Kansas’ Sebelius to back Obama — a red-state trend?

There are 28 Democratic governors in the country, and about half of them have made presidential endorsements. In a couple of days, one of the more sought-after governors is going to back Barack 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.

Sebelius’ profile is clearly on the rise, as evidenced by the SOTU response, and there’s been plenty of speculation about the Kansas governor being a strong candidate for the eventual nominee’s VP short-lists.

But in the broader context, there’s been some discussion about what the Sebelius endorsement signals. As Matt Yglesias noted, the announcement reinforces “the point that the clear sentiment among Democratic elected officials in the red areas is that a Nominee Obama or a President Obama would do more to expand the Democratic Party’s geographical reach.”

That seems true. In fact, if I were to guess without looking, I’d assume that most of Obama’s supporters are coming from red states, where Dems may be worried about the down-ballot consequences of a Clinton nomination.

But I took a closer look, and at least for now, Obama’s red-state edge is modest.

As of today, Clinton has picked up 10 gubernatorial endorsements, more than the rest of the Democratic field combined. Two of the 10 — Arkansas’ Mike Beebe and Ohio’s Ted Strickland — come from states Bush won in 2004.

Obama, once we include Sebelius in the mix, has six gubernatorial endorsements, three from states Bush won in 2004 — Kansas’ Sebelius, Virginia’s Tim Kaine, and Arizona’s Janet Napolitano.

This may continue to break Obama’s way or it may not, but as of today, three red-state governors to two isn’t a big margin.

And what about senators? Obama’s edge is a little more impressive here. HRC has 11 endorsements from Democratic senators, two from red states — Indiana’s Evan Bayh and Florida’s Bill Nelson. As of this afternoon, Obama will have eight Senate endorsements, four from red states — North Dakota’s Kent Conrad, South Dakota’s Tim Johnson, Missouri’s Claire McCaskill, and Nebraska’s Ben Nelson.

This is interesting (at least to me), but if there’s a marked trend of red-state Dems moving away from Clinton, it’s subtle, at best. Perhaps it’ll be more apparent in the coming weeks, but we’re not there yet.

What’s arguably more important, though, is the fact that so many governors and senators are backing Obama at all. I suspected early on that Clinton would get nearly all of the establishment support, if for no other reason, because no one in the establishment would want to challenge the Clinton Machine. But as of now, Obama has almost reached parity with HRC in gubernatorial and senatorial endorsements, punctuated by today’s announcement from Ted Kennedy.

Stay tuned.

2 things – (a) Can’t wait for her State of the Union response speech tonight, and (b) Obama would do good to include her at the top of potential Vice-Presidential picks

  • Yeah verily:
    On first blush the red/blue divide doesn’t seem like the issue regarding endorsers.
    Unless you frame it this way:

    Some folks in the Democratic party…
    Are smart enough now to realize that running NE liberals…
    Time and time again…
    Is a recipe for disaster.

    Unfortunately, not enough Dems have learned this lesson.
    Running a NE liberal woman candidate with a deeply-flawed, philandering husband does not change the dynamics of the situation at all.

    It only makes it much worse…

  • Looking through the list of endorsing Senators, I can’t help but notice a bunch of names I saw on another recent list last week…something about telecom immunity. Too bad the candidate’s didn’t have a heart to heart with them prior to the cloture vote on that issue.

  • ROTL,

    Hillary has flaws, we all admit that. She’s not my first choice. But for someone who adores JFK, it’s odd that you castigate Bill Clinton for his extramarital affairs. Compared to JFK, he’s an amateur adulterer.

  • Correction to this article…

    Bush did NOT WIN OHIO in 2004!

    That Kerry had it stolen from him & did not fight it does not mean that Bush won it – any more than Bush won Florida in 2000.

    Remember these words attributed to Stalin: “Those who cast the votes are not the ones who matter – it is those that count the votes that matter”.

  • This may continue to break Obama’s way or it may not, but as of today, three red-state governors to two isn’t a big margin.

    One way to look at it is that blue state governors favor Clinton 8-3 but red state governors favor Obama 3-2. That sounds like a reasonable difference.

  • Oh, boy – I can’t wait for more Blue Dog Democrats to get behind solidly progressive Obama – maybe this portends even more Blue Dogs in the Congress to keep voting for all those great things the GOP has brought us these last years. OK to wiretapping and telecom immunity and military commissions and habeas restrictions. I simply can’t wait.

    What’s that? He’s getting the real liberals, too, like Kennedy and Feingold? So they must think he’s going to be on their side of all these issues.

    What does this mean? An expanded party whose identity will end up being some wishy-washy, milquetoast, lukewarm, beige version of what a lot of us hoped would be a party that could finally run proudly and strongly on its liberal and truly progressive roots.

    I cannot tell you how depressing that is; by the time Obama gets through reaching out, Joe Lieberman will be happy to come back into the fold. Won’t that be a joyous moment for all of us? Bodes pretty well for Harry Reid to continue his reign as Senate Majority Leader, too, which makes me want to throw up.

    Republicans must be wetting their pants at the prospect of not losing an inch of the ground they’ve managed to hold onto even with a Democratic majority.

  • Sebelius is a formidable centrist, and she’s kicked ass in Red Kansas. And she’s a lame duck, so she makes a tempting VP pick I am sure. IMO she seems a little too comfortable with Republicans, but maybe that’s what we need for a proper landslide…

    On May 26, 2006, Sebelius formally announced her candidacy for re-election. Four days later, Mark Parkinson, former Kansas state GOP Party Chairman switched his party affiliation to Democratic; the following day Sebelius announced that Parkinson would be her running mate for Lieutenant Governor. Parkinson had previously served in the state House from 1991-92 and the Senate from 1993-97. Parkinson was a popular and successful GOP Party Chairman. He was viewed as a pro-business moderate who strongly supported public education. This was somewhat reminiscent of the fact that John Moore had also been a Republican, before switching just days prior to joining Sebelius as her running mate.

    She was challenged by Republican Kansas State Senator Jim Barnett. A September 1 Rasmussen poll showed Sebelius with an 11% lead over Barnett. Other polls gave Sebelius as much as a 20% lead. However, as of 2004, 50% of Kansas voters were registered Republicans, compared to 27% as registered Democrats. Sebelius, nevertheless, won a landslide re-election with 57.8% of the vote to Barnett’s 40.5%.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Sebelius

    That is a serious spanking. And maybe the fix is already in… Sebelius reportedly traveled to Istanbul last year to attend the annual Bilderberg Group meeting.

    (creepy music plays in background)

    —-

    I suspected early on that Clinton would get nearly all of the establishment support, if for no other reason, because no one in the establishment would want to challenge the Clinton Machine.

    I think the Clinton Machine has shown us that it is not what we thought it was. And without their “well-oiled machine” and their “inevitability” memes, what exactly do they offer? A popular ex-president who’s willing to tell bald faced lies to get his wife elected?

    The DLC is going down because they haven’t been interested in us. The young voters can see through the BS, and the older ones are divided. Voter turnout is huge. The young people want this election to be a choice between a guy who they can relate to, who’s been right about the war, and an old Republican who wants more disastrous wars.

    If Hillary isn’t the nominee, this election will be a bloodbath for Republicans.

  • #5 Jen I agree on Cinton vs JFK

    Clinton’s ‘affairs’ were almost pathetic, while JFKs were prolific, arrogant, and irresponsible in the extreme. Ole Joe Kennedy really messed him up.

  • Anne, if Feingold said someone was legit, I think we might do well to give him some credit. AFAIK he hasn’t endorsed anyone yet, and he had some harsh words about Edwards.

    In an interview with the Huffington Post on Thursday, Feingold restated his hesitance to endorse either Sen. Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. Both, he said, would make great presidents. The same praise was not, however, heaped upon Feingold’s former Senate colleague Edwards, whose political sincerity the Wisconsin Democrat questioned.

    “I don’t understand how somebody could vote, five or six critical votes, one way in the Senate and then make your campaign the opposite positions,” Feingold said, expanding on comments he made a week ago to the Appleton (Wisconsin) Post-Crescent. “That doesn’t give me confidence that if the person became president that they would continue the kind of policies that they are using in the Democratic primary. I’m more likely to believe what they did in the Senate.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/feingold-endorsement

  • Oh, boy – I can’t wait for more Blue Dog Democrats to get behind solidly progressive Obama…OK to wiretapping and telecom immunity… -Anne

    Obama isn’t the only candidate whose list of endorsing Senators includes Dems who gave a pass to the telecoms.

    Your comment attacks Obama for reaching out to people who already self-identify as Democrats. That’s a first. Now he’s not only bad for reaching out to independents and moderate Republicans, now he’s mad for reaching out to Democrats.

    Are you addicted to losing?

  • That big “craaack” you just heard is the dam breaking.

    Watching the Clintons get swept downstream as they struggle to find a piece of flotsam to hang onto is going to be sooooooooooo satisfying next week.

  • I’m well aware of Feingold’s comments about Edwards – and commented about them when they were made. Funny that I didn’t see where Feingold mentioned his friend Obama’s votes to keep funding the war he was so opposed to. Funny that he made no mention of Obama being only one of two Senators who missed the Kyl-Lieberman vote. And I guess it wasn’t of any particular interest to Feingold that Obama failed to have a single policy meeting of the subcommittee he co-chairs. Given that Feingold claims to be putting a lot of faith in Senate performance and votes, it renders his choice of Obama somewhat hypocritical. I realize that it’s close to heresy to suggest such a thing about Feingold…

    But Russ Feingold is free to make whatever comments and endorsements he feels appropriate, regardless of whether they make sense under the criteria he has established – I would almost have preferred to hear him say that he just liked the guy better than either Clinton or Edwards – I figure that’s how much of the rest of the population picks a nominee, and Senators and governors and those in power are not exempt from doing the same.

    I happen to think that Edwards would lead and advocate for the most progressive agenda, and I would rate Clinton behind him, with Obama bringing up the rear. So, yes, I think Clinton would likely be more progressive than Obama, and in fact, her record indicates that she is. So, laugh all you want, but it is what it is – and I’m not particularly confident that the progressive agenda is strengthened with an Obama presidency – not if he intends to keep all those cross-over, red-state voters happy enough to re-elect him in 2012.

  • Actually, why not go with a Obama-Sibelius Ticket?

    I mean, if you want to talk about taking red states away from the Republicans (hello, Dean’s 50 state strategy?) why wouldn’t you want to go after the support and maybe the participation of someone like Sibelius?

    It’s not like he’s going to pick Joe Lieberman.

  • For all tyou Billaryheads straining to find reason to dislike Obama reaching out to Senators who didn’t vote your way, I remind you what we are up against is defeating the American Right. In my book, anyone who dislikes the Righties is an ally, regardless. It’s like when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union and Churchill went to the House of Commons and announced Britain would support the USSR. People said “haven’t you spent the past 23 years trying to kill Joe Stalin?” (which he had indeed) Churchill replied: “If Hitler invaded Hell, I would at least have a good word for the Devil.”

    Having watched the purists fuck up the Democratic Party 30 years ago (when I was one of them), and seeing the result of the purists fucking up the Republican Party, I now have an aversion to the pre-adolescent belief in “ideological purity.” Look at history going back to the English Revolution to see how wrong you have been every time.

    I want a biiiiiiiiiiig victory, because to face what we are going to face in the next 4 years – particularly climate change – we are going to need everyone we can get manning the oars.

  • Two versus three or two versus four is a “marked trend?” C’mon CB. I know you like the guy, but that’s really a bit of a reach.

    Seriously, CB. I know you like the guy but if you flipped a coin five times and it came up heads three times and tails two, would you call that a “trend?” I actually just tried it myself and got four heads and one tails even though I happen to know that in this particular case, the probability of either outcome is precisely 0.5.

  • I’m not attacking anyone, much less Obama for reaching out to self-identified Democrats. What I am doing is questioning what it means for a progressive agenda, and like it or not, it’s a fair question.

    As for whether I am addicted to losing – that’s kind of a silly question.

    What I would ask you is what you think it means to a progressive – liberal – agenda that a number of self-identified Democrats, who have been reliable votes for the GOP, are endorsing Obama. Are they leaving their conservative-minded leanings behind because Obama has brought them over to the progressive side? Or are they bringing those conservative leanings (I do realize that they are already in the party, but bear with me) expecting that there is a much greater chance of their perspective getting more of a hearing and more advocacy from an Obama presidency?

    When I “endorse” a candidate by deciding to vote for him or her, I know that my voice will only be one of many, and while I would hope to have a figurative seat at the table, I won’t have a literal one. Many of those in the Congress or in state offices will. They will have positions in a Cabinet or in an agency or department, places where they will have seats at the table, and access to and the ear of the president, and their views and their ideology will have an effect on policies that affect all of us. Think about the effect that those who contributed to and endorsed and supported Bush have had on life in these United States, and I think you might be able to see the legitimacy of the question.

    It still is not clear to me whether Obama will be thanking conservative Democrats, moderate Republicans and independents for helping him win, after which he will dust off his hands and say, “okay – now for that progressive agenda,” leaving a lot of very dissatisfied voters, or if he intends to water down the progressive agenda because he now has the support of those who would not ordinarily be expected to get behind a “liberal” Democrat, and he will have to give them something?

    What is he willing to compromise on? What are the things he is not willing to triangulate away?

  • Anne, those are all fair questions. But they need to be asked of any presumptive nominee, not just Obama.

    But I’m of the opinion — and I’m guessing there are plenty of others that’d agree with me — that the Clintons who gave us welfare reform (i.e., Screw Poor People), NAFTA (i.e., Screw Manufacturing and Industry) , and Greenspanian perpetual asset bubble formation (i.e., pre-Bush tech and dot.com bubbles) would be far more likely to short-change real progressive reforms than Obama.

  • CB:

    This is interesting (at least to me), but if there’s a marked trend of red-state Dems moving away from Clinton, it’s subtle, at best. Perhaps it’ll be more apparent in the coming weeks, but we’re not there yet.

    CalD:

    Two versus three or two versus four is a “marked trend?” C’mon CB. I know you like the guy, but that’s really a bit of a reach.

    I don’t know if you need a proofreader…
    But I definitely think you need to brush on your critical reading skills.

  • Anne,

    I think you ask questions and raise concerns in comment 20 that are very valid, but your comment at number 8 seemed to imply that Obama was the only candidate who has support from some of recent disappoints concerning telecom immunity and that it was a mistake to garner the support of more conservative Democrats.

    I agree with you that Edwards would probably push the most progressive agenda of any of the remaining Democratic candidates, but because of that I also rate him as the least able to win in November.

    The only reason I asked if you were addicted to losing is because, no matter who the nominee is, they will need the support of all the different flavors of Democrats along with independents, and yes, probably some Republicans looking for a new way. If progressives try to forge ahead without any support, we will continue to be perennial losers, and at this point I’d rather have some than none.

  • Anne – when you make the leap from rock-star Sebelius = red state = blue dog = joe lieberman, you may be getting a tad ahead of yourself.

    Obama doesn’t have to “water down” his already progressive agenda – people endorsing him also endorsed his policy agenda available on his website. So it’s up to them to stick to Obama.

    As for the “Obama bringing up the rear”, in my mind the entire domestic agenda depends on a smarter foreign policy – here’s a handy guide to comparing the three candidates’ foreign policy. It is an absolute must-read for Democratic primary voters.

    http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/25/6613/

  • doubtful – I just wish there were a good way to hold the perennially disappointing Blue Dogs accountable, especially those Senators who aren’t up for re-election, and I suppose it grates on me a little – a lot? – that what may be in store for them are the rewards that come with helping elect a president.

    I understand that neither party can win with only the votes of their base; if you saw zeitgeist’s great comment from yesterday where he wrote about the big tent, and how it is hard for those of us who have been loyal to liberal ideals to see those who have done nothing to help in that effort get all the attention, that pretty accurately described my own feelings. It sure seems like we have been gritting our teeth as, on issue after issue – ones where we are right, dammit – we’ve seen little pieces and big pieces and important elements go flying out the window in order to claim some sort of hollow legislative victory. I know I’m not the only one who’s tired of that, and feeling like, after years of seeing that it really hasn’t gotten us very far, and the country is not better for ir, we ought to at least have the chance to do it our way and see what happens.

    Frustration is what you’re reading from me more than anything else.

  • Ohioan – I actually like Sebelius, and it was not my intention to make her the target of my rant – but the names I am seeing a lot of are the ones we tend to see on the “voted with Republicans” list over and over again.

    I think my response to doubtful explains it pretty well.

  • I just wish there were a good way to hold the perennially disappointing Blue Dogs accountable… -Anne

    I completely understand that sentiment. I was all for ousting Lieberman from the Party, and remember, I’m staunchly opposed to voting for Clinton because she had enough faith in Bush to vote for his war. I also just happily voted against my incumbent DINO for a primary challenger. I’m all about holding people accountable, I’m just trying to temper my own drive for idealistic purity with realistic expectations about what it will take to win in November.

  • I suspected early on that Clinton would get nearly all of the establishment support, if for no other reason, because no one in the establishment would want to challenge the Clinton Machine. But as of now, Obama has almost reached parity with HRC in gubernatorial and senatorial endorsements, punctuated by today’s announcement from Ted Kennedy.

    The big change in the field post-SC is that Obama is now obviously an “establishment candidate”. I think he was acceptable to the establishment all along, but they didn’t think he could win it (young, lacking ‘experience’, little name recognition, etc.) so they didn’t want to stick their necks out. Clinton was the default establishment candidate because she had the machine that could provide the dollars. I mean seriously – is there anything about Obama that the elites in the Dem party wouldn’t like? You can’t knock his positions – nice moderate “middle-of-the-road” positions the Dems have been flogging since Clinton won in ’92 and the Dems lost the Congress in ’96 (and almost indistinguishable from “establishment candidate” Hillary Clinton’s positions anyway). You can’t knock his rhetoric – he has that same “both sides are wrong” mixed with “I have a new vision for government” rhetoric that the Dems have been flogging since Clinton won in ’92. And he’s part of the Senate already – making him not-a-very-outside outsider.

    Well now we have two establishment candidates for the Dem party. And over on the GOP side it seems to be coming down to McCain vs. Romney – two other establishment candidates. It’s starting to feel like an election year again.

  • If Obama did pick Sebelius for his VP, chances are we would have our first female President in ’16, no?

  • For what it’s worth, more than two-thirds of the Democrats in the Idaho State Legislature have endorsed Obama, as has the mayor of Boise. This in one of the reddest states …

  • I don’t know if you need a proofreader… But I definitely think you need to brush on your critical reading skills.

    CB: That was the sentence I meant to delete (hence, the proofreader comment) having initially, and perhaps understandably, misread your carefully parsed comment implying the suggestion of the existence of a trend, while tiptoeing around actually suggesting the existence of a trend. How’s that for critical reading? Better?

    But I have to admit that the headline, “Kansas’ Sebelius to back Obama — a red-state trend?” was just a bit of a tip-off regarding the intent of the article. So it really wasn’t as impressive a feat of deduction as all that.

  • Frighteningly weak democratic response. After seven years of seeing the Bush administration destroy our country this is what we get from the Democrats!! I was completely dumbfucked. Seems more like complicity than a response. “Lets all work together and see if we can continue slipping it to them. … Love your hair—see you at the cape”…

  • Sebelius as first female pres? Wow, that would actually be exciting b/c she would not have had to ride the coat-tails of “her man” into the White House (after being a “co-president” to her husband first). She seems very impressive in her own right.

  • I beleive its time to show the true Obama for what he is . He doesn;t say the pledge and turns his back on our flag . To top it all off if elected the mormons will have won including the teroitists and with an exucitive order can take down the flag flying over the state house a raise the morman. In their book ir says kill all the infidels, which is everbody that does not belong to their belif and who we are fighting in Iraq

  • Comments are closed.