The chairs of five key congressional committees have finalized a plan for healthcare reform, and their blueprint includes a critical public option. The chairs' decision to support government-administered health insurance for everyone who wants it is sure to attract ferocious opposition from both the insurance industry and its patrons in the GOP.
The Obama administration unveiled two major nominations on Monday: Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius for Secretary of Health and Human Services and Nancy-Ann DeParle for health czar. The czar is responsible for shepherding healthcare reform legislation through Congress and the Secretary will be responsible for implementing the plan.
The Obama administration may be about to pull the plug on the health czar. The position has gone unfilled since Obama's appointee-apparent, former Sen. Tom Daschle, withdrew his name from consideration for both czar and Secretary of Health and Human Services in early February. Several serious candidates are emerging in the unofficial race to lead HHS, but there's no corresponding shortlist for health czar.
Yesterday, Kathleen Sebelius emerged as the Obama administration's top choice to lead the department of Health and Human Services. I was disappointed, partially because I thought Rosa DeLauro would be a more effective, more progressive choice. However, Sebelius had a good run as insurance commissioner in Kansas, and is also a Governor, both of which give her solid experience for this role. And besides, at least the industry-supporting, health care-cutting Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen didn't get the nod. So, Sebelius is both experienced, and way, way better than Bredesen.
Mainly, I was disappointed because Sebelius at HHS takes away what was by far our best chance to win Sam Brownback's open Senate seat in 2010. While we needed Sebelius to win that Senate seat, HHS didn't need Sebelius specifically, there are plenty of non-horrible Democrats who could have handled the job. This move reminds me of former Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano becoming director of Homeland Security. Not only was she our only chance to defeat John McCain for Senate in 2010, but because she has left the Arizona Governor became a Republican. So, our electoral prospects dimmed in multiple ways.
All of this makes me wonder about the thought process Napolitano and Sebelius had in accepting their new cabinet posts. Is heading up a large federal department really better than being a Governor, a Senator, or even both? It seems hard to believe, but, as I explain in the extended entry, in all likelihood it actually is.
Current rumors on President Obama's candidate to head the department of Health and Human Services seem to be focusing on three candidates: Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen, Connecticut Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, and Kansas Govenror Kathleen Sebelius.
Kathleen Sebelius has emerged as a top contender, according to a "senior administration official" in what was undoubtedly a trial balloon style leak. She wouldn't be bad, as she has experience as insurance commissioner in Kansas. However, in moving to HHS, she would take away our only real shot at winning a Senate seat in 2010. Also, this might actually be an issue where major connections inside Congress are required, and Sebelius lacks that compared to DeLauro. She is probably less progressive than DeLauro, too.
While there haven't been any news reports on it that I can find, rumors are that Phil Bredesen visited the White House last week about the position. Even without confirmation of his visit, it is well known that Bredesen is under consideration. As a health care cutting Governor in bed with the insurance industry, Bredesen would simply be a terrible, awful choice for HHS. Rumors of his consideration have sparked a backlash from health care advocates, something that cannot be said about either Sebelius or DeLauro.
Lots of other names have been floated, including an active campaign to support Howard Dean for HHS, but these are the only three names I have seen associated with direct White House consideration.
If anyone else can find news stories linking any other names with actual White House consideration, rather than random speculation or advocacy group support, please list them in the comments.
Update: Oregon Senator Ron Wyden might also be in the mix. However, the main news story that started such speculation doesn't seem to connect him to actual consideration, just "one of several prominently mentioned in Washington, D.C., health-policy circles and in news stories and blogs." Also, the speculation has not been followed up with an recent buzz.
Wyden could be a decent pick, but he is so tied to specific health care legislation--The Healthy America Act--that I'm not sure he really works for the Obama administration.
The Obama campaign has been scheduling women's outreach events to address this issue. Today Governor Kathleen Sebelius is campaigning around central Iowa, and one of her appearances is a lunch in Des Moines specifically geared toward women.
Last Friday I attended a different women's event featuring Dana Singiser. She served as Director of Women's Outreach for Clinton's presidential campaign before joining the Obama campaign as Senior Adviser for the Women's Vote.
After Kaine and Bayh, the new buzz de jure for Vice-President is Joe Biden. While I strongly opposed the first two options, I won't be screaming about Biden. Here is the latest buzz, from CNN (more in the extended entry):
So, despite rumors, there was no announcement of Evan Bayh as Obama's Vice-President today. Mark this down right along with rumors that Tim Kaine was about to be announced as Obama's Vice-President. Here is a tip for people trying to make such predictions in the future: in all likelihood, within either twenty-four or forty-eight hours of the actual announcement, the campaign will announce that it is about to announce Obama's pick. I am pretty sure that every campaign in recent memory has done this. The date and time of the announcement won't be a surprise, even if the actual person selected still might be.
Then again, it won't be that much of a surprise, since the same five names keep getting re-circulated: Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Tim Kaine and Kathleen Sebelius. There are still occasional mentions of Hillary Clinton and Sam Nunn, but they seem highly unlikely. There seems to be a five-person short list, and the names are Biden, Bayh, Dodd, Kaine, and Sebelius.
In the extended entry, I take a look at the various statements Obama would be making with each of these five picks.
Via BooMan comes a report on Obama's short list for vice-president:
Obama: "His focus now includes five colleagues in the U.S. Senate - Joseph Biden, Evan Bayh, Chris Dodd, Hillary Clinton and Jack Reed - and two governors, Tim Kaine of Virginia and Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, according to Democratic operatives, though he could still make a different pick."
No surprises in this list. These seven names are consistent with the semi-short list names we have seen floated for the past month or two. One item of note is that Jack Reed has taken himself out of contention recently, declaring that he would not accept the VP slot if offered. So, that means the six top candidates at this point are Bayh, Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Kaine and Sebelius.
Obama listed the qualities he'll be looking for: "I'm going to want somebody with integrity. I'm going to want somebody with independence - who's willing to tell me where he thinks, or she thinks, I'm wrong. And I'm going to want somebody who shares a vision of the country: where we need to go - that we've got to fundamentally change not only our policies, but how politics work, how business is done in Washington." (...)
"I think the most important thing, from my perspective, is somebody who can help me govern," Obama said. "I want somebody who I'm compatible with, who I can work with, who has a shared vision, who certainly complements me, in the sense that they provide a knowledge base or an area of expertise that can be useful. Because we're going to have a lot of problems and a lot of work to do."
Now, like so much in politics, this could simply be empty rhetoric and, as such, should not be taken seriously. However, if we were to take it at face value, the short list is pretty odd. None of the four Senators on the six-person list would be viewed as agents of change in D.C., and none of them would make Obama appear to be more of an agent of change in D.C.
All four candidates had been previously named on the semi-short list of about fifteen candidates, so all of this talk about their chances has at least two layers of "rumor mill" evidence to back it up. Collectively, Clinton, Dodd, Reed and Sebelius now compose the likely short list. This actually isn't a bad group, and is certainly better than the next tier of somewhat less likely candidates:
Evan Bayh (Sen-IN)
Tom Daschle (Sen-SD)
Tim Kaine (Gov-VA)
Patty Murray (Sen-WA)
Bill Nelson (Sen-FL)
Sam Nunn (Sen-GA)
These six candidates were also on the semi-short list, and have not since been ruled out, ala Biden, Jones, and Webb. With the exception of Murray, those five make up is a pretty weak and conservative list. Dodd, Reed, Sebelius and Clinton are all better choices than those. At this time, there does not appear to be any significant talk about Edwards or Clark, who are certainly two well-liked choices online.
Given Obama's newfound problems with "moving to the center," which is really more of a problem about appearing to be a power hungry, valueless politician than an ideological problem, the need for a "reinforcing" Vice-Presidential pick becomes even more important. Hopefully, if the "moving to the center" meme has taught Democrats anything, it is that the "balance," also known as "compensation" theory does not work.
Moving to the center makes a politician appear uncomfortable in his or her own image and also makes a politician appear to be valueless and power hungry, and picking a Vice-President based on "balance" results in exactly the same image problem. If your Vice-President is experienced, and you are not, then it emphases your inexperience, not his or her experience. If your Vice-President has significant foreign policy credentials and you do not, then it just emphasizes your lack of foreign policy credentials, not his or her credentials. If your Vice-President is charismatic and you are stiff, then you just look stiffer. If you Vice-President appeals to a certain state, region, or demographic, then you just look less appealing to that state, region, or demographic.
The point is that a politician should not make moves that appear to distance himself from himself. Just like moving to the center, a balancing Vice-Presidential pick makes it appear that the politician is trying to compensate for some personal flaw in order to gain political advantage. This is an extremely damaging image for a politician, especially a Democratic politician given our chronic problem with not appearing to stand for anything or anyone in particular. As such, I've said it before and I'll say it again: seek reinforcement, not balance.
Looking at the likely short list, Kathleen Sebelius and Jack Reed are the two best choices along these lines, with Sebelius holding the edge. Both opposed the war before it began. Sebelius, like Obama, is a Midwesterner who hasn't been in D.C. very much. Sebelius, like Obama, emphasizes bi-partisanship, and can back it up with her record. Importantly, while both Sebelius and Reed are quiet and reserved to the point of possibly being boring, that actually isn't a contrast that hurts Obama. A boring Vice-President will simply emphasize just how strong and charismatic a speaker Obama actually is.
We are getting down there, but I like Obama's likely short list so far. While I continue to think that Sebelius is the best choice, I would be fine with the other three candidates on the short list. Clinton might be the most dangerous of the four, as she is the least reinforcing pick and would appear to be the most politically motivated choice. Still, with the exception of Patty Murray, she is much better than anyone on the second tier of choices right now.
I was going to stay out of the VP debates, because as I mentioned the other day the formula for getting it right is really complex, and I could easily make a case pro and con for a bunch of different folks. But because it is all everyone wants to talk about in DC these days, I have continued to think about it as I have listened to everyone's arguments and counter-arguments, and I have decided that I do indeed have a favorite. Since I know all of you are just dying to know what I think (okay, maybe not, but what the hell), here's my argument.
Amidst all the discussions about Barack Obama's potential running mate, the single most important consideration is being consistently overlooked.
The office of vice-president exists so that the president can be swiftly replaced in the event of his death, removal or incapacitation. Indeed, this is why we have vice-presidents. These individuals are only a heartbeat away from the most powerful office in the world.
This is such a stark consideration that it really ought to narrow things down somewhat regarding whom Obama should choose. Far too many discussions that I have observed treat the "running mate" as some kind of special electoral buddy, whose primary responsibility is to somehow grab votes that Obama could not secure on his own. Much of the reasoning behind the purported electoral impact of the running mate is ill-founded, speculative and secondary to our principal goal of electing representatives that we believe in.
Among others, Obama is expected to look at seasoned Democratic statesmen such as Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) and former senator Sam Nunn (Ga.). Biden, who has twice sought the presidency, including a 2008 bid, comes from a working-class Irish Catholic background -- a demographic Obama has struggled with in the primaries. Sen. James Webb (Va.) is another potential prospect, a decorated Marine and former Republican with strong working-class support in his GOP-leaning state.
Some Obama insiders think he will consider a number of female candidates, including Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano and Sen. Claire McCaskill (Mo.). All three endorsed Obama early in his campaign.
In the interest of party unity, Obama could turn to a Clinton supporter from a swing state, such as Sen. Evan Bayh (Ind.), Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell or Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland. Republicans who could land on his radar screen include Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, now a political independent.
This is a very conservative list. In fact, it is so conservative, that it makes Biden and Sebelius look like hard-left, flaming liberals. Webb and McCaskill both rank below all of the Senate Presidential contenders on Progressive Punch and National Journal. Ed Rendell was the founding member of the "frainthearted faction" on Social Security (among many other things). Ted Strickland is anti-choice, and generally socially conservative, which is a really, really bad way to unite the party after a woman was defeated in the primary (Webb is just as bad on this front). Hagel and Bloomberg aren't even Democrats. Napolitano doesn't think troop withdrawal from Iraq is a good idea, and will come at McCain from the right on immigration. Evan Bayh has long been one of the most conservative Democrats in the Senate, ranking 49th for 2007-2008 on Progressive Punch, ahead of only Ben Nelson.
Progressives are completely shut out of prominent veep discussions. This is connected to several longstanding problems, from the lack of progressive voices in the national media, to progressives being taken for granted as voters, to progressivism never being seen as the future of the Democratic Party. The options are so conservative, that only Sebelius would arguably be to the left of Hillary Clinton. This is basically why I have arrived at Sebelius by process of elimination: she is the only frequently floated name who wouldn't suck as the future face of the party.
It is also slowly pushing me into Paul's camp, favoring John Edwards. While it would be weird to have the same Veep for two different nominees, while Edwards was of questionable value to Kerry in 2004, and while Edwards has sworn off being Veep again, he does run as a progressive, and polls by far the best of any other VP option. That would make him a decidedly non-sucky choice, which is something that is hard to say about most of the other names that are being floated in national discussions on this matter.
The Obama vice-presidential poll has finished up, with 2,524 total votes. Bill Richardson was the top choice, even if some pro-Sebelius stuffing toward the end made it close. There seem to be four tiers, with Richardson, Sebelius, and Webb in the top tier, Feingold and Clark in the second tier, and everyone else except Pelosi in the third tier, as Pelosi occupies a fourth tier all her own.
Looking through the many discussions of vice-presidential choices that I have seen online, the debate still seems to be dominated by a "bonus" perspective. For most people, the driving criteria in the discussion appears to be figuring out what each potential candidate can add to a ticket with Obama at the helm, specifically framed in terms of shoring up perceived weaknesses Obama currently displays. Potential veeps are discussed in terms of what states they can help add that Obama cannot win on his own, what demographics they can appeal to that Obama cannot win on his own, or what characteristics they can bring to an Obama administration that he would lack on his own. Yet again, I feel the need to emphasize that this is faulty thinking, since choosing a candidate for such a reason will actually do more to point out Obama's current weaknesses than to actually shore them up. Rather than helping Obama win a state, it will instead emphasize that Obama is weak in that state. Rather than helping Obama with a given demographic, it will weaken Obama with that demographic. Rather than give Obama more credibility on a given personality or administrative characteristic, it will emphasize that he is lacking is that characteristic. As I wrote five months ago:
John Edwards was charismatic, populist and southern compared to the stiff, patrician, northeastern Kerry. Joe Lieberman was moralistic and anti-Clinton, supposedly "balancing" Al Gore's ties to Clinton scandals but instead emphasizing the Clinton scandals. Dick Cheney was experienced and accomplished, emphasizing Bush's perceived inexperience and incompetence, a problem Bush still faces. Jack Kemp was, well, I still don't get that one. Quayle was young and attractive, emphasizing Bush Sr.'s age and crust, a problem that helped to eventually undo him against Clinton. Lloyd Benson was southern and conservative, emphasizing the problems Reagan Democrats caused for Dems in the 1980's rather than helping to bridge intra-party gaps. Bush Sr. was viewed as a Republican moderate, emphasizing Reagan's perceived extremism ("voodoo economics," among others), a problem for Reagan that kept Carter in the campaign until the final two weeks. Mondale was a Midwestern populist, again emphasizing something that Carter was not.
Instead of shoring up perceived weakness in the top of the ticket, choosing a Vice-President on the basis of "balance" only seems to exacerbate those weaknesses. It makes more sense for a campaign to choose a Vice-President whose argument to become President is the same one put forth by the top of the ticket. Emphasize your strengths, not your weaknesses. Instead of publicly admitting to major flaws on your part, demonstrate comfort in your own skin, and with your rationale to become President.
As for the vice presidency, that one should be a non-starter from the start. This isn't a call based on bitterness or hate, but practical politics. The VP candidate needs to be a subservient figure, someone who won't outshine or overshadow the presidential candidate. Let's face it, Hillary is too strong a personality to play that role...
Furthermore, at a time that the GOP is fractured, demoralized and broke, few figures can bring in the dough than the Clintons. There's no reason to give Republicans a boost by putting Clinton on the ticket.
Also, I once again want to emphasize the need for Obama to pick someone who opposed the Iraq war from the start, since he is basing so much of his campaign's message on having the judgment to see the war was a mistake. And, it is for this reason that I am a bit more open to Kathleen Sebelius today:
Another woman asked what she should tell women who are supporting Senator Clinton because she is a woman. Governor Sebelius replied:
There's no question that Barack Obama is far more electable. He can attract independents. If Senator Clinton is on the ballot, then independents are likely to vote for McCain. Barack can win red states. He can govern with a mandate coming from a wide array of folks.
...One of the most critical issues is our security and our moral authority in the world. We have a really clear distinction between Barack and Hillary. The vote that Senator Clinton took on the war [in Iraq] was the wrong vote. The stand that Senator Obama took was the right stand. This is the wrong war, made for the wrong reasons, and she made that call. I want the guy who had the good sense to make the right call.
While this is not rock-solid proof that Sebelius opposed the war from the start, it does at least put her in the public record repudiating Clinton and all those who voted for the AUMF back in October of 2002.
Based on the "reinforcement" criteria I presented a couple months ago, this statement from Sebelius ups the list of possible Obama VPs to at least six: Sherrod Brown (Sen-OH), Ben Cardin (Sen-MD), Russ Feingold (Sen-WI), Brian Schweitzer (Gov-MT), Kathleen Sebelius (Gov-KS) and Jim Webb (Sen-VA). From this list, I think Brown and Sebelius have the least obvious flaws as potential candidates, much as I love Feingold as a Senator. Sebelius might actually make the most sense according to the criteria, given that she was an early Obama backer, apparently opposed the war from the start, has a "post-partisan" record of flipping Republicans to Democrats, and as a Governor is based outside of D.C. Negatively, she probably can't deliver her home state, is an unlikely successor to the Presidency in 2016, and didn't come off as much of a speaker during her SOTU rebuttal. Still, she is worth considering, and might be more progressive than one would expect from a Kansas Dem. (Then again, maybe it isn't surprising, since there are only two female Bush Dogs. Being a regularly conservative Dem seems mainly like a dude thing).
Well, no not really, but I bet I got your attention and you started reading this diary planning to argue emphatically against me. However, I'm going to argue that a Democrat like Bob Casey is the proper choice as running mate for Barack Obama (who, I am assuming, will be our nominee).
I am making here and today a prediction that I hope everybody will remember come the convention or that everyone will forget if I am wrong.
Today's fundraiser speech by Obama, as reported by the Huffington Post, clarifies a lot of his thinking when it comes to his VP and I have come out of it with the clear indication Kathleen Sebelius is his favorite right now.
By now, you have probably seen the poll showing that while Clinton supporters want a Clinton-Obama ticket, Obama supporters do not want an Obama-Clinton ticket. Gallup:
Only 42% of Democrats nationwide want Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic vice presidential nominee if Barack Obama wins the presidential nomination, while 55% think he should pick someone else. By contrast, the majority of Democrats -- 58% -- would like to see Obama nominated as vice president if Clinton heads the ticket.
The reason for the disparity is that a relatively small number of Obama supporters -- just 29% --favor Obama choosing Clinton as a possible running mate. Seventy percent say they'd rather he choose someone else. In contrast, a majority of Clinton supporters -- 53% -- would want Clinton to choose Obama for vice president if she is nominated.
Similar percentages (a majority of both Clinton supporters and Obama supporters) say they would want their own candidate selected for vice president should the other candidate win the Democratic nomination for president.
The reason for this, I think, is quite simple, and relates to my longstanding argument that the Democratic nominee should choose a "reinforcing" choice for vice-president, rather than a "balancing" choice. Hillary Clinton has repeatedly floated the idea of Obama being her Vice-President, and as such her supporters are following her lead in thinking he would be a good choice. By the same token, Obama has never floated Clinton as his Vice-President, and has even repudiated the idea of a "dream ticket" on multiple occasions. As such, his supporters are following his lead, and looking elsewhere for a a possible VP choice.
Presidential nominees really are leaders, no matter what we hyper-engaged activists might think of them. When many people support a candidate, they also tend to support many subsequent arguments that candidate comes to make, including who would make a good Vice-President. This is one of the reasons why it is essential that the Democratic nominee chooses a Vice-President who makes sense according to the broad campaign arguments that candidate used to win the nomination. If you are running on experience, then choose a nominee who fits that profile. If you are running on change, early opposition to the Iraq war, and national unity, then choose a Vice-President who embodies those qualities. If your supporters are going to follow your arguments, amek sure that those arguments make sense.
Which Democrats makes sense as Vice-President according to the arguments that Barack Obama has put forth during this campaign? While here are many factors to consider, the most important ones are to pick someone who opposed the war from the start, someone who has an aurora of "change" about him or her, and someone who has a bi-partisan track record. Here are the strongest possibilities I can think of:
Brian Schweitzer, MT-Gov: Among the disappointing small number of Governors, Senators, and members of the House leadership who opposed the war from the start, Schweitzer really sticks out as having the most change and unity cred. This is a man who talks of needing a shower after spending too much time in D.C., and who picked a Republican as his Lt. Governor. He also has both progressive movement backing and appeal to the old Perot style voter. I have no idea what his relationship with Obama is, but he certainly makes a lot of sense given the Obama campaign message thus far.
Jim Webb, VA-Sen: Jim Webb fits the anti-war and bi-parisan criteria pretty well. As a 60-something white dude from Virginia, the "change" cred it lacking a bit, to say the least. Another huge mark against Webb is that he just isn't the most energetic campaigner. I was talking to someone very familiar with Web's 2006 Senate campaign the other day, and he said that the idea of Webb as VP was pretty laughable given Webb's campaigning style. A lot of people like this pick on a structural level, but on a personal level Webb himself doesn't make much sense as a Vice-President.
Sherrod Brown, OH-Sen: Sherrod Brown remains one of my three personal favorite picks (Pelosi and Feingold are the others), given that he would help win Ohio, provide an economic populism necessary in an election such as this, and that he would give a progressive face to the future of the party. His bi-partisan and "change" image are less clear than either Webb's or Schweitzer's, however.
Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House: Pelosi has the anti-war and "change" cred, but probably not so much "bi-partisan" cred. Obama picking Pelosi makes sense as a May or June early announcement, since it would pretty much lock down the nomination for Obama. Otherwise, this would actually be a big step down for Pelosi, given that she is too old to run for President in eight years. Also, do we really want Steny Hoyer as Speaker? I think not. Still, she does make sense as a way to bring the nomination campaign to an end.
Kathleen Sebelius, KS-Gov: I have no idea where Sebelius was on the Iraq war before it started, but she does have strong change and bi-partisan cred. On the bi-partisan front, she convinced numerous Republicans to actually switch parties, and has worked with a Republican legislature during her six years as Governor. If she was against the war, and if she could improve her campaign style, she might make sense.
Russ Feingold: Feingold is an interesting pick, because even though he has been in D.C. for a while and even though he is thought of as the ultimate progressive fighter in the Senate, he actually has real bi-partisan (McCain-Feingold, Patriot Act reform, good government proposals) and change ("outisder") cred. Also, I would love for Feingold to be VP, and Pelosi to be Speaker. I triple dog dare Republicans to try and impeach President Obama in that circumstance, what with their two worst nightmeres as second and third in line, respectively. Also, no one in the Senate has more anti-war cred than Feingold.
Those are the choices that seem to make the most sense right now, even if they make sense in different ways. Maybe I am just dreaming by throwing Feingold in there, since there is no one in the country who I would rather see as President. But hey, he does fit the Obama campaign argument, he comes from a swing state, and he has endorsed Obama already. Obama-Feingold 2008?
Todd Beeton is right about the offensiveness of Kathleen Sebelius and her state of the union response.
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, gave a milquetoast, naive, and to my mind offensive speech in response to Bush's State of the Union. This was supposedly the "Democratic" response to the speech, yet there was only grudging admission that she is a Democrat and only passing references to our Democratic majority. We've been in the majority for a year yet here is the person speaking for the Democrats as though we have something to apologize for; as though the blame for the failures of Washington can be equally distributed between Republicans and Democrats alike. But that's the point, you see, she wasn't speaking as a Democrat at all, she was speaking as an American, as though the two were mutually exclusive.
Sebelius starts her address by criticizing the weird kabuki-like tendency of half of the Congressional membership to stand and clap at some parts of Bush's address (like making the tax cuts permanent) while the other half stays seated. She takes a 'pox on both your houses' approach, which might have worked except she looked much weaker and more freakishly out of touch than even Bush. In contrast, last year, Jim Webb gave an incredible response, cutting to the substantive differences between the parties. He didn't say 'I'm an American, not a Democrat', he said that the Democrats believe in a different vision of America, one that is true to our ideals of service, integrity, wisdom, and shared prosperity.
I am so sick of being represented by politicians like Kathleen Sebelius, people who think that our political problems have to do with DC elites not getting along or something. The only upside is if she can convince Michael Bloomberg to blow a billion dollars on a vanity run. And incidentally, if you do like Barack Obama, note how unbelievably weak his message sounds coming from someone else's mouth.
We need a different strategy for generating leadership aside from wrapping our party in the identity of one person running for President, because this one isn't working.
Current rumors on President Obama's candidate to head the department of Health and Human Services seem to be focusing on three candidates: Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen, Connecticut Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, and Kansas Govenror Kathleen Sebelius.
