So right now, the veepstakes are going on, the names are floating, and Kathleen Sebelius, governor of Kansas is a commonly floated one around. She's got all the makings of a non-VP. Lets explore them:
1. She has no constituency or any type of one outside Kansas. All politics is local. The fact that she got elected as a Democrat in perpetually red Kansas is no accomplishment and testament to that. She played the politics game, being against abortion and gay rights to get where she is. The region she is from, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma are not areas from where we are likely to receive electoral votes. The fact her dad was governor of Ohio is not gonna help there, as he wasn't terribly popular there, getting defeated for a second term in both his house and governor bids, and being there a long time ago without even the Sebelius namesake.
2. She has very little experience being involved with big time politics, being governor since 2003, being gov only 2 years longer than Obama has been a senator, and shorter than Hillary has been a senator, or Evan Bayh has been a senator. Experience is Obama's weak point, and Sebelius would emphasize this perceived shortcoming.
3. She is boring and uncharismatic, and inspires no energy in the party. Her SOTU response exemplified this. It wasn't some long convention speech that happened 4 years prior to the election year, this only happened 8 months ago. Her speaking style is bland in the mold of John Kerry, and she even looks like John Kerry, and this hurt a lot on the stump. She stops all of Obama's energy.
4. She does not bring any demographic group with her, as she has not shown any popularity with working class whites, or older voters that would be in swing states Dems can carry. Sure, she won in Kansas, but did so by being essentially a Republican with a D next to her name. But if she were on the Obama ticket, she'd have to become a real D who supports gay rights and abortion. As a real Democrat, she has no base with older voters or working class white ones, whereas Kaine, Clinton, Bayh have been elected in states that can vote Democrat, and ran as Democrats.
5. Being that she is not a known name or entity, the headline would be "a black and a woman." That does not sound good, considering how hard a time Obama may have because of his color, and how hard a time he has ahead. Of course, if he had a name brand woman everyone knows, it would be OK as it would be "Obama and (a woman everyone knows)." Sebelius is pretty unknown right now, and would be in the former camp.
6. Putting her on the ticket would be perceived to be only putting her on the ticket to put a woman on the ticket, and seen possibly as an attempt to get Hillary Clinton and Hillary type voters, which yells out "you Hillary voters only voted for her because she was a woman, which is why you'll LOVE Sebelius." This would be amplified by the fact that she brings nothing real to the ticket for the reasons I listed above. She is much less qualified in experience being that Hillary has been involved with politics since being on the Watergate hearing in the '70s, being an active first lady for 12 years while being a high powered lawyer and headed Arkansas's education revitalization effort with great political risk and eventual success, and as First Lady of the US, Hillary attempted to fix one of the US' biggest problems in spite of politics risks and powerful lobbyists and Republicans, lobbyed hard for SCHIP, and was exposed to the day-to-day workings of the White House, living with a President as an active first lady for 8 years, and has been Senator since 2001, being on the Armed Services Committee, all of this in contast to Sebelius has been Governor of Kansas since 2003. 30 years vs. 5 years. That is why putting Sebelius would be seen as a politically expedient snub, that would open the door to Republicans putting Fiorina or someone like that on the ticket.
She is not a contender, and would be a disaster on the ticket. I think its time to put Sebelius as VP speculation to an end.