I went to bed last night before I could do a roundup, so much of this stuff is from yesterday.
* * *
Is Israel responsible for the OWS crackdowns? No. But is Max Blumenthal lying about his sources? In all likelihood, yes.
Jeffrey Goldberg agrees with Peter Beinart that the settlements are slowly making a "one-state solution" inevitable, and if Israel wants to survive, it has to muster the balls to cut them loose.
11th Circuit decides that discrimination on basis of transgender status is sex discrimination. Arch-conservative Judge Bill Pryor surprises by joining the opinion.
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius' overruling of the FDA on P;an B is a complete and utter disgrace.
Palestinian poet successfully gets Jewish Israeli Arab writer booted from a panel.
Tim Kaine and George Allen are already trading shots as they chase Virginia's open Senate seat.
Finally, someone from Berkeley has linked through Facebook to my discussion of their JSU's appalling decision to exclude J Street. I'm just curious about the context (is it someone's wall, or is it a Facebook page for one of the relevant orgs?). So if someone knows and wants to drop a comment to satiate my curiosity, I'd be grateful [UPDATE: Mystery solved, I think!].
Showing posts with label Kathleen Sebelius. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kathleen Sebelius. Show all posts
Thursday, December 08, 2011
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Sebelius' Big Moment
Everyone who saw her seems to agree:
1) The speech was pretty weak,
2) It's really hard to deliver an effective SOTU rebuttal,
3) We should give her a chance in other, less stacked contexts.
I particularly agree with Kevin Drum: She was trying to sound like Barack Obama, and failing miserably at it.
1) The speech was pretty weak,
2) It's really hard to deliver an effective SOTU rebuttal,
3) We should give her a chance in other, less stacked contexts.
I particularly agree with Kevin Drum: She was trying to sound like Barack Obama, and failing miserably at it.
Monday, January 28, 2008
The Pieces Fall into Place
After delivering the State of the Union response, Kansas Governor and Democratic rising star Kathleen Sebelius will endorse Barack Obama for President.
It's part of an overall good swing of endorsements for Obama, including Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA), the highest ranking Latino House member. The latter is particularly significant because Obama has shown some weakness among the Latino vote.
But Sebelius is not just a particularly talented Democratic governor, or even another notch in a flurry of recent Obama endorsements. She's a red-state governor, and more importantly, a red-state governor with a knack for flipping Republicans to the Democratic Party. She fits exceptionally well with Obama's post-partisan campaign style, and would make a stellar Vice Presidential pick. With this endorsement, that chatter will only get louder.
It's part of an overall good swing of endorsements for Obama, including Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA), the highest ranking Latino House member. The latter is particularly significant because Obama has shown some weakness among the Latino vote.
But Sebelius is not just a particularly talented Democratic governor, or even another notch in a flurry of recent Obama endorsements. She's a red-state governor, and more importantly, a red-state governor with a knack for flipping Republicans to the Democratic Party. She fits exceptionally well with Obama's post-partisan campaign style, and would make a stellar Vice Presidential pick. With this endorsement, that chatter will only get louder.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Flipper
Noting her unique talent for convincing high-profile Republicans to switch to the side of the light, Ezra Klein pitches Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius as a good VP candidate for Barack Obama. The change motif, the ability to latch on to disaffected moderate Republicans uncomfortable with their party's extreme lurch to the right (e.g., Kathryn Lopez's remark that John McCain's opposition to waterboarding means he's "not one of us"), her status as a female governor from a state not generally seen as Democratic territory, all would synergize very well with an Obama campaign.
All good points, and perhaps controlling. But I do still worry about the narrative it will inevitably create if Barack Obama picks a female running mate. It doesn't matter that Sebelius is supremely qualified, fits well with Obama's message, and tactically comes from a region of the country that balances Obama's ticket (the plains states won't be competitive even with Sebelius on the ballot, but it's important to have a VP candidate that doesn't hail from a deep blue Democratic metropolis). Inevitably, it will be seen as pandering to the female vote which was scorned by Obama defeating Clinton; an "affirmative action" pick.
But then, the more coverage like that we see, the more satisfying it will be when we beat it.
All good points, and perhaps controlling. But I do still worry about the narrative it will inevitably create if Barack Obama picks a female running mate. It doesn't matter that Sebelius is supremely qualified, fits well with Obama's message, and tactically comes from a region of the country that balances Obama's ticket (the plains states won't be competitive even with Sebelius on the ballot, but it's important to have a VP candidate that doesn't hail from a deep blue Democratic metropolis). Inevitably, it will be seen as pandering to the female vote which was scorned by Obama defeating Clinton; an "affirmative action" pick.
But then, the more coverage like that we see, the more satisfying it will be when we beat it.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Extra-Diverse Democrats?
Commenting on early Democratic VP speculation, The Garance articulates the conventional wisdom that neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton will put "additional" diversity on their ticket. This, I think, is true, but not necessarily for the reason Garance says. She argues that the ideal Democratic VP candidate is someone from a swing-state who can deliver those extra electoral votes. Wesley Clark, for example, fits the profile because he's "white, Southern, military, and from the potentially swingable (for a Clinton) state of Arkansas" (although Garance thinks worries about Clark's campaign skills may sink him).
Back in 2004, I recalled reading an article about VP selection that argued that so-called "balancing the ticket" is over-rated. It doesn't matter as much to make sure that the south is represented on the Democratic ballot. Rather, what matters is the "narrative" that the newly created ticket presents. What story will the media write about the selection? Selecting a VP is an opportunity to create a positive media theme around your campaign, or diffuse a negative meme. And of course, an unwary candidate can unwittingly construct a very negative image of their campaign. For example, if Hillary Clinton doesn't select someone who can claim some serious military credentials, it will undoubtedly feed into the stock narrative that she's intolerable to (or worse, has written off) the armed forces. (Incidentally, this example shows another truth about media narratives -- they don't have to be true. The idea that Hillary is anti-military is utterly ridiculous, but so long as it's a "perception" it can be written about, and thus reinforced, indefinitely).
Of course, regional balancing cannot entirely be divorced from narrative construction, if for no other reason than that it's been so drummed into us that tickets are supposed to have geographic balance that refusing to do that is a story in of itself. But that doesn't explain why Clinton or Obama couldn't select a female VP from the "appropriate" region. For example, Governors Kathleen Sebelius (KS) and Janet Napolitano (AZ) would seem to fit inside the geographic story just fine (and Napolitano could arguably put Arizona in play). And, to be sure, I've heard both of their names bandied about -- just not for Clinton (or really, Obama).
The reason is that there is a very predictable media narrative that will form if two members of politically underrepresented groups appear on the Democratic ticket. One person is ground-breaking and history-making. Two people, by contrast, is an "affirmative action" choice and proof the Democrats are in thrall to "interest groups." If Obama picks a woman, it will undoubtedly be cast as "appeasing" women's groups who were ready to see Clinton break the ultimate glass ceiling. If Clinton picks a Black running mate, same thing, except replace NOW with the NAACP. This is what Derrick Bell calls the unspoken limit on affirmative action. Even if at first the diversity is applauded, at some point folks will start getting uncomfortable with too many women or people of color. A presidential ticket that doesn't include a White male is virtually inconceivable, and it's equally inconceivable that the media won't make heavy note of that fact in the unlikely instance it comes into being.
Back in 2004, I recalled reading an article about VP selection that argued that so-called "balancing the ticket" is over-rated. It doesn't matter as much to make sure that the south is represented on the Democratic ballot. Rather, what matters is the "narrative" that the newly created ticket presents. What story will the media write about the selection? Selecting a VP is an opportunity to create a positive media theme around your campaign, or diffuse a negative meme. And of course, an unwary candidate can unwittingly construct a very negative image of their campaign. For example, if Hillary Clinton doesn't select someone who can claim some serious military credentials, it will undoubtedly feed into the stock narrative that she's intolerable to (or worse, has written off) the armed forces. (Incidentally, this example shows another truth about media narratives -- they don't have to be true. The idea that Hillary is anti-military is utterly ridiculous, but so long as it's a "perception" it can be written about, and thus reinforced, indefinitely).
Of course, regional balancing cannot entirely be divorced from narrative construction, if for no other reason than that it's been so drummed into us that tickets are supposed to have geographic balance that refusing to do that is a story in of itself. But that doesn't explain why Clinton or Obama couldn't select a female VP from the "appropriate" region. For example, Governors Kathleen Sebelius (KS) and Janet Napolitano (AZ) would seem to fit inside the geographic story just fine (and Napolitano could arguably put Arizona in play). And, to be sure, I've heard both of their names bandied about -- just not for Clinton (or really, Obama).
The reason is that there is a very predictable media narrative that will form if two members of politically underrepresented groups appear on the Democratic ticket. One person is ground-breaking and history-making. Two people, by contrast, is an "affirmative action" choice and proof the Democrats are in thrall to "interest groups." If Obama picks a woman, it will undoubtedly be cast as "appeasing" women's groups who were ready to see Clinton break the ultimate glass ceiling. If Clinton picks a Black running mate, same thing, except replace NOW with the NAACP. This is what Derrick Bell calls the unspoken limit on affirmative action. Even if at first the diversity is applauded, at some point folks will start getting uncomfortable with too many women or people of color. A presidential ticket that doesn't include a White male is virtually inconceivable, and it's equally inconceivable that the media won't make heavy note of that fact in the unlikely instance it comes into being.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
