positive -  her father was governor of OH and then served on Cincy school board and is still alive;  she's Catholic; she's respected by her peers having served as chair of Dem Govs Assoc

negative - besides giving a soporific response to a SOTU address, not clear she would give you IA or help with any state behind OH, which Obama probably wins anyhow;  she has no foreing/military experience;  she's 60 already and hence could not be being groomed for a subsequent presidency of her own

I know he likes her, but I don't think she's under serious consideration

Ken, I think you have a fine point about Ohio, and perhaps the whole midwest.

I am a little skeptical of a VPs ability to "deliver" a state, and David Plouffe has said publicly that that won't be much of a factor:

Plouffe is asked whether he thinks a vice presidential nominee can help carry a state.

"I don't think that's going to be a factor in selection," he says.

As model nominees he cites Al Gore and Dick Cheney.

"That worked for them," he says of Cheney's nomination.

That said, helping to deliver Iowa (think Gore), and especially Ohio (think Kerry) is no small service. Even if Obama could win them alone, we potentially only make them safer for Dems.

And while 68 is pretty old, I don't think it necessarily puts her out of range  to serve a term or two of her own. I mean...look at McCain. He's like 900 and he looks amazing. :)

Also, on the "foreign policy" thing, the emerging narrative  seems to be that Obama is willing to take on McCain in this area. By choosing a VeeP with "foreign policy experience" he is admitting a weakness in the area of foreign policy which the public may not perceive him as having. Also, there was a great article in the WaPo recently (Ambinder's take) on Obama's "Gang of 300" foreign policy advisors. I like that narrative much better than Obama-Biden or any of the other "foreign policy experience" names that have been floated. Except Webb of course, but he's out.

Kansas City is on the border with Kansas. Kind of like Chicago helps Obama make Indiana more competitive. Same media markets.

...is "the" bellweather right?  :)

If you look at the history of vice presidents, it's hard to find many who'd qualify as "rock stars."  Al Gore has become one since 2000, but that most certainly was not his reputation before then.  Beyond that, you almost have to go back to Teddy Roosevelt to find one.  

Since VPs are required to suppress their egos in service to #1, they're usually picked for reasons other than colorfulness.  Consider:

Walter Mondale, Dick Cheney, Dan Quayle, George H.W. Bush, Hubert Humphrey...zzzzzzzz

You just articulated the thoughts that have been running through my head for the last month, Faithfull.  Gov. Kaine is a genuinely good person with more integrity than most and the intention to do good things for the Commonwealth.  

But as his actions on the Wise County plant have shown, he has a tendency to be more of an appeaser than a leader - not an appeaser in the sense of the BS "Chamberlain" analogies the right-wing was throwing at Obama about talking with Iran - but his idea of leadership seems to be all about appeasing powerful special interests.  Some might call that being "realistic" in  a place like Richmond, where corporations like Dominion have long been running the show.  But is it any different in Kansas?

Sebelius has proven to be a genuine leader, and in doing so she took an extraordinary step for protecting our planet and our children's future.  Governor Kaine just doesn't seem to have that in him, and the last thing Obama needs is to temper his "Yes we CAN!" with Gov. Kaine's "it would be great if only we could."

If you can say "yes we can" to stopping coal plants in Kansas, you can say it anywhere. Not to mention Sebelius' great record of economic management in KS.

"it would be great if only we could." I agree that Governor Kaine has all the tools to be a great leader, and to do great things for our commonwealth. I hope in his last year he will show us those things.

I will preface these comments by saying that regardless of who the nominee is, I will work hard for the ticket so we can finally put someone in office who actually cares about the future of this country.  Also, I quite admire Kathleen Sebelius and what she's done in Kansas, but still, I have serious doubts.

I really do think Obama needs someone with foreign policy/military experience to balance this ticket.  I'm sorry to say that in terms of winning this election, like it or not, foreign policy experience is a more important factor than a strong stance on the environment for many voters.  Voters we need.  Imagine how McCain/GOP will portray the collective foreign policy experience of an Obama/Sebelius ticket.  I can hear the commercials now: 'One trip overseas during the election; a running mate with no foreign policy experience'....etc., etc.    They will manipulate it in too many ways to count.

There is also another factor, and sorry to sound like a broken record, but I think it is true.  Some voters will assume that when (note I didn't say "if") Obama wins, his VP becomes the next candidate.   This is where the die-hard Hillary voters need to be considered.  I really do believe that they would consider this the ultimate insult to a women they believe has earned it, rather than one who has not.

And again, I will say that although everyone on this site (and others like it) are familiar with Sebelius, when I ask people what they think of her as a running mate, I always seem to get the same answer:  Who?  

Just my opionion.  

It's everything I would say. And I'd add, it's not a choice of simply either Kaine or Sebelius.  There are other, better choices than either of them out there.  

Outside of the blogger community, the two biggest issues for most voters appear to be the economy (which they rate as number one) and Iraq/foreign policy/national security.  And Sebelius doesn't bring too much to that.  Obama brings strong credentials on the economy and domestic issues (and he is very strong on environmental issues, so we don't have to worry there).  He needs somebody with the foreign policy/security creds.

I like Sebelius a lot but I just don't think she brings anything to the ticket.  And in addition to turning off the hardcore Hillary supporters, she also is embroiled in controversy with her bishop over her pro-choice positions. Her bishop has asked her not to receive communion. Other conservative bishops in the Midwest, including St. Louis, will probably follow suit, the more publicly the better (from their point of view).  So, that could actually hurt with the Catholic vote, especially among the working class ethnic Catholics.  They may not be personally anti-choice, but they will be uncomfortable about a religious controversy with their hierarchy.  The wafer wars hurt John Kerry in 2004, and we don't need to revive them for a candidate who would be weak to start with. BTW, I think her pro choice position is correct.  

However, we need to concentrate on the economy, the environment, and national security.  We don't need endless distractions from the social conservatives seeking to inject a bunch of wedge issues into the campaign because they perceive that as their one advantage.  

AIWA, I think that on the economy/environment, Sebelius brings a compelling resume.

wikipedia:

n November 2005, Time named Sebelius as one of the five best governors in America, praising her for eliminating a $1.1 billion debt she inherited, ferreting out waste in state government, and strongly supporting public education - all without raising taxes, although she proposed raising sales, property, and income taxes[14]. Also praised was her bipartisan approach to governing, a useful trait in a state where Republicans have usually controlled the Legislature.[15]

I think she brings the great story (much as Mark Warner would have) of inheriting Republican debt, and eliminating it without increasing the tax burden on most people.

On the environment, Sebelius has made her signature issue the moratorium on coal fired power plants in her state. That is one of the biggest wins the enviro community has had in the last year. She also is honest about "clean" coal:

Given our enormous supply of coal in this country, I think it's wise for us to spend some real resources on that technology. Is it feasible? How far away from it are we? ... Most people I talk to say 10 to 15 years, if it ever exists at all. So as you look out at the next 25 years of energy policy of this country, that's a big "if." I think we need to make that determination. But yeah, I think if there is a process that can capture carbon and sequester it for long periods of time that becomes economically feasible, you bet coal's going to be part of our future.

On national security, I think that if we choose a 4-star general or a Biden type, we admit upfront that Obama has a foreign policy weakness and cant handle it himself. I think we do better in that debate if we choose a candidate who allows us to focus on the economy/environment (as I think Sebelius will do). Choosing a general-type shifts the debate to foreign policy where the media has (for some reason) given John McCain enough breaks that people think he is a foreign policy guru (even though he was one of only 2 people in Americ that supported the surge). Would we "win" the national security debate with the media narrative the way it is? Maybe. But I think we're better focusing on domestics.

Also, Obama has a team of 300 foreign policy advisors who brief him every morning. I'd take that over a single general any day.

I still think it needs to be someone bigger: Like Jim Webb, Wesley Clark, Al Gore (though he'd never do it), etc.  I not necessarily advocate Hillary.  But I think she would be preferable to Kaine and Sebelius.  We need someone who's really well known and who has cred across the spectrum of issues, including foreign policy.

It needs to be a blockbuster nomination, not a "who?" on the part of most voters.

[This, inreverse, is also true of the GOP.  They need a big nomination, not Jindahl (the privateer) or any other obscure governor.]

While I don't quite agree with you, I admire your passion for your candidate, how well you argue your case, and your tenacity.

Although I'm not yet convinced she'd be the best person, I certainly could vote for her.  My concern is to build the strongest ticket for victory in November.  I think on that we agree.!

I would also vote for her, but I don't think it is the strongest ticket and that is what we need.

And I really liked your point about the 'wafer wars' of 2004.

in terms of her ability to vault her party to power.  And I agree that I would prefer an more staunch environmentalist alternative to Gov. Kaine on the national stage at this point.  My question is - how is she better than many of the other names bandied about?  Other than her stand on the coal plant in Kansas?    

You are totally under factoring, the complete kick back if the first women running mate that has future viability as the President of the United States was not Hillary.

Sorry but choosing another Women over Hillary, this year especially, you really would want to lose.  I have been a strong supporter of Obama, but to select a less know, less popular women running mate would be suicide in the swing states.  PS - Kansas is not a swing state....