Obama-Sebelius Versus Clinton-Obama

I have gotten somewhat mired on Foreign Policy in my posts - it's important, of course, but certainly not the topic du jour here at TPM. So I'm going to move more to domestic politics and the election as it stands stateside. I've been hearing some people talking about Kansas Democratic Governor Kathleen Sebelius as a possible running mate for Obama, even though he has made it clear that it is too early to be talking about such things. I think there are several political advantages not only to Sebelius but to leaking a "shortlist."

More after the jump...

Sebelius is probably best known recently to a national audience for providing the somewhat timidly voiced Democratic rebuttal to the President's last State of the Union address. But in Kansas, she has forged an impressive political career for a Democrat in a largely Republican state. She inherited a $1.1 billion deficit when she came into office and eliminated it, and Time Magazine declared her one of the five best governors in the country. She provides a lot of nice counter-points to Obama, falling somewhat to the right of him, but she is also pro-choice (in Kansas, I say again) and anti-capital punishment. She's pro-business, but was the first governor to refuse permits to businesses that wanted to build plants in her state that didn't agree to new emissions standards and has taken the coal industry to task for its environmental standards. Personally, she's married to a judge, but has created her political career honestly on her own, first getting elected to the Kansas House of Representatives in 1986, then becoming the first Democratic insurance commissioner for the State of Kansas in 100 years. She's hugely popular in her state and also, she looks fabulous in turquoise.

A very popular governor (with obvious executive experience) who is also a very believable, pragmatic, and successful feminist figure? I'm sorry for seeming so excited but it's nice to be reminded that out in the country there are actually many figures in politics with more positives than negatives.

There's been a lot of talk about her as his possible running mate, but I think that the Obama campaign, or someone associated with the Obama campaign, would be well served to mainstream these discussions. The candidate doesn't have to be public, but surrogates should be. I think that if you float a figure like Sebelius you start to to ease the tension created when people feel they have to choose between the identity politics ideals of blacks and women. For Clinton, who has run a somewhat anti-feminist campaign so far and can easily be accused of inflating her own record, Sebelius acts as a successful, experienced, and popular counterpoint.
Now, there are those who will say that it's too early - as Obama has said on the stump. And there are those who will correctly remind that the running mate choice doesn't usually make that much of a difference. But Clinton has already attempted to float the running mate possibility for political gain - she's the one talking about a Clinton/Obama ticket, essentially trying to ease the tension herself by presenting the idea that they will be getting both of them and taking the easy way out of the decision. Even Obama supporters have taken up this argument, arguing that such a ticket is a possibility, but it should be the other way around, with Clinton as the VP.

My thought is - with popular and actually qualified possibilities like Sebelius... Why should Obama have to settle for Clinton?


(Crossposted to the TPM Readers Blog)