This Is Our Woman

Let me update some old calculations and say that Obama's VP has at least a 20% chance of becoming the 2016 Democratic nominee. Obama has a 60% chance of winning the presidency according to Intrade (I think that's a low estimate). Give him a 50% shot at re-election and give his VP a 2/3 chance of winning the nomination (a young enough VP is usually a shoo-in) and you get a 20% chance of that person being president. So while I'm reluctant to take Stephen's beloved governor away from him, I'll remind him that it's an investment that could pay off in a president eight years down the line. You don't want this power going to Evan Bayh or Tim Kaine.

I'm astonished by the number of national progressive issues on which Kathleen Sebelius kept picking fights as Governor of Kansas. I'm even more astonished by her amazing record of winning those fights. She was the first governor in America to object to a coal plant in her state on climate change grounds. She blocked the coal plant with a veto that the state House failed to override and got money to set up wind power. She blocked a health insurance merger that would've cost Kansans an additional $248 million in premiums over five years. She successfully vetoed anti-abortion legislation (the override attempt failed by two votes in the House) and wasn't afraid to have a doctor who performed abortions over for dinner after he won a raffle. And while it's hard for a governor to take on the Iraq War, she managed to attack Bush for taking the Kansas National Guard to Iraq when she needed them to deal with tornadoes.

That picture up top, by the way, is Sebelius signing Sudan divestment legislation. What does this woman not do?

Comments

[nimh]

Is that the interns there on the right of the picture? :-)

[Shock Mouse]

Slight math adjustment:

Sebellius has at LEAST a 20% chance of becoming the nominee in 2016. Not only do you underestimate Obama's re-elect chance (always better than 50%), but I think the chance for a VP to get the nomination if they want it is much higher than 2/3.

Additionally: If Obama loses the election, the VP nod is certainly helpful for launching a national campaign later. Even bigger possibility: If Obama wins the election, there is at least a 15% chance (judging by the past presidency) that he will not fill his two terms, in which case the VP becomes P and is pretty darn certain to be the nominee. (Note there's a 4% chance according to Intrade that neither McCain nor Obama wins the election, which is quite rational really. The VP becoming P is a significant part of that).

Overall, if Obama picks Sebellius as his VP (or anyone else who wants it), I'd say there's a 60-70% probability she will be the nominee some day.

However, if she stays in Kansas, she stays a cool Governor, and very possibly a Senator from Kansas in 2010 (which would be a huge gain over Brownback).

[Mike B.]

What's even more astonishing: that people still think she's essentially conservative. (Said people are often trying to tout candidates who are avowedly pro-life, pro-war, or otherwise totally wrong for the ticket.)

[Paul]

I hate to rain on parades...but I suspect that Sen. Obama is going to "play it safe" and nominate a nice white bread WASP male (Bayh is the exemplar of this thought).

And it won't matter because the country will be scared into voting for Sen. McCain instead.

God help us.

[Jackson]

Her State of the Union response was horrible. Wes Clark seems to be a better choice.

[Neil the Ethical Werewolf]

nimh, that's the more college-campus side of the Sudan divestment effort.

Shock Mouse, your first point is now noted above.

Are people really thinking that, Mike? Then I've got some work to do.

Paul, you forgot about vacuum metastability disaster, which is going to wipe us all out in September before the election.

Jackson, Wes Clark doesn't know how the interview format works, which is why he keeps getting in trouble when he does them.

Now I am going to bed. In Singapore.

[ari]

Jackson, other than Jim Webb's, can you name a powerful -- and relatively recent -- rejoinder to the State of the Union? It's a very hard job. And very few people do it well. Give that, disqualifying the best person for an important job because she did another job, a job that's less important and also not related to the job for which you're hiring, less well than you'd like but about as well as most very talented people do that other unrelated and less important job, well, that's kind of silly.* Also, being boring as vice president is no crime. In fact, some might say it's a virtue. She's clearly a very persuasive person. And she's an excellent governor. All of that said, the best argument against her seems to be Neil's endorsement -- given his track record.

* Please read this sentence as though the syntax and punctuation make any sense at all. Thanks.

[Neil the Ethical Werewolf]

Is "Neil's endorsement" going to become some kind of double entendre now? Like, "She was getting real flirty and I don't know where they went afterwards... oh, and I hear that she got Neil's endorsement."

Okay, really going to bed now.

[litbrit]

This is Our Woman

Damned straight.

I hope so, Neil, I really hope so. Sweet dreams, my friend! (The Obama people are supposed to text me the moment he chooses his veep, so I'll let all you outsiders know then...wait, you all got that email, too?)

[Josh R.]

Her State of the Union response was horrible. Wes Clark seems to be a better choice.

I see this a lot, but two things spring to mind:

a.) After the McCain kerfuffle earlier this year, the chances that Clark is the VP choice have to close to nil.

b.) What exactly has he done that makes him a better choice than Sebelius? Other than have some stars on his suit?

[Crissa]

Okay, okay, she's a great choice.

But still, I say she isn't well known on the national scene, but personally, for any of the reasons you'd choose her - that she's brave and more progressive than Obama - would be a reason to pick someone who actually campaigned for the position and put their neck out there.

[Lisa Simeone]

I'd like her better if she could compose something as good as Finlandia. Maybe Kanslandia? Or how about the Swan of Wichita? Or the Leavenworth Suite? Perhaps a tone poem -- Emporia?

Actually, I think she might bring a lot of female Hillary supporters on board. Then again, I don't believe people vote based on VPs anyway.

[Joe Klein's conscience]

Mike B.:
If people are fooled into thinking she is conservative, that is a good thing. She obviously has a lot better record than Kaine. Look at Edwards when he was in the race. People thought he was the most conservative guy in the race, where as Clinton was thought the most left. It is funny given the language they both used in the primary.

[litbrit]

Lisa--good one(s)!

The Swan of Wichita is especially lovely, since we could all refer to our new veep that way (and I like the way Wichita sounds over Topeka). I wonder how many handfuls of Rethugs would get it, though. They have serious anti-elitist issues with all them Furriner Composers.

The Maiden in the White House. YEAH!

[litbrit]

Also, I'm going to go out on a limb here and bet you or anyone else a nice bottle of Brunello that Governor Sebelius will not suddenly have to step down or rationalize apologize for having had an extra-marital affair with one of her employees or interns.

Any takers? :-)

[litbrit]

(Not that she isn't an attractive woman, of course. You know what I mean.)

[Corvus9]

My gut is still saying Sebelius. Fuck Evan Bayh. That's all posturing, trying to ease the DLC wing before going another way (Sebelius). Obama has consistently denied the DLC, has tried to avoid even the appearance of membership. He will not pick their former president as VP.

And honestly, no one else has said this, so it's very possible I am missing something, but I think it would be very wise for him to pick a (white) woman, especially if he announces before McCain. If Obama picks some staid white guy, McCain, in his intemperance, just might lurch and pick a woman as his VP trying to cut into the obvious feminist/identity votes and win some woman votes that would otherwise go Obama. Obama is likely aware what a flighty twit McCain is by now, and understands this risk.

And shit, she's the governor of Kansas. Center of the Country. The Heartland. There is just great symbolism to picking her, beyond her accomplishments. Way better than picking the governor of Minnesota or something. (This should help with the recognition factor. People might not know Sebelius, but they know what Governor of Kansas means.)

And I still don't see any possible way, in a universe following the laws of physics, and without America actually being constituted to a majority by inhumane, senseless scum, McCain winning the election. As his response to the Georgia/Russia conflict has made plain, The man is a danger to the world in a way that not even George Bush is. He is truly temperamentally unfit for the presidency. If he wins, I want to move to Ireland. Because America will have proved it is not worth saving, and if Ragnarok must come, I want to die with a Guinness in my hand.

[ari]

litbrit, I think I know what you mean. But I'd love it if you'd elaborate. Because, you see, I recently spent part of a lunch with a colleague wondering why there have been no high-profile sex scandals involving women in government -- at least none that we could think of. So, we're left with the obvious and unanswered question: why? One wouldn't want to make an essentialist argument and say that women don't have the same, er, drive as their male counterparts. So then, cultural constraints? Maybe that's it. Or maybe our sample size hasn't yet grown large enough to provide the data we need. Or maybe the press isn't as dogged about digging for dirt on female politicians. Which, if that's true, could be because of prevalent sexism. Or maybe there's another explanation entirely.

Hmm, maybe this isn't that interesting after all.

[Sir Charles]

I'm not admitting anything.

Kathleen call me!

[jacqueline]

i am hoping for sebelius too!
we will know soon enough!

[Sir Charles]

By the looks of my mid-section, I may be bearing your love child.

[Stephen]

It is with a heavy heart that I, heroically placing country over state, hereby offer my assent and even endorsement of Kathleen Sebelius as the Democratic Party's Vice Presidential nominee.

It'll hurt, but sometimes we have to take one for the team. FWIW, it'll put Kansas into serious contention. McCain just isn't a Kansas kind of conservative, and we like our Governor. For that matter, Missourians along the state line tend to like her as well, which might help give a little bit extra push in that state.

Also, while VPs can be everything from purely ceremonial to the real President, Obama would be wise to choose her and make her his liason to Congress. She simply gets things done, things she should have no business accomplishing in Kansas. SOTU responses are irrelevant; she's a behind-the-scenes master.

[ari]

she's a behind-the-scenes master

I've heard this at least a thousand times. But I can't tell, in this context, if you're responding to Litbrit's point. And now I can't tell, in this context, if I've crossed a line. I guess we'll see.

[KathyF]

I love her.

[Lisa Simeone]

Litbrit will surely be over here to respond when she gets a chance. She and I and every other woman I know have observed this and discussed this enough times that we know it by rote.

But in a nutshell, ari, even taking into account sample size, sexism, press-digging, species sex-drive, and all the what-have-yous, men in general have more flings, married or not, than women. It was ever thus, and it ever will be. Yes, we're catching up because of the loosening of cultural restrictions. And of course it's only a matter of time before some woman somewhere is caught getting it on with some political operative in an extramarital affair. But the numbers are just never going to be the same for women as for men. It's just a fact.

[Matt Weiner]

men in general have more flings, married or not, than women

If we're talking heterosexuals, and if a fling on one side is a fling on the other, I don't think this is possible. But what is stereotypically true (channeling Maureen Dowd, will have to shower afterwards) is that more powerful men have flings with less powerful women. Which would make it less likely for powerful women to get involved in sex scandals. Possible confirmation: I vaguely remembered something about a senator's enemies trying to gin up something about her relationship with a lobbyist, but it turns out that they started dating when she was his twentysomething employee, and there's about no evidence that the romantic relationship continued to the point where it was in any way illicit. The business-as-usual lobbying relationship, well....

[Stephen]

But I can't tell, in this context, if you're responding to Litbrit's point. And now I can't tell, in this context, if I've crossed a line.

What happens in Kansas, stays in Kansas, baby.

[has_te]

PLUS...she's a ringer for Mary Stuart Masterson.
I'm so-o in love.

[spinkbottle]

Corvus9, I hope you are correct, because as much as I'd like to, I can't afford to move to Ireland.

[litbrit]

But I'd love it if you'd elaborate.

Ari, I could (and should) write an entire post on this--make that an entire series of posts--and still not get to one simple, straightforward answer.

But I can sort of sum it up thus: testosterone.

And to back up and expand on that a bit, I'll say this, for now, since it's late and I am wiped out from doing the bidding of my three charges. Young males, all.

First, women have testosterone too, and we also have sex drives. Yes, those differ from person to person, and from day to day, just as they do with men. But it always amuses me when men, while discussing (yet another) male politician's philandering versus the relatively virtuous behavior of females in power--or females of any sort, really--wind up postulating that women have low sex drives, or don't like or want sex.

Hahahahaha! Er, no. We do, and we do. So it's not that.

And yes, the sample size of women pols is small, and we should take into account that women in positions of power got there by doing everything men do, only backwards and in high heels, to paraphrase Ginger Rogers, and I'd add that we've customarily been paid .70 cents on the dollar for it, too. So, having worked like crazy in order to just be on a par with our gentlemen counterparts, we're probably going to be rather less inclined to risk our hard-won position and success for a roll in the hay, even if said hay was located in George Clooney's barn.

Which brings me to the core of what I'm getting at: in a general sense (so don't you guys take this personally--I'm not attacking you), from what I've observed in my medium-long life, men are more given to risk taking, and more impulsive about taking such risks without considering consequences. And if you'll forgive the weasel-word, I think many of these cheating sorts have a seriously overdeveloped sense of entitlement: I work hard, my wife is always working so much--or too busy with the three/four/five children--I deserve some pleasure, damn it..

So off they go with the lady of the moment, believing (maybe even sincerely believing) that they won't get caught, so what's the harm?

Whereas, I believe, women--and again, I refer to all of us, but most saliently women in positions of power once restricted to Men Only--are more likely to make choices based on the totality of the situation, considering not only the shapely physique, the intoxicating scent, the smooth words, and the wicked wit of a potential fling-mate, but also the inevitable Oh Shit, What Have I Done And Will This Get Out moment to follow the sexytime and the awful reality of what will happen, and who will be hurt (spouse, children, career) if and when the infidelity is discovered.

And finally, there is the sex itself. On this I can only speak for my girlfriends and myself: once past the age of college sportfucking, we prefer a more holistic experience, which is not to say we'd necessarily require a lifetime commitment from a partner, but intimacy, to our minds, is something that occurs on more than just a physical level. When news of the Edwards affair was all over the place, my Dearly Beloved had this to say: "So what? It's just sex. And you, Deborah, have no idea what went on in their marriage. You don't know if Elizabeth's illness or medications were making her really grouchy or unpleasant and she drove him to look for it elsewhere."

To me, that attitude is incomprehensible. Vive La Difference, indeed. But now I'll quote an old Eagles song: You see it your way; I see it mine.

[Lisa Simeone]

Totally agree about testosterone. It is indeed the best one-word answer for any male behavior.

(I think we should decree that every man gets a monthly shot of estrogen. The world would be a safer, less violent place.)

[Neil the Ethical Werewolf]

I think we should decree that every man gets a monthly shot of estrogen. The world would be a safer, less violent place

Yes, because men would spend all day fascinated with their new boobs and not leave the house to commit crimes.

[Lisa Simeone]

And then I could counsel them on properly fitting bras, a subject at which I excel! (Peter Sagal calls me "NPR's Lingerie Correspondent")

[litbrit]

Ha! Suddenly every beach in America is a topless one.