I agree with Dem strategist Steve McMahon who said on Hardball yesterday that national security experience is going to be much too important to Obama's choice of VP for Sebelius to be seriously considered.

And what is Hillary's foreign policy experience?

It puzzles me to hear people automatically dismiss the idea of Clinton as VP.

Why would it puzzle anyone that people who frequent a blog started by someone who wrote a book on overthrowing the Democratic Establishment don't want the embodiment of that establishment on Obama's ticket?

I was considering those who voted for Hillary due to gender (such as my wife). If you would consider Sibelius or Napolitano a slap, then I suspect no one BUT Hillary would satisfy you.

I despised Kerry in 2004. I even despised the guy he chose for his VP. But I voted for them in November for obvious reasons.

Certainly her dud of a State of the Union response alone should disqualify her as not ready for prime time

Bill Clinton's keynote speech at the 1988 Democratic convention was called a dud. We all know how that turned out.

Try harder, Todd. I'm sure you can find a substantive reason to oppose her somewhere on the internet.

But you overlooked the apparent fact that many people support Hillary largely because of her gender, and Sibelius or Napolitano would appeal to them  -- and even some Republican women probably.

Cherries lose their appeal when they're picked every day.

Does any Hillary fan really wish Obama had dumped $10M into WV, barnstormed the state, and cut her poll lead to 10%?

Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth.

Whatever you say.

After going to the mat for the embodiment of the very establishment he wrote a book against (Hillary, that is) it will take a few election cycles for him to rehabilitate his reputation -- unless he truly has gone over to the dark side rather than just temporarily losing his bearings.

I've heard that their real motivation for voting GOP is anti-environment -- they actually want their state to be raped for gluttonous corporate profit.

If so, those are votes I certainly don't want for the Democratic Party any more than racist/sexist ones.

60-40 should be considered a loss for H based on the games that have been played in every primary to date.

My only prediction is that turnout will be much lower than Hillary hopes (I don't say "needs" because it hardly matters to the inevitable outcome that Obama is the nominee.)

Obama went along with the outlandish prediction that he'd lose 80-20-- that's one way to tell West Virginians they don't matter.

Obama visited WV and ran ads in KY which were probably seen there. Why does virtually every diary of yours have to include a gratuitous attack on the presumptive nominee of your party? Some people on this blog speak of reconciliation -- think about it.

And it's funny how in the past you've lauded Hillary for 'managing expectations" so well. but now that Obama is doing it you paint it in a negative light. (Talk about transparent.)

But now the burden is all on Hillary for a change. If she doesn't win by 30% it will be "proof" that voters have lost interest in her self serving campaign.

I wonder if the Obama campaign has been managing the release of SD declarations in order to provide an ongoing narrative of gain -- like the way a wall of slow moving lava inexorably devours everything in its path.

If he had gotten an avalanche of SDs it would have been a big story for a few cycles and then the question would have become, "Why has his momentum stopped?"

"Sorry, I thought the snark was obvious from the context."

It was. I was talking to the people who actually believe it (they're closer than you might think.)

I should have made that obvious.

So kindly don't add to the trouble. Thank you.