Chris Cilizza writes up the case for, and the case against, Kathleen Sebelius for vice president. The case "for" is considerably longer, and makes considerably more sense. The con argument relies on two points: The first, is that Sebelius gave a low-energy, desultory response to the State of the Union. It's a tough gig, of course, and many fine speakers have failed at it, but her reply didn't inspire confidence in her national campaigning abilities. She sounded a bit like your high school biology teacher, ten minutes before the bell and two weeks before summer. If I were on the governor's staff, I'd circulate a YouTube of her giving a more rousing address. And I'd do it quickly. The second point is weirder. On the pro side, of course, is the fact that Sebelius is a woman. As Cilizza writes, "Women comprise one of the most important -- if not the most important -- blocs of [the Democratic[ coalition. Putting Sebelius on the ticket would almost certainly excite women across the country and ensure the reinstatement of the sort of gender gap Gore enjoyed in 2000." Plus, for reasons of simple social justice, it's important that women are routine candidates for highest office. In an electorate that's majority female, there should be nothing exceptional about women seeking the presidency. Then, on the con side, we get an argument that's been peeking out on the corners of the debate: Sebelius is a women who is not Hillary Clinton. "With Clinton now formally gone from the race," writes Cilizza, "her most fervent female supporters have taken up the cause of putting her on the ticket as the vice president. To snub Clinton in favor of another woman -- Sebelius -- would be a slight that many women might not be able to reconcile themselves to."
