Obama/Sebelius: An Unbeatable Ticket

Obama / Sebelius: An Unbeatable Ticket
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius gave an eloquent Democratic Response that has subtle stump speech feel...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Gary Wood

The Democratic Party turned this year to Governor Kathleen Sebelius, of Kansas, for delivering the all important response to the State of the Union Address. She is a very professional, articulate, and respected Governor whose delivery was strong. Almost from the very start I couldn't help but feel as if I was listening in part to a response but more of a stump speech. When she remarked, "We aren't as divided as pundits think," there was one face that came into focus. Barack Obama has been sending this very message for weeks.

She went on to explain the response would not be a partisan response, it was an American response. Her continual focus on the phrase, "Join us Mr. President, let's get to work," resonated with conviction. Yet it was her comment on being the Commander-in-chief of the National Guard that really made an indelible impression. Delivering the Democratic response was not the Governor of Kansas; instead she is the perfect compliment for Barack Obama. Should he win his party's nomination Gov. Sebelius should be the first person he asks to become his running mate.

In Kathleen Sebelius he would have the perfect compliment to his weakest areas. She is a strong female with solid executive experience. She also happens to be a Democratic governor in a red state long considered Republican. She shares his message of unity among Democrats, Republicans, Independents and all races and genders. Her message was filled with optimism for the future and spoke of the commitment to place the people's concerns as top priority for any decisions. As a governor she is not a Washington insider. The Democratic Party embraces her enough to ask her to deliver their response; this shows a great deal of respect for her.

The idea of Obama winning and teaming together with Governor Sebelius is an idea that very well could create many sleepless nights for the campaign strategists behind any Republican nominee. An Obama / Sebelius Democratic ticket represents what very well could be an unbeatable ticket in 2008.
http://www.nolanchart.com/article1506.html

...select Pelosi as his running mate.

Why on Earth would anyone think that? She delivers a solidly blue state, is almost as polarizing as Hillary, and is easily blamed for any failure on the part of Congress to accomplish much since the 06 takeover. You think Obama would pick her why, just because?

Kansas is a blue state :shrug:

Try supporting what you said, and let me worry about what I said.

(pardon me for butting in) :D

And BTW, I live in Kansas. I assure you that Kansas is becoming a deeper purple all the time. Moderate Republicans are switching to the Dem party. Sebelius's lietenant governor was a Republican who made that switch. The man who defeated Phill Kline for AG also switched to Dem and kicked Kline's butt. But then that AG was embroiled in a sexual harassment scandal and stepped down (well, he was a Republican at the time the events in the scandal actually took place). Nancy Boyda (D-Kansas) defeated Jim Ryun (R-Olympic Gold Medalist) in 2006.

Kansas is essentially a 3-party state. The Republican Party is at war with itself, and moderate Republicans, who hate that their party has been taken over by the RW, have become more and more likely to vote Dem or even become Dem. How do you suppose we ended up with a popular democratic governor in the first place? The moderate Republicans voted for her in droves.

My main concerns about Sebelius on the ticket:

1. US voters might not be willing to allow for the crashing of TWO glass ceilings in one election.
2. Sebelius is kind of a dull speaker. I think a bit more excitement on the stump would be nice. Also, she is no attack dog, and I think since Obama isn't either, he might need a stronger voice as VP.

On the other hand, her willingness to continue to veto bills okaying polluting coal plants, even though the Republican legislature keeps trying to force the bills through, shows that she has real political courage when it comes to defending progressive causes. She is very soudn on the environmental issue, as well as on other issues dear to out progressive hearts.

I like Wes Clark for VP. My reasons can be found at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5903765&mesg_id=5903765

...I'm just thinking out loud.

It's my "sixth sense", which isn't worth a lot. It's just a gut feeling.

Here's why I think that: I feel that he absolutely will not pick Clinton and he knows that. To
heal the party and bring Clinton's supporters on board, he will pick a woman. That's the first point.

Secondly, I've seen Pelosi in interviews and she's adamant about the "dream ticket" not happening.
I sensed something when she was talking about this--almost a bit of defensiveness. There was just
something behind her words. Since I predict that Obama will pick a woman, Pelosi's demeanor made
me wonder if it was her.

Pelosi's experience and prominent title, as SOTH, give her credibility. Also, her experience at
the highest of levels demonstrates why she is worthy. Clinton fans will understand why he didn't
pick Clinton--when they see that Obama did pick and experienced, prominent, intelligent woman
who has served as SOTH.

Obama has also hinted that he would be picking someone who was not necessarily experienced in foreign
policy. He spoke out and said not to be surprised if he picked someone who was more experienced
on the domestic policy front--because he considered himself well versed in security and foreign policy
issues.

I'm not saying I want this. I can name some negatives. I'm just saying that I believe this is
in the works.

I've got nothing to stand on--just my opinion!

While there's probably several motives for Pelosi's denial of an Obama/Clinton ticket, feeling that a Vice Presidential nod was in her future hadn't occurred to me.

It would be interesting if Obama eschewed electoral concerns with his running mate, especially if he tried to ram the "Queen of Latte Liberal San Fran" down the throats of conservatives. I just don't see how that works out well for him or the Party as a choice. Pelosi is perceived as even to the left of Obama...hardly a concession to political reality.

Pelosi seemed to play the centrist since she's become Speaker. Remember how angry many of us were
when she said that impeachment was "off the table." Plus, she's got Sheehan running against her, and
that makes her appear even more centrist.

I didn't see a lot of liberal moves from her--especially with Bush. She treated him with kid gloves,
as far as I saw. She did write some strongly worded letters to him--which I thought was in vain.

I agree, her being from San Fran would play into the stereotype "latte liberal." I guess the Reps
could use that against Pelosi and Obama.

Side note: I have to say--I wouldn't mind being pinned as a "latte liberal." What's so wrong about being
intelligent, having a little money and a college degree...and socializing with a good cup of
flavored coffee? Sounds like someone I'd like to hang out with! Since when has it become advantageous
or better to be uneducated? Why is eating Hormel Chili out of the can suddenly a badge of honor and
drinking a latte a crime?

But it's widely perceived that Obama is identifiable with the upper-middle class, educated voters, i.e. the latte set. Hillary has demonized him with the lower-middle class rural voters, i.e., people who are at risk of republican defection. So it stands to reason that the VP would be someone who can appeal to these people and bring them back into the fold, lest McCain offer them an alternative.

I like Jim Webb and General Clark, because they shore up Obama's national security experience and the "bubba gap" at the same time, and they deliver states as well (Obama will be competitive in VA anyway, but Webb probably seals it, Arkansas is going to be hard for Obama, but Clark could definitely put it into play, and Clark will be advantageous in other swing states where national security issues are important, and he also has the benefit of backing up Obama on the war being wrong from the start, and he's not an elitist college professor, he's the former freaking Supreme Allied Commander of NATO).

And I don't think there's anything wrong with the latte liberal style, even if the stereotype the Republicans tend to throw out is idiotic. I am a white male urban liberal, I have a degree, I like coffee (black, thanks), and I make no apologies for any of those things. I think pandering to rural voters is stupid, because it assumes that they are stupid and seeks to kiss their ass, and they don't like that. Does anyone in rural America take Hillary and Bill seriously when they ride up on the back of a pick-up truck? That kind of shit will get them past Obama, but it won't work if there's a folksy Republican alternative. These are people who could go to McCain, but shouldn't, if we tie him to Bush policies and give them someone on the ticket who respects and gets respect from them. If we give them Pelosi, who I think is awesome and totally identify with, we are basically writing those voters off.

Pelosi has always been heavily identified with San Fran as a liberal city, perhaps unfairly by Republicans who want to portray her as more liberal than she is, not unlike Hillary, who clearly is not as liberal as the republican media likes to portray her as. The fact is that Pelosi is probably more liberal than she governs as the Speaker (her pre-speaker votes seem to support this), which is fair, because the Speaker is bigger than one representative; the position requires one to build a coalition that gets things done with people who are less progressively-minded than Pelosi.

Pelosi has too important of a job as Speaker of the House. Obama needs her in the House to help the Dems move their plan for America forward.

And impeachment being off the table. I don't think that would work. Obama needs an unknown with a clean slate. I don't know much about Sebelius. I'm about to try to find some info on youtube!

I can't see it being Sibelius. I wish there was a woman who "fit" perfectly, but I think Webb, Clark or Richardson are more likely.

No knock on Sibelius. She's great, but I don't see her this year.

McCain may take away his advatages by the happenstance of being in a state next door to him. I would definitely like to have Ohio in the bank at the starting gate!

I would love a woman VP, but not a warhawk woman VP. Let the Secretary of State/NSA play the role of warmonger. Clark would be perfect for either of those roles.

ugh.

makes her a poor choice for VP.

To carry Kansas, Obama would need a swing of about 26% from 2004.

Not going to happen.

there is a strong candidate in the Pat Roberts Senate race (former US Rep. Slattery) that could energize the party.

in DC at the most influential telecom lobbyist firm in DC (on K Street)

Slattery has lived in Virginia for the past 14 years. His firm Wiley-Rein (formerly Wiley, Rein & Fielding) "has the most enviable list of clients in the field. It has supplied more lawyers to the important telecommunications posts in the Bush administration than any other firm, and it is perceived to be the best-connected law practice in the field. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9902E3D71530F931A35755C0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all




Yeah, Jim is such a great guy. He stood up and helped make sure that the telecoms got immunity for cooperating with the illegal wiring tapping of the Bush Administration. Now that's a guy I want in office to help ram through more protections for his buddies on K Street. :eyes:

Not to mention that Jim was one of the early players trying to bulldoze the Haskell-Baker wetlands for his developer buddies. He has a record of placing money and his own upward mobility in front of what the citizens of Kansas want and need.

Fuck Jim Slattery and the horse he is trying to ride in on now.


Now they are trying to get Slattery elected in the Senate. Yeah, he'll raise money and if he gets in office he'll screw over anyone and everyone he can to stay there. Slattery is not to be trusted. He just isn't.

-signed a former Lawrence resident who has fought against Slattery and his self-serving ways since 1984.

I mean his election prospects with a possible Democratic wave taking down Roberts, wasn't commenting on him personally

Instead of electing someone who isn't beholden to telecoms, lobbyists and who knows who else?

I'd almost rather keep the devil I know than elect a weasel with a whole new agenda.

Pat Roberts hasn't lived in Kansas for years either....

He's been working with a GOP lobby firm for the past 14 years. His last big accomplishments have been helping the telecoms get immunity from prosecution. He's beholden to the interests in DC more than he is to the people of Kansas.

And, you know, the last time Slattery was in Congress he did whatever he could to help bulldoze the Haskell-Baker wetlands. Guess what? Slattery is showing up just at the same time that the SLT/developer interests need him to sponsor bills to get the SLT funded again. Mark my words, Slattery is a money-grubbing, self-serving bastard that would sell his own children if he thought it would help him win. He isn't what Kansas needs in a Senator. He isn't what the Democrats need in Congress. He's got too many friends in all the wrong places. Even back in the 80's Slattery was cozying up to the GOP both locally and nationally.

Kansas needs Lee Jones, not a midwest Lieberman. Not some huckster who is trying to cash in on the current Blue Tide in Kansas.

we need that to take action with a D president and a super-majority

and what he is capable of doing. Your little one-liners of non-substance are getting boring.

but rather cracking open the midwest and west.

McCain has a lot of states by shoestrings. The more has to spend money in and campaign in just to keep, the Better Obama can solidify the traditional "Blue" states, fight for the swing states, and party build in the rest.

This election has to be about forever changing the red-blue map. Paradigm smashing is a good thing.

...it's Obama. If your biggest worry is that she's not the best orator... we'd be comparing her to McCain remember. It's not like she'd be outshone by his sparkling wit and amazing delivery even without any Obama-assisted improvement. The guy can't give a compelling speech to save his life.

she would go ballistic

that her supporters would be vaildated by representation on the ticket (and being elected Senate Majority leader to boot!)

And her response to the SOTU was Beautiful!

side?

Just curious.

I think he got like 70%-80% of the vote in the caucus or something...

Not a big state, but I don't think it's ever been Democratic.

or Landon in the mid 30's

:hi:

Unfortunately, Clinton made it impossible for me to support her. I'm looking at Sebelius' endorsement speech and she seems likable. Humble yet strong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nHp90Z2NJk

DLC | New Dem Of The Week | June 27, 2007
New Dem of the Week: Kathleen Sebelius

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=104&subid=116&contentid=254373

i think he's smitten

:)

She can bring some of the same groups that Hillary now has. She's solid on social issues and is much more likable than Hillary.

What she doesn't bring is the strength to Obama's perceived weakness, namely foreign policy.

On the plus side, she is considered one of the best Governors in the country. She has tremendous executive experience, but lacks in a few other areas. She does know how to thread the needle with wedge issues, but her strengths are the same as Obama's.

wtg B.

She is accomplished and would put into play Senator McSurge's home state.

mike kohr

Her father was Governor.

That being said, I think she will be or has been on the short list, but I really don't think she will be the VP nominee.

I think Obama will go with someone from a bigger swing state and/or someone that can shore up foreign policy creds.

I'm thinking Webb or Richardson

how many could he bring over? and would they have as much importance as OH has had in the last few election

I wonder what makes you want to support her?

Obama needs someone to help him carry Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Florida. Probably one of the first two since Florida is most likely to go McCain.

and a Democratic sec of st to put the proper amount of polling places through the state

n/t

Agree that it would give Republicans many a sleepless night, too.

Which they richly deserve.

I don't think it'll be a woman. We Dems would love it, but our target audience is unhappy Republican voters. Same reason I don't think it'll be Richardson.

There ARE people who won't vote for a woman or a non-white, having both on one ticket isn't the way to entice them.

I'm saying a white guy with name recognition who calms peoples' fears about Obama not wearing a flag pin (:eyes:).

I'm trying to look at this strategically, and not just who I would like to see as VP (who would be Barbara Boxer, by the way.)

I'm utterly convinced of this after the primary to try to steal away disaffected feminist.

look at who THEIR target audience is.

The difference would be (and I may be stereotyping the R's) -- if we had a woman for VP, she'd be a kick-ass politician in her own right.

I'm guessing the R's would choose another "yes" person like Condi.

i just don't see it, and Condi has said she won't run if asked

but that's not the point.

I have no idea if they're going to trot out a woman or not - and I don't really care. My only comment was that if they do, it will be someone who just takes direction - not a powerhouse in her own right.

since she presided over a huge GOP loss last election!

IMO, she should be considered...along with some others who IMO would also be outstanding choices. The only VP choice that I truly do not support is Hillary.