Third, he is going to go after centrists and conservatives to counter attacks he is too liberal and is not going to pick a progressive on social issues.

Her response to the SOTU speech was...how to put this charitably???? - horrid.

And, if Obama selects her it will be the final nail in the coffin for many of us HRC supporters as Sebelius can't light a match to Hillary's intelligence, strength, wonkishment and experience.  

I am with those who thought her response to the SOTU speech was really bad.  

Third, he is going to go after centrists and conservatives to counter attacks he is too liberal and is not going to pick a progressive on social issues.

Well, what I do know is that Obama has painted himself into a very tight corner on this VP thing.  I think he cannot pick anyone who could even remotely be identified as the old guard, because to do so would fly in the face of Obama's "new" politics.  He just can't spend months rejecting the Washington insiders, casting them as people who cannot inspire hope or change, and then put someone on the ticket like Clark or Biden or...Hillary.

He is, after all, engaged in re-making the Party; on the Wes Clark thread, I called it Extreme Makeover - Democratic Edition; he's building a new party - and his new party wants to look nothing like the old party.

So, what does that leave him with?  How does he balance his inexperience with experience but not go old guard?  I think it leaves him with having to choose a young governor, and I think that's going to leave a lot of people feeling like he is working without a net.

She's pretty underwhelming to say the least, and she's got the charisma of a rock. But of course, as someone here mentioned yesterday, why would you (Obama) want to take someone more goodlooking (charismatic) than you to a singles party (the ticket.)

I actually think Sebelius is Kerry's female-equivalent. Proof? The SOTU Response.

Jeralyn's 3-pt argument is spot on.

watch the graceful turndowns start, as soon as he actually begins to make overtures.

Pretty words do NOT make a competent statesman.  Dems are driving their bus off a cliff constructed of pretty words from fiery speeches.  We have got to get past the stupidity of basing our opinions on what people say and start watching what they do.

Since I will not under any circumstances vote for Obama in November I don't have a dog in this hunt.  But let me remind you that it was Sibelius who exposed the dangers to states created by Bush commandeering the National Guard and losing so much of its equipment.

Recall that, when Bill Clinton ran for President in 1992, his only political experience was as a governor of a small, mostly rural, Southern state.  He had NO foreign policy experience and NO national economic or domestic policy experience.

He was running against George H. W. Bush, a sitting president who had 4 years in the Oval Office, 8 years as Vice President under Ronald Reagan, experience running the CIA, a tour as the United States representative to the United Nations, Chief of the U.S. Liaison office to China, and a two-term member of the U.S. House of Representatives.

For all his youth, Obama has more foreign policy experience going into the election than Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan combined (we'll leave Dubya out of this discussion for obvious reasons).

Experience is not, in and of itself, a virtue.  It is in large part what one learns from experience and what one accomplishes while acquiring experience that matters.  Knowledge of the complexities and histories of foreign regions, which Obama and Clinton both took into the election are far more important than, say, John McCain's experience, which is not tempered by the slightest hint of knowledge about the history and cultures of the rest of the world, the complexities of the issues facing the next president or even the current situations, as evinced by his astonishing ignorance and misstatements about Iraq and the Islamic world in general.

The American voters understood this better than the pundits and candidates when polls showed only 9% thought experience was a major consideration in their electoral choices.

I don't know that much about Governor Sebelius. I only saw her once doing the reponse to Pres Bush. I didn't have a feeling one way or the other. When I first saw Obama speak at the convention, I really did see him as one of the future leaders within the party. I saw him as VP and then on to the top spot. I figured he just needed some experience, time, and knowledge. Well, he skipped a rung or two and I still do not believe he is ready yet. I feel that he is a combination of many mentors and that is why we can not define him as to which way he will rule.

I believe there should be someone on the ticket as the VP which would complement him and be someone he could lean on and be an asset rather than a yes person. Al Gore, IMO, was a great Vice President. He would have made a great President if given the chance. He was ready.

You ask a question that has already been answered.

Webb is too Confederate; Strictland said no; Edwards and Richardson would be perceived as a betrayal to Clinton loyalists, who wants a VP with a name that sounds like ointment; frankly it doesn't matter, because the air will be let out of the bag for Clinton supporters when he doesn't pick her.

What is glaring to me is that you say, "... I do not think Obama will pick a female for his running mate."

So you think he will eliminate 50% of the human race (the better 50% in my opinion) based on gender?

All the above does not speak well about our nominee. But if you really feel he would not consider a women as his running mate, that is shocking.

"I would like somebody who knows about a bunch of stuff that I'm not as expert on," he replied. "I think a lot of people assume that might be some kind of military thing to make me look more commander-in-chief-like. Ironically, this is an area -- foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain."