Sebelius Plans To Endorse Obama

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS) will deliver the Democratic response to the State of the Union on Monday.

And then Tuesday or Wednesday, she plans to endorse Barack Obama, numerous Democratic sources said.

The sources said that Sebelius decided some time ago that Obama was her candidate but decided to wait until after the State of the Union.

An Obama spokesperson declined to comment.

"Right now, the Governor's focus is on delivering her response to the President's State of the Union message Monday night," said Nicole Corcoran, communications director to Sebelius. "The Governor will have more to say about the presidential campaign after Monday."

Comments

Wow. This is big. She's unquestionably one of the brightest stars in the Democratic Party and a future Presidential candidate. An Obama-Sebelius ticket would be nice. It looks like the endorsements are just starting. I'm still waiting on a Gore endorsement. While Obama's prospects have improved, he really needs Gore in order to push him over the top.

Posted by Mike | January 27, 2008 3:50 PM

Not quite as big as Sen. Kennedy's endorsement, but this IS a big one.

She's a fine, even beloved, govenor in a four-alarm Red State (they've banned gay marriage ... twice), where Democrats have begun to make tremendous gains. (So tremendous that even Bill Clinton has noted them in interviews.) Like McCaskill in Missouri and to a lesser extent Napolitano in Arizona, Sebelius' nod makes the statement that, basically, only Obama can protect and cultivate the progress that's been made in Kansas.

Not a bad Sunday morning for the junior Senator from Illinois.

Posted by Symbolism | January 27, 2008 3:57 PM

She and Jim Webb seem like the two obvious VP choices for an Obama run (Napolitano is probably a distant third if only because she is a far less compelling politician than Sebelius).

A tide really is turning in Democratic party politics.

Posted by Vincent | January 27, 2008 3:58 PM

More and more GREAT news! Thank you, Gov. Sebelius.

So, anyone heard word on an Al Gore endorsement yet? It would be nice to have him support this monumental people powered movement...I know he must feel encouraged to see so many people getting involved in the process again.

Posted by Ezzy | January 27, 2008 4:11 PM

If she is the VP for Obama, then the Clintons will really loose it.

The one thing that Clintons do not want is another woman at heartbeat to the White House.

I so much want someone else than the Clintons.

Thus, the possibility of Obama/Sebelius is creating enormous joy in my soul.

I just lost the desire to eat my half-eaten sandwich.

Posted by eorse | January 27, 2008 4:16 PM

While Obama's prospects have improved, he really needs Gore in order to push him over the top.

I don't know why anybody thinks an endorsement from Gore will put Obama "over the top." How many of YOU vote according to how somebody else tell you to? A pile up of Obama endorsements will be viewed by many Clinton supporters as the (mostly male) establishment coming out with its long knives against their candidate.

Posted by Starter | January 27, 2008 4:17 PM

Nice scoop, Marc! Ambinder has it first. (You better be right, of course...)

So, when is Ronald Reagan going to endorse? Anyone hear anything about that?

Posted by lampwick | January 27, 2008 4:19 PM

Excellent, excellent points Symbolism. I can only agree.

Posted by kid oakland | January 27, 2008 4:20 PM

Can't speak from Reagan, but Bush did endorse Hillary a while back....

Posted by hispanistani | January 27, 2008 4:26 PM

Has any candidate ever picked a running mate in the middle of a primary? Is that considered a really bad idea?

Because I wonder what would happen if Obama announced now that if nominated he will run with Sebelius (not that I think he would actually do this but I'm just throwing out the hypothetical). Would that give him a boost, or would be just viewed as a cheap stunt?

Posted by anonymous | January 27, 2008 4:27 PM

The touching belief in endorsements around here has to be seen to be believed. Honestly guys. These are strings of beads all the candidates collect them. Unless they are for an organisation with muscle they are next to meaningless. I wonder if any of the Obama fans ventilating about how wonderful they are would have changed their vote to Clinton if she had been endorsed by Kennedy or Sebelius. Well? So why are hundreds of thousands of Kansans or Massachusans going to behave differently. Nice to have, might make a difference at the margin but not really material.

Posted by John Hartford | January 27, 2008 4:30 PM

A tide really is turning in Democratic party politics.

Oh please. Forty-eight hours ago the vast majority of experts reckoned that Hillary Clinton was the odds on favorite for the nomination. And, now, after South Carolina, the vast majority of experts believe that...Hillary Clinton is the odds on favorite for the nomination. A big win by taking a huge majority of black votes in a black majority primary does not Barrack Obama the favorite make.

Hillary does better among whites, Hispanics, women, seniors, union members, poorer voters, and registered Democrats. She is up by double digit leads in most of the Super Tuesday states, and by a staggering margin in the Florida beauty contest. Obama will not again be favored with an electorate as favorable as the one in South Carolina, nor does he have as strong a field organization as his organization there. Also, his racking up of endorsements will begin to detract somewhat from his reformist image: it's pretty untenable to claim to be the grand reformer when you've essentially got the Democratic establishment in your pocket. But the real strategic crisis that's about to burst upon Obamaland is the collapse of the Edwards campaign. Obama cannot win the nomination via a two way matchup against Hillary Clinton. I'd love to be able to listen in on some of the urgent phone calls from Team Obama to Team Edwards over the last 24 hours, pleading with Johnny Haircut to stay in the race.

Posted by Anonymous | January 27, 2008 4:32 PM

Fantastic endorsement! I feel like he has an army of support! Maybe we can conquer the Clinton machine after all...Yes, we can!

Posted by bsd | January 27, 2008 4:33 PM

The beauty of this endorsement is not just who it is, but when it is happenening. Most of the country does not know who this impressive governor is, but many will tomorrow night when she gives the response to the state of the union. And she is going to be able to take all that attention pivot to a high profile endorsement of Obama coming right after Ted Kennedey's. Ted Kennedy can help with hispanics and downscale dems and Sebalius can help with women. A nice start to the week, I must say.

Posted by RKA | January 27, 2008 4:33 PM

Nice scoop! It seems to be suppported by the following scheduling change (as reported in the WSJ's Washington Wire):

"[Obama's] campaign announced Sunday that the candidate would make an appearance Tuesday in El Dorado, Kan., the hometown of his maternal grandfather, Stanley Dunham. Obama’s mother was a white Kansan and his father was a black Kenyan. They are both deceased."

Posted by LACinDC | January 27, 2008 4:34 PM

Starter, while many Clinton supporters may look at that way, I think most undecided voters will look at it as people coalescing around the best candidate. This is what happens in every election. People look at how the candidates perform in the early states and then make their decision about who to support.

Clinton had the vast majority of establishment support from the beginning. Those were people who worked closely in or with the Bill Clinton administration and owed their allegiance to the Clintons. Other more independent voices like Kennedy and Sebelius wisely waited to see how the race would shake out. Now that Obama has proven himself, they've made their decision.

For the most part, these endorsements aren't meant to change people's minds. What they do is reflect momentum. You can be sure that just as Sebelius and Kennedy are being drawn to Obama, there are millions more people across the country feeling the same way.

As far as Gore, I see him as the de facto voice
of Democrats right now. He is universally respected for what he's done since leaving the political arena. For him to give his support to Obama would be a strong signal to the undecided that he's the right man for the job. It's the same reason letters of recommendation help when applying to college or for a job.

Posted by Mike | January 27, 2008 4:35 PM

Anonymous,

9 days is a lifetime in politics.

We're coming after your base.

Ours is secure.

Spin won't stop us.

Posted by RKA | January 27, 2008 4:36 PM

If true, makes one proud to be an Obama supporter in Kansas. Can't wait for our caucus to show my support for BHO and KS (interesting how her initials reflect her residency, non?)

Posted by richinoskie | January 27, 2008 4:42 PM

"Hillary does better among whites, Hispanics, women, seniors, union members, poorer voters, and registered Democrats."
South Carolina and Iowa proved that to be completely incorrect, look at the exit polls before you post your completely un-informed pro Hillary crap.

Posted by Christian | January 27, 2008 4:47 PM

I wonder if any of the Obama fans ventilating about how wonderful they are would have changed their vote to Clinton if she had been endorsed by Kennedy or Sebelius. Well? So why are hundreds of thousands of Kansans or Massachusans going to behave differently.

Endorsements aren't made for people who already strong supporters of a candidate. They are for the undecided voters and those who have soft support for one of the candidates. This accounts for many people in the upcoming states.

Posted by Ben | January 27, 2008 4:51 PM

I've had sixteen years of listening to people unload on Hillary! I've had enough! I turn on C-Span2, it's Hillary! Apparently, she's using her vast experience and connections to shut her Democratic rivals off the Capitol's network.

The reason she needs to shut Obama out, is that he has charisma. A Democrat who listens to him speak has a hard time going back to HRC. People think that charisma is fluf. It's what allows a President to ralley the People!

Posted by UrbanHillbilly | January 27, 2008 4:58 PM

Obama is gonna be here doing a rally in Kansas City on TUESDAY afternoon, so it makes sense she'd be there then! Yeah!!

Posted by SteveWatson | January 27, 2008 5:00 PM

I disagree with the notion that these endorsements are meaningless. Here is why.

1. They drive the media cycle--which matters given that the only way obama can overcome hillary's party connections on super tuesday will be fought primarily on the airwaves.

2. They sway the minds of establishment figures who may have to preside over a messy convention.

3. They signal to voters in the states that Obama has the imprimatur of popular pols in Feb 5 states.

4. They can stand as surrogates especially vs-a-vs key constituencies: McCaskill and Kerry have already been doing this and McCaskill is already in a national ad.

5. Obama is going to need help from every corner to beat Clinton--every little bit helps.

Posted by JC | January 27, 2008 5:02 PM

It is also worth noting that Democratic members of Congress and Governors are superdelegates.

Posted by DTM | January 27, 2008 5:16 PM

Tom Hayden is now onboard the Obama train:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-hayden/an-endorsement-of-the-mov_b_83478.html

I like how he puts it:

We are in a precious moment where caution must yield to courage. It is better to fail at the quest for greatness than to accept our planet's future as only a reliving of the past.

He's been critical of Obama in the past and vice versa, so this is a good sign that Democrats across the political spectrum are starting to coalesce around Obama's movement.

Hayden seems to confirm that what we're seeing here is a movement possibly greater than the candidate himself.

Posted by Mike | January 27, 2008 5:18 PM

I read a few days ago that a condition of Sebelius making the Dem. rebuttal to the State of the Union is that she not endorse prior to her rebuttal.

Also, I agree she might make a good VP pick.

Posted by aReader | January 27, 2008 5:18 PM

Ben's right.

The momentum-and-media model, the idea that enough hype will put you over the top, is probably not gonna work this time. Both candidates are well-financed and have deep support.

But if the Kennedys will get out and do some serious campaigning in the next week in CA and NJ-NY-CT area they could do some good at the margins. Obama can't be everywhere in the next week and needs heavyweight (sorry Ted) surrogates who can turn out crowds. He also needs more prominent women, like Sebelius, making his case.

Posted by c | January 27, 2008 5:20 PM

Exactly DTM...

The Clintons insist on taunting their sizable lead in the delegate race...due ONLY because of the so called superdelegates.

The closer Obama can pull that race, the more he diminishes that argument for the Clintons.

And superdelegates follow other superdelegates. It's the new blood separating from the old conventional wisdom establishment...with a dash of very credible old bull types like Leahy and Kennedy.

"We can no longer afford to build ourselves up by tearing someone else down. We can no longer afford to traffic in lies or fear or hate." Barack Obama

Vote hope, not fear. Vote unite, not divide and conquer.

Posted by G Davis | January 27, 2008 5:28 PM

"Spin won't stop us" is right. To all you HillaryBots "Yes. We Can." will always win over the fear-mongering of "false hopes."

Posted by Brian | January 27, 2008 5:34 PM

The Kennedy endorsements and the governors' endorsements are crucial. To say that Hillary's advantage has been built-in is an understatement: she is STILL shown as leading the delegate race on most "scorecards", which take into account superdelegates - delegates who haven't in fact voted and emphatically do not represent the will of the voters. Superdelegates ARE the Democratic National Committee, which has been against Obama from the start BECAUSE he threatens its members' self-appointed sinecures and undemocratic, unearned influence.

Hillary Clinton remains the candidate of that establishment. Meanwhile, those who have invested their souls in supporting that machine and do not fear the repercussions of snubbing the Clintons are beginning to voice their consciences, and those unbeholden voices are, not surprisingly, for Obama. People who want to see the Democratic Party stand for a broader purpose and not remain a private club for a limited number of interest groups will likely start paying a great deal of attention to this trend in the next two weeks. Hopefully it is not too late.

Posted by Tim | January 27, 2008 5:36 PM

Tim, I would say it goes further than the Clintons being the establishment candidates...I think it's the establishment fighting it out for its own identity.

Since Dean won the DNC chairmanship, I suspect there has been an internal battle for the real control of the party...the old school McAuliffe types -v- the new thinkers Dean types.

I think it's fairly obvious those same internal battles are going on quietly within Congress itself.

There is no way to change the nation unless these sorts of battles come to the fore ala Obama thinkers -v- the Clinton thinkers.

.
"We can no longer afford to build ourselves up by tearing someone else down. We can no longer afford to traffic in lies or fear or hate." Barack Obama

Vote hope, not fear. Vote unite, not divide and conquer.

Posted by G Davis | January 27, 2008 5:46 PM

I'm not sure that I can add anything to this interesting discussion, though I continue to be surprised at the hope-bashers. I absolutely get the fact that a lot of folks will rally to Clinton and that she is their candidate. I find it hard to find much WRONG with Obama, though, given what he has done to transform the Democratic landscape. If the only thing you can say is that "He's not Hillary", I'm not sure that's too compelling.

Anyway, while I agree that endorsements don't add much to equation, what I find most enlightening about the recent spate of endorsements, before and after S.C., is how extremely well coordinated it is. I think that it shows Obama's campaign, for the most part, is very well organized and executing a compelling and disciplined game plan. Going into super-Tuesday, Obama needs to stay on top of the spin-meisters, because no one can afford the necessary media-buys. When you combine the landslide of S.C., followed by the Kennedy endorsements and now this, he has secured the news cycle for the next three days (thirty percent of the available media space between now and Super Tuesday - not bad). When you add these endorsements to the recent Red-State endorsements, the media will begin to play the "Obama Surge" story.

Hillary complains about Obama's lack of experience. And, Obama has not always run a perfect campaign. However, when you take a look at the totality of the effort, including the ground war, it is very impressive. One of the most impressive campaigns I have seen since . . . Bill Clinton's in 1992.

Tom

When there's only nine days left, that's pretty impressive.

What has Hillary done?

Posted by Tom | January 27, 2008 5:47 PM

I think the significance of all the big endorsements of Obama is that these people are all mainstream, prominent players in Democratic politics. The fact they apparently don't see a lot of risk in endorsing Obama says a lot to me. Let's remember that some of Obama's strongest endorsements have come from Senators who know Clinton well and have to work with her every day on Senate business. And they like Obama better. It says that they believe his candidacy is indeed viable, and that they would rather go into November with Obama as their candidate.

Posted by global yokiel | January 27, 2008 5:55 PM

Who’s Electible?

Democrats concerned about regaining the White House to move this country forward may want to reconsider the conventional wisdom as to who is the most electible candidate.

1) In Iowa, with hotly contested caucuses on both sides, Obama not only won by eight points over John Edwards, but garnered more caucusers than the top four Republicans combined. Record turnout on the Democratic side boosted him to a convincing victory, even though the third place candidate, Hillary Clinton, got the numbers of die-hard Democrats out they expected to need to win. Most precincts were flooded, with two to three times as many caucusers as had ever been seen before.

2) In another predominately white state, New Hampshire, Obama lost by just five thousand votes, with most, if not all, of her margin coming from early and absentee ballots cast before Iowa. Again, Independents flocked to Obama, despite having another candidate they greatly admired (and splitting that vote) in John McCain on the other side.

3) Speaking of John McCain: Mark McKinnon, McCain’s campaign manager, has twice now pledged publicly not to work for any candidate, including his own, that is running against Obama.

4) In Michigan, where Obama and Edwards withdrew their name from the ballot (due to all candidates pledging not to campaign in states that violated the plan to have four regional small-state primaries and caucuses before the big states came out) and where write-in ballots were not counted, Hillary Clinton failed to win a delegation due to barely edging out uncommitted voters, who came out in the cold to make sure everyone knew she was not their candidate. She lost reliably Democratic Detroit- where Obama had delivered a truth-to-power speech calling for automakers to stop fighting higher fuel efficiency standards- Clinton was crushed by Uncommitted. Democrats cannot win Michigan without Detroit.

5) In Nevada, where yet another record turnout can probably be explained by the fact that their state was caucusing early for the first time, Clinton carried reliably Democratic Las Vegas, but Obama brought new voters in from northern and southern Nevada, traditionally Republican areas, winning a majority of delegates.

6) Now, in South Carolina, Obama won a ten point victory over BOTH of his opponents combined, and a nearly thirty point victory over Hillary Clinton. Again, even with Republicans having a contested election, Obama’s 55% of the vote was more than all votes cast in 2004, the previous record for Democratic turnout.

These new voters and party-crossers are coming out and getting involved for the first time in winter cold to support Obama, while Clinton and Edwards are failing to win over even majorities of reliably Democratic partisans. Those voters will join Obama in November, but will the new voters join Clinton? That is doubtful, especially with Bill Clinton continuing to try to portray Obama’s crushing victory in South Carolina as a black vote only thing. (He only got two percentage points lower than Clinton among white men, and garnered 25 % of white women’s vote in a three-way race. Clinton quickly pointed out that Jesse Jackson had also won South Carolina, deliberately ignoring Obama’s strong showing in states with negligible black populations, and the record numbers of new voters Obama brought in, including the new black voters that provided his margin of victory, with older black (and again, reliably Democratic) black voters casting ballots for Clinton.
These latest tactics are certainly alienating a core democratic constituency- as the Detroit vote shows- while bringing no one new to our party. It remains to be seen whether alienated voters would come back, or just sit on their hands or even defect to a McCain candidacy.

Posted by drew | January 27, 2008 5:58 PM

Very exciting for Obama. Don't underestimate "the clintons" war machine.Win at any cost... we saw that in action the last two weeks.
I was discusted with them and will never vote for Hillary.
Hillary spoke today like after she wins the nomination, the democrats will unite around her.
Boy is she wrong

Posted by Peter | January 27, 2008 6:00 PM

Also, folks, an endorsement puts behind the candidate the political machinery of the particular endorser. In any state, having the democratic governor's or senator's people and organization behind you can be huge. They are not just "beads" the candidates collect. That's what Hollywood is for.

Posted by Erik | January 27, 2008 6:02 PM

"The touching belief in endorsements around here has to be seen to be believed. Honestly guys. These are strings of beads all the candidates collect them. Unless they are for an organisation with muscle they are next to meaningless. I wonder if any of the Obama fans ventilating about how wonderful they are would have changed their vote to Clinton if she had been endorsed by Kennedy or Sebelius. Well? So why are hundreds of thousands of Kansans or Massachusans going to behave differently. Nice to have, might make a difference at the margin but not really material.
Posted by John Hartford | January 27, 2008 4:30 PM"

John Hartford likes to sound very clever and sophisticated compared with the naive believers on here. Yet he misses the point.

Obama's achilles heel was the "inexperience" card, and Hillary's trump card the "insider" card. A pile of endorsements wouldn't mean too much for Hillary, since it would merely reinforce her insider status, of which she already has too much.

But Ted Kennedy (and John Kerry) going for Obama shows that the party elder statesmen believe in him.

Sebelius going for Obama might make some pro-Hillary women take a second look.

These endorsements are of colossal importance for Obama. It's not about how many average voters pay attention, it's about the party chessboard, and how that might deprive Hillary of money and momentum.

Posted by GH | January 27, 2008 6:08 PM

The indorsement I'm waiting to here is one from Sen. Biden. I came to respect him so deeply during the early part of this campaign and it is evident that the thing he cares most about is this country (followed closely by the Dem. party). Even though I have pretty firmly made my decision, his endorsement, if for a different candidate, is probably the one thing that would make me stop and at least reconsider.

Posted by Elizabeth | January 27, 2008 6:09 PM

Obama Supporters,
Senator Barack has set Democratic Party on fire. There is no turning back at this point. I know the the race is far from over, but with the force moving with Obama, I think it will be difficult to stop the momentum. Furthermore, I think with Bill Clinton's racial pandering and his outstaging Hillary, it makes her look non-presidential.

We have tons of work ahead, so please stay involved with your local Obama activities.

Posted by Curtis, Jr. | January 27, 2008 6:10 PM

I love the absurd notion that this nomination somehow "belongs" to Hillary, thus putting Obama in the position of having to "win it from her." Absurd, childish rants from those who have drunk once too often from the Clinton Kool-Aid.

Let's break down that assumption, shall we?

Hillary started flirting with running for president more than a year ago. And the MSM, bored with covering Iraq or Bush or any other topic of substance, decided to concoct a new story with a narrative of their own creation - Hillary was the front runner. By the way, the "front runner" in a campaign that was still more than a year away, without any other named rivals, and based entirely on polling that showed she had little more than high name recognition. Thus armed with their fictitious narrative, our reporters from the MSM happily made up the story they wanted to cover - Hillary Clinton v. Rudy Giuliani.

Only trouble is those pesky voters just won't get in line behind their narrative. The voters have resoundingly rejected Rudy the clown and are in the process of sending Hillary packing too. Only Hillary and Bill don't know it yet.

But the American people do. We're tired of the same old lowered expectations and the same old lies and the same old politics and the same old news hacks telling us to lower our expectations and vote for the "establishment" candidate. It's all over. Time for a change - a big one.

Posted by gcs | January 27, 2008 6:12 PM

Colorado is turning towards Obama too.

Posted by Frog Leg | January 27, 2008 6:14 PM

"A pile up of Obama endorsements will be viewed by many Clinton supporters as the (mostly male) establishment coming out with its long knives against their candidate."

Un-huh. Everything is about gender and race with the Clinton campaign, isn't it? And the establishment is coming out against Hillary Clinton (the most establishment candidate to run since Walter Mondale) because she's a woman, right? And Kathleen Sebelius and Janet Napolitano have endorsed Obama because, unlike Hillary, who's relied exclusively on her husband's political skills to get elected and ignored his serial adultery in exchange for power, Sebelius and Napolitano are anti-feminists. Oprah is too. And Nancy Pelosi, who hasn't yet endorsed anyone but who everyone knows is for Obama, is as well. I guess all self-made women who have too much dignity to suffer a spouse's frequent philandering are in fact anti-woman. What a curious notion of feminism Billary supporters are peddling these days.

Posted by redrocket | January 27, 2008 6:16 PM

These endorsements are not window dressing - these people are super-delegates. Which means more real votes at the convention. HRC started out far ahead on the super-delegate count, but each of these eats away her lead.

Posted by CA Dem | January 27, 2008 6:19 PM

Please please please NO to Sebelius (or any other heretofore unheard of lightweight) for VP for Obama! He needs to disabuse the charge of being too young and inexperienced when he goes against McCain in the general, and so needs to pick a VP with some name recognition and a reputation for seriousness. Richardson would be my suggestion.

Posted by Avo | January 27, 2008 6:21 PM

Endorsements are always important for the "insurgent" candidate against the established one. The Kennedy endorsements are priceless.

Posted by KT | January 27, 2008 6:23 PM

I've been dreaming of an Obama/Sibelius ticket for several weeks. Obama should consider parting with tradition and identifying his running mate before the nomination is sewn up. An Obama/Sibelius ticket should appeal to women who are not enamored with Hillary or her husband but who don't want to miss an opportunity to make history. The first minority President paired with the first female VP and heir apparent would truly be historic. Such a gambit would capture America's imagination and could help put Obama over the top on Feb 5.

Posted by Nomad | January 27, 2008 6:25 PM

Also, after Cheney, I don't think that America needs another heavyweight VP.

Posted by Nomad | January 27, 2008 6:31 PM

Ask Jerry Brown how much the 15+% drop in the polls in NY State after he announced Jesse Jackson would be a possible running mate hurt him in 1992.

I don't think there's any profit in announcing a VP now. Once the nomination is official, and not before.

Posted by dbt | January 27, 2008 7:06 PM

The Kansas caucuses (Republican and Democratic) are days away here in Kansas. Saw my first yard-sign for anyone just today - for Obama.

In Kansas Democratic politics, Sebelius isn't just the most popular Democrat politician statewide in Kansas. She's the most popular statewide politician period. Within the last year, her approval ratings in this most conservative state has reached as high as 76 percent (although plunging after a recent, controversial decision against a coal-fired energy plant - but mainly hurting her among GOP supporters).

Her endorsement, especially as a woman, should carry a lot of weight among Kansas Democrats.

Posted by Jamesaust | January 27, 2008 7:37 PM

I dont agree with the assessment that Obama should pick Sibelius as VP. I think as excited as we are about Obama there will be many many individuals who are going to second guess his experience and knowledge. Look for endless campaign commercials from GOP on this. Chief among them (especially if he faces Sen. McCain as the GOP nominee) is National Security. My suggestion would be to seriously consider Samm Nunn, Chuck Hagel or Wes Clark. Either of those individuals would help to seal the deal. thats my two cents...

Posted by MichelleV | January 27, 2008 7:39 PM

The endorsments matter because of the super delegates. Camp Clinton have consistently said they are ahead with the delegate count because of the state and party officials they assumed were with them; a hell of a lot of those people will now move to Mr. Obama.

Posted by John Nowlan | January 27, 2008 7:50 PM

Sebelius is an interesting choice from another point of view. She's the daughter of former Ohio Gov. John J. Gilligan (1970-74), and so that will give any eventual Obama/Sebelius ticket some natural territory to mine in the delegate-rich midwest. As a catholic, she also will help outreach into that important demographic. As a woman, and as an acknowledged star to boot, she would complement the Obama focus on the future, and reassure women that rejecting the flawed Hillary is not a vote against women's aspirations.

Posted by LookingAhead | January 27, 2008 7:52 PM

If Obama were to break tradition and pick a VP before Feb 5, he could also name a prospective national security team such as Holbrooke (Secretary of State) and Hagel (Secretary of Defense) to balance the ticket's relative inexperience in security matters. The last thing we need is another highly experienced VP operating a shadow government outside the constitution. The VP should be the President's understudy, not his or her mentor.

Posted by Nomad | January 27, 2008 8:58 PM

MichelleV

Um, bad bad VP choices. First while an Obama/Hagel might be a great Unity 08 ticket -- after defeating Clinton putting a pro-lifer on the ticket would be suicide.

Clark is an overt Clintonite and a less than gifted campaigner besides - and Nunn is just too dang old.

The Obvious choice would seem to be Jim Webb. New to elected office, not decades older and like Obama was against the war from the start. O'and he has all the military cred in the world.

Mark Warner and Sebelius do seem like logical second choices though. I mean, if Clinton gets the nom and goes down, they'll be Obama's opponents in 2012.

Posted by Dirk | January 27, 2008 9:03 PM

I think Sebelius is a perfect choice. Obama, first and foremost, needs to reunite the party. Women voters need to be appeased.

The thing I most like about Sebelius is that, let me put this delicately, she's non-threatening.(yes, that is rather sexist, but it matters) She's tough, she's red-state, but nobody will ever mistake her for a hippie(she's actually kind of boring; Al Gore was boring!). She doesn't seem to be known for having a temper, or being vindictive.

In short: She's the opposite of Hillary. She's the kind of woman both men and women in the deep south could vote for and feel good about.

Posted by Abe | January 27, 2008 9:17 PM

Re: Dirk,
(Not talking about Clinton's possible VP slots. She's got a pseudo-VP anyway, and so she'd have to pick someone who won't mind being the third wheel.)
Speaking as a Virginian, I feel like I should comment on the 2 possible VA VP candidates (and I've supported both of them):

Mark Warner is running for Senate, and it's a virtually guaranteed pickup for the Democrats if he's on the ballot, Gilmore doesn't have much of a chance. So he (and the Party) won't want to sacrifice a Senate seat ripe for the taking to put him on the ballot. Yes, Liebermann campaigned for both the Senate and VP slot, but CT was a much safer race for him, and I'd be surprised if less than 5% of the VA electorate said "why make Warner the Senator when he's going to resign immediately and become the VP?" So, Warner is probably a no-go for 2008 VP. If he was running for Governor in 2009, he could back out and take the VP nod. But not if there'd only be about 1 month between him being tabbed and the Democratic Senate Primary.

Webb does have great military cred, that is true. That's why I voted for him in 2006, both primary and general. He's also got a streak of the Edwardsian economic populist in him, is that a good thing or not? I'm not sure, I don't know if that would play well. Jim Webb is also personally a bit of a loose cannon, and is capable of sticking his foot in his mouth (e.g., telling people that he was mad enough at Dubya when the two first met to consider slugging him. In fairness, I'd have been just as mad. But saying something about considering using violence in Congress...not good for civility in civil discourse). And I don't see him helping that much in Virginia, he's not well-beloved. He partially won only because Allen ran such a crappy campaign. Possible, but I'm hesitant.

I wish Biden hadn't supported the Iraq War in '03, and say that it was because of Bush's mismanagement that he thinks the war was a bad idea. Otherwise, I think he'd be a better VP candidate, filling in the national security issue and while he did have some early gaffes in his campaign, he did clean up his act afterwards. And would also probably come across a lot better in the VP debates (some of the best one-liners were from him: Are you too verbose? "No." Giuliani's three types of words, etc.). Still, he's a tempting choice, as well.

Posted by Michael | January 27, 2008 9:47 PM

Interesting assessments, all.

Regarding Sebelius as Obama's VP, I would say she is my second choice. I agree with MichelleV and LookingAhead in terms of why Sebelius would be a good choice. However, I personally think that Gov. Brian Schweitzer of Montana would be the best pick for Obama. Schweitzer is a galvanizer who can drum up support all across the Mountain West (a region that I predict will be hotly contested, as it is a growing area for us, but also a stronghold for Mitt Romney, who may be the GOP nominee). Furthermore, Schweitzer has been a true agent of change in his native Montana, implementing progressive environmental policies. He is definitely not a DINO, and, furthermore, would be a very effective "attack dog" against the Republicans. He'd be the perfect choice for Obama, providing a similarity of message along with a stark contrast in regional and ethnic background. (I should mention that Schweitzer, like Sebelius, is Catholic). An Obama/Schweitzer ticket would be a lasting legacy ticket, aiming at a viable 16 years of leadership. But, barring that, Sebelius would be a great choice, too.

Posted by The Caped Composer | January 27, 2008 9:48 PM

I just have to weigh in with admiration for the mostly sophisticated, civil, and intelligent level of discourse on this blog. People seem to be able to disagree without being disagreeable. So many other blog commenters seem to be full of ignorant vitriol. This discussion has been a good one.

Posted by Keith Hood | January 27, 2008 9:53 PM

Meet The Press addresses Clinton’s race-baiting:

Today (27/01/08), an amazing thing happened; the MTP panel confronted the Clinton’s race-baiting strategy against Obama head on. Here’s the link. Watch it for yourself. The discussion begins at around 27 minutes (after the John McCain interview).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22867810#22867810

Will the rest of the MSM follow suit?

Posted by sue | January 27, 2008 9:54 PM

Nomad:

The absolute LAST thing I'd like to see Obama do is make Holbrooke Secretary of State. He's the quintessential liberal hawk, which I think is something Obama is rightfully trying to distance himself from. Right now Obama's foreign policy team has some the best of the doves from Clinton's presidency, such as Tony Lake and Susan Rice, not to mention Samantha Power. He's largely surrounded himself with democratic foreign policy experts who had the proper judgment to see that going into Iraq was a bad idea.

There's also the fact that Holbrooke is part of Hillary's team...

Posted by bwaage | January 27, 2008 10:16 PM

Yeah, UrbanHilly, I've had enough of people taking shots at Hillary too. Get them off the frickin stage, already!

Posted by ownage | January 27, 2008 10:35 PM

Joe Biden is the obvious choice for Obama's VP. No one is perfect, but he's older (as opposed to Obama's youth), eastern, highly experienced in foreign policy and he's a good debater. The team would be unbeatable by any Repub combination.

Also, update on Obama Colorado campaign: We have a caucus Feb. 5 and boy, are we ready. Today's Denver Post poll has us up 34% to 32% over Hill, and that's before SC and Kennedy. We have 12 (yes 12)staffed Obama offices, Hill has three and Johnny Hairdo none-no factor here. Our statewide organization is awesome(many Iowa caucus vets have relocated here)and the excitement level is high. Opening of offices two weeks ago had 550 turnout in Denver and 300 in Boulder. Experts are calling Colorado even-they're wrong. Obama wins this caucus easily-and carries general in Nov.(Dem convention is here in August). Book it!

Posted by Honestjohn | January 27, 2008 11:08 PM

Another possibility for Obama: Ken Salazar.

Who would McCain pick? I'd guess Haley Barbour. He helps sew up the South and has that great post-Katrina competence story.

Posted by Jon | January 27, 2008 11:23 PM

Honestjohn, I don't really see what Biden could bring to an Obama ticket. Delaware is a safely blue state, inside of a safely blue region. Furthermore, the fact that he is older means that he could not be Obama's successor in 8 years. Carrying a crucial state/region and continuing the legacy of the president are two key components of an ideal veep. Don't get me wrong-- Biden would be a great asset to Obama . . . as Secretary of State, not VP.

Posted by The Caped Composer | January 27, 2008 11:25 PM

Jon, I would also disagree with your suggestion of Salazar, who entered the Senate at the same time Obama did (adding to the "inexperience" meme). Furthermore, if you look at Salazar's record, you'll see that he is no progressive; he is, in fact, a DINO. It's great to have him in the Senate-- Colorado is trending blue, so it's good to have a Democrat occupying the seat for the time being, to add to our overall numbers, until an even more progressive Dem can take over. (Beats the hell out of having a Republican hold the seat!) But Salazar is not national-ticket material for us, any more than, say, Susan Collins is for the Republicans.

Posted by The Caped Composer | January 27, 2008 11:28 PM

Sebelius would be a great VP for Obama. Not only is she the gov of KS, but she is the daughter of the (extremely popular) former governor of Ohio, which will be a VERY important state for Sen. Obama.

JC

Posted by John in KS | January 27, 2008 11:30 PM

Here's one more thought before I go night night....it's really cool that we are tossing around thoughts about who is going to be Obama's VP. It's happening...

Posted by John in KS | January 27, 2008 11:35 PM

Gotta love the optimism, Honest John. I hate to sound overly superstitious but do we really want to speculate about VP choices so early? Even Obama told Stephanopolous there was a lot of electioneering left to go. I agree that endorsements don't bring votes directly but they DO have value. Especially with an outsider candidate running a change campaign. Change is scary to a lot of folks and getting the respected old guard's blessing helps people get over their fear. If Obama's colleagues, whom we've known and trusted for decades, say he's qualified and ready to lead the country, that carries weight. Ideally, the Obama team would schedule a steady stream of announcements from now to June 5 -- Kennedy, Sebelius, Biden, Dodd, Carter, Gore. Yeah, I know, now I'm the one getting ahead of myself, but it would be a powerful message!

Posted by Garth | January 28, 2008 12:16 AM

Sorry, meant Feb 5 in post above. It's late!

Note: kudos to the people posting comments on this blog. I get more information and interesting commentary here. It's turning into my late night must read. Thanks.

Posted by Garth | January 28, 2008 12:20 AM

IF sen. obama becomes the nominee (I HOPE!) then he needs a governor on his ticket (i.e. that whole executive experience thing...LOL)

that's why gov. sebelius is a great choice (or gov. napolitano)

brian schwitzer (D-montana) is also a great choice

or how about this one: dave freudenthal (gov. Wyoming) that's about as red as a state could go!

Posted by aaron | January 28, 2008 12:23 AM

Winning major endorsements carries little clout UNLESS, Kennedy, Sebelius, McCaskill, Napolitano and Kerry ACTIVELY campaign for Obama.

Kennedy helped Kerry considerably in Iowa but he campaigned for him for a while.

The symbolism is important but we go into Feb 5 as underdogs and we need to turn out young people. Lets not declare mission accomplished too soon.

Posted by Yiannis | January 28, 2008 12:35 AM

I'm really surprised that no one has mentioned Hillary as Obama's VP. I truly believe that either one of them, upon winning the nomination, should offer the VP spot to the other. "Change & Experience!" Judging from the comments, a lot of people out there *really* don't like Hillary (and seriously, I don't blame you, Bill has been overtly racist recently). But a lot of people really do like her! And she could easily still be the nominee. Though I'm sure it won't happen this way, I think Clinton and Obama should tone it down and run together no matter what.

Posted by Ryan | January 28, 2008 1:15 AM

I think bill daily mayor daily brother will be his vp.

Posted by Todd | January 28, 2008 1:28 AM

About the VP...a week or so ago Obama was interviewed at length by the SF Chronicle, and he was asked to elaborate on a VP choice.

He said he'd be looking for someone with a military background, who can fill in his gaps of expertise there. He also mentioned someone with economic experience.

It sounded as if he was describing Wes Clark, who has endorsed Clinton. However, he'll need to reach out to her supporters after he wins the nomination, and what better way than to say, no hard feelings, and pick Wes Clark?

Of course I'd personally love to see KS as VP, too. I bet she'll be on the very short list, an honor in itself.

Posted by KathyF | January 28, 2008 2:40 AM

Word is that Obama has a long list of heavy hitters waiting in the wings to endorse him. They plan to roll them out slowly as we approach Super Tuesday. Obama, whatever you think of him, is a master at hitting a peak right when the crowd is ready to cheer. He's gonna do great on February 5th.

He really is the best candidate the Democratic party has had since Bobby Kennedy.

Posted by Mark F | January 28, 2008 3:57 AM

"I'm really surprised that no one has mentioned Hillary as Obama's VP"

oh, the thought of the clintons moving into the VP quarters in DC has me positively gleeful. it's an image they'll never allow to be realized, but is the grandest daydream i've had all day.

Posted by moonscape | January 28, 2008 4:10 AM

my bold

I think Sebelius is a perfect choice. Obama, first and foremost, needs to reunite the party. Women voters need to be appeased...

Gee, Abe, hate to sound unpleasant but WTF?

Posted by Elliott | January 28, 2008 6:09 AM

I'm not surprised by Mark F's comment. I have sensed a strategy in the way that the endorsements have been rolled out. The way Obama has organized his campaign has been offered by some as an answer to the "experience" question and I'm inclined to agree. The question of how to define "experience" can be argued until the cows come home. His campaign is evidence that regardless of "experience" he has excellent management skills.

Posted by Keith Hood | January 28, 2008 6:29 AM

Picking a VP is not important right now - he needs to focus on Feb 5.

Who is campaigning for Obama in California? He really needs some high profile support in these large delegate states. (Nancy Pelosci would be good in California.) Could the Sebelius do any campaigning in Ohio for him?

Posted by Ma | January 28, 2008 6:36 AM

Sebelius won't be the veep pick because (a) it's too risky to have two firsts on a ticket, and (b) she does not address the gaps in his resume -- foreign policy and national secuirty experience. Especially (b), if McCain is the GOP nominee. And history in the nuclear age makes it unlikely: No governor has been chosen as running mate since 1968 (Agnew for Nixon), and before that you have to go back to 1948 (Warren for Dewey). Governors are not in the Senate -- which the VP is president of -- and don't have the FP or defense chops, unless they have served previously in some capacity (e.g., Richardson).

Posted by Ward | January 28, 2008 9:57 AM

I've been wondering as Obama endorsements started rolling out after NH why Senators Kerry (MA), Johnson (SD), Nelson (NB), McCaskill (MO), Leahy (VT) and now Kennedy and consequential governors like Napolitano and now Sebelius have been so willing to risk Billary’s wrath. Carl Hulse’s Sunday Times article [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/us/politics/27senate.html] didn’t come close to getting at real motivations or answering the basic why-take-the-risk question. "Over-Billed," Noam Scheiber’s New Republic piece [http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=4d59656c-ac34-4e87-9fe9-9ae37b2e2653], does the reporting that answers the question. While all these endorsers have individual and personal reasons, it's clear that one they have in common is that both party and nation must move beyond the Clintons.

Posted by DMI | January 28, 2008 10:32 AM

Word of caution on Sebelius, she is not the grand orator that Obama is. I don't imaging she is going to be that big of a hit in her reply simply because she often comes across as a pained speaker. She is a very smart woman and has gotten my vote twice but she isn't quite as impressive as the accolades of her make it appear.

Posted by nate in kansas | January 28, 2008 11:53 AM

Nate, what you said is the reason I would pick Schweitzer first.

Posted by The Caped Composer | January 28, 2008 1:16 PM

Interesting thoughts here, especially about the prominent women Democrats (mostly self-made ones at that) endorsing Obama lately. All from Red or swing states. I think Napolitano is a good choice only if McCain is not on the ballot; if he is, forget about AZ and probably Colorado and NV with it. New Mexico is a possibility in that scenario. Sebelius is great, but I think she's not a good VP pick.

VPs from Virginia are a good topic of conversation. But the best candidate, I think, is the guy who hasn't been mentioned yet. Gov. Kaine. One of the first to support Obama publicly, moderate-to-conservative on many issues, but very popular in Northern Virginia, which could turn out a lot of votes for Obama and possibly swing the state. Webb would be a good choice, but two sitting senators might make some a little queasy. Governors offer good balance, and I think Obama (or Hillary, if she's the nominee) will need to run with a white Southerner or border-state person. For this reason, McCaskill would be a pretty good choice, too. Sam Nunn would be a really good choice, but he's waiting out Bloomberg to see if HE will run (Bloomberg has let on he won't if Obama is the nominee, but hasn't said the same about Hillary).

Posted by Jon Ross | January 28, 2008 2:45 PM

Ok, I'm a Kansas Democrat who wholey supports Governor Sebelius, and is thrilled to have her, but I had no idea that she was so well regarded across the country. This makes me feel good.

Now, if she also endorses Obama, I think he may actually have a chance to win my home state.

Posted by Kris | January 28, 2008 3:56 PM

One reason why Obama should go for Sebelius as VP before the nomination is that it would really put Billary on the spot. We all must know by now that Hillary is going to find it hard to have a good running mate with Bill down the corridor--flouting the rules of the Founding Fathers who decided against the idea of a co-Presidency in the Federalist papers.

Posted by bob Phillips | January 28, 2008 8:11 PM

He can't pick Hillary as VP! After such a strong campaign speaking out against special interests, he can't have someone so entrenched in special interests as his VP pick! I say Biden.

Posted by newbie | January 28, 2008 8:58 PM

The very notion that Hillary Clinton would be able to undo the harm she and her husband have done to party unity and cohesiveness if she is the Democratic Party's candidate is absurd. They have splattered themselves with every ounce of mud they have thrown and many of us life-long Democrats won't forget it. Should, through some horrible happenstance, she be the nominee, I will either sit the election out or, for the first time in my 70 plus years, vote for a Republican. The Clintons are part of a nasty and best-forgotten past: let's move on.

Posted by P Smith | January 28, 2008 9:50 PM

Throughout this post, you're assuming that Obama is that appealing. He is not appealing. He still comes across as a neophyte, green under the ears, in need of getting seasoning.

Sorry, but his time is not now.

Posted by No-way-Jose | January 29, 2008 12:00 AM

I think the high profile endorsements are great for senator Obama. He is so worthy of the accolades. He represents change and is more than qualified (both educationally and leadership wise)to take on this leadership role. I have not been so energized about an election in years. I wish him much success in the upcoming election. It is his time to shine. THE TIME IS NOW!!! He is definitely the person to reunite this divided country. I share his vision, I support his ideas and I embrace his message for change. I believe that he can get this country back on the right track and help restore all the damage that has been done by the Bush Administration. THE TIME IS NOW!!!!