenly going to stop obeying orders and answering questions from Washington.

I want someone the generals respect as SecDef.  I want people the troops respect on the ticket: they have more votes, after all.

by Jay R 2008-08-20 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Will You Freak Out if it's Sebelius (Now with

She's my first choice. I think she reinforces Obama's message perfectly, and they seem to like each other personally. It's kind of ironic that Hillary's campaign was groundbreaking for women on the one hand but stifling on the other...Obama can't pick Sebelius essentially because she is a woman.

by democrattotheend 2008-08-20 12:15PM | 0 recs
Obama can't pick Sebelius because she has less

foreign policy experience then he does. Our ally just got invaded. No one gives a hoot about Sebelius's bugetary skills right now.

You and many on this and other sites might not like Hillary but she is well respected by the generals as someone who has a deep understanding of foreign policy and military issues..that matters!

by mmorang 2008-08-20 12:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama can't pick Sebelius because she has less

Um, it really doesn't, since her being on the ticket isn't going to bring any public support from the generals, and there are plenty of other people who can come into an Obama administration (like a SecDef), and maintain the respect of the generals.  Right now, I'm more concerned with keeping the support of the rank-and-file, and I really don't see how Clinton would help in that regard.

Seriously, you think any prominent generals are only going to publicly praise Obama if Clinton is on the ticket, or are you counting on 300 million people just knowing that they like her (which, frankly, I don't know to be true, though personally only having ever met three--the brigadier who commanded my old reserve station in Atlanta, General Clark and Lt Gen Claudia Kennedy--I can't say for sure either way)?

by Jay R 2008-08-20 01:03PM | 0 recs
Clinton / Patrick in '08 !!!
Let's say Clinton got the nomination.
And picked Gov. Patrick of Mass as her running mate.
Would that have pleased Obama's ardent supporters?  the AA community?  the blogosphere?
Would they have said, 'well, an AA got a shot, we shattered limitations, great news'!
They would they have said it was transparent tokenism and insulting to both men.  
Sorry, if he's picking a woman, it needs to be Hillary.  IMHO.
by kosnomore 2008-08-20 12:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton / Patrick in '08 !!!

Um, not only do I like Deval Patrick (whom she'd never pick because of his outspoken stance supporting gay rights), but in 2004 I thought that John Lewis was a great choice for VP, and would have eagerly supported him had Clinton won and given him the nod.

But really, put this guy on a national ticket and I'll applaud.

by Jay R 2008-08-20 01:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton / Patrick in '08 !!!

Sorry, if he's picking a woman, it needs to be Hillary.  IMHO

And he has to get on his knees and accept his humiliation, as per your diary earlier.  You forgot that part.  

You people have issues, and they have nothing to do with progressive politics.

by MeganLocke 2008-08-20 04:24PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads