Presumably this one and NLS, though the latter is less a liberal blog, and more of a shrine to Leslie Byrne and hatred of anyone who dislikes the proprietor.

but frankly it's not the most important point of this debate.

It's pretty clear that Sebelius has been a much more effective, progressive, and popular governor than Kaine as a mainstream liberal Democrat in a much more conservative state than Virginia. Name one accomplishment of Kaine's that's as impressive as anything Sebelius has done -- maybe there is one that people are overlooking.

But if Obama is interested in picking a Governor for his VP, especially one that has a record of actually getting things done, I find it unfathomable that he would pick Kaine over Sebelius (over over Schweitzer or Napolitano), as the TNR article accurately summarizes. Of course we know the VP pick isn't necessarily a pick of which candidate is the most 'qualified', but rather which person the Presidential candidate think can help him win the election and/or help him govern. Still, it would reek to me of the kind of overt sexism that was used in the not so distant past to pass over a more qualified woman for the comfortable yes-man in the corporate world. Unless the ability to fluently speak Spanish somehow trumps all the other considerations, I can't see any convincing arguments for Kaine over Sebelius absent the purely political calculations of trying to put a thumb on the scale in a now vital swing state. Perhaps that's worth the gamble, but I don't think Kaine really brings all that many votes in Virginia absent those that are already there.

[Note that this discussion is in relation to sitting Governors only. Wes Clark, John Edwards, Mark Warner, Jim Webb, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, etc., etc., are all arguably better choices for the VP spot than Sebelius. I still favor Sebelius as the VP choice.]

But remember that few, if any, vote for a candidate based on his veep choice, outside the VP nominee's home state. In some cases, like Edwards in 2004 or Kemp in 1996, it won't help even in their home state. In others, it can be the tipping point, like Tennessee in 1996. Sebelius won't be enough to carry Kansas, and neither is likely to violate the one major rule for VP nominees: do no harm to the ticket.

While no one will be canonizing Tim Kaine, he puts McCain's chances in VA (and thus, the election) in dire straits. He's vanilla enough that he won't cause any harm to the ticket, and he's compatible with Obama on the issues and in personality. This is not to suggest that Sebelius would be a bad choice, but while I think Obama would do better with a VP candidate who has a longer resume, including some foreign policy experience, he could do a lot worse than Tim Kaine.

Imagine the Sturm und Drang that would erupt from the PUMAs and other less volatile Hillary Clinton fans if Obama were to choose some other woman to be on the ticket.  They's see it as a slap in the face to all that Senator Clinton had accomplished and would argue (pretty persuasively in my mind) that Sebelius doesn't hold a candle to Clinton in terms of providing name recognition, bona fides, etc.  Not that polling data should be the only concern, but Obama/Clinton seems to poll better than Obama/Sebelius.  And before we get too ga-ga over the fine Governor from Kansas, let's remember that Kansas is about the size (population-wise) of Northern Virginia and is 1/3 the population of Virginia.

I really believe that while Hillary Clinton has done great things to shatter the glass ceiling for female candidates in the long term, but in the short term (i.e., this election), she's really locked out the chances of anyone but her being the VP if Obama wants to choose a woman.  Maybe the only exception would be a dark horse from outside the political establishment (Claudia Kennedy, perhaps?).

so frankly I'd not spend time trying to get inside their heads if I were the Obama crew. Now, Obama would need to be careful and make sure to get Hillary's blessing and get her out in front of this were he to want to choose a different woman running mate, but I suspect he'll get the internal politics of it all correct.

And the question isn't name recognition, etc. The question is the ability to govern and help get Obama elected. There is absolutely an argument that Hillary Clinton ought to be that person, but that's between Barack and Hillary (and, unfortunately, Bill). Were it not for the 'Bill problem' (by which I mean the question of his fundraising and associations for his post-Presidential professional and philanthropic activities), I bet she'd be the VP pick.

As for the size of the state, well, Dick Cheney 'hails' (not really) from Wyoming, the smallest state by population in the union.

For what it's worth (I know, not much), I now pretty much question everything appearing in TNR.  

would we let AOL-Time Warner's Time Magazine determine who is among the top five govs?  

Absolutely legitimate (and wise, at this point) to question both what comes out of TNR and Time. I will just say, wrt the TNR article, Eve Fairbanks has been a solid reporter in the past, so I wouldn't lump her in with the rest of the neo-con TNR crew.

I just look at it holistically -- two terms as a more liberal governor than Kaine in a more conservative state; more forward-thinking on energy; more friendly to labor (she favors the Employee Free Choice Act, and has signed a letter of liberal governor's urging its passage by the Congress, while Kaine trumpets his support of VA's right-to-work law); she's much stronger on choice; she has a history of standing up for the people against powerful lobbies (esp. in her tenure as Insurance Commissioner of Kansas), whereas Kaine's record is much more muddled, etc.

I also think she best complements and strengthens Obama's core appeal, which is a more decent brand of politics that gets things done.

There are a good number of capable VP choices out there. People can argue that a good number of them would be better choices than Sebelius, and they'd probably have a good point. Perhaps Kaine's selection would bring 2 or 3 points of voters over to Obama in Virginia, which trumps all the rest of the considerations. Me, I'm skeptical of that, and thus I'd prefer her over him.

But, Obama's campaign isn't going to ask me, so this is all just a fun parlor game for all of us. :)

Are there any liberal blogs excitedly promoting TK for VP?

Probably not. Kaine's not a liberal, and liberal bloggers are very issue and results oriented. Better question is "is there anybody excited promoting Kaine anywhere?"

Though at least some of that is due to his unwillingness to jump on Leslie Byrne's sinking ship.

Yet another way of looking at it: do the blogs matter as much as you seem to think they do? They might, but I'm skeptical. I'm not convinced that bloggers are as influential or as representative of the Democratic mainstream as others think.

on the national blogs.  99% of the people who comment there probably don't even know who Leslie Byrne is.

If you're only referring to national blogs, I think it has more to do with the fact that Tim Kaine is not sufficiently liberal for them.

For our part, we've stated clearly where we disagree with Tim Kaine, and most of those areas - abuser fees, regional authorities, no-bid deal to Bechtel, embryonic stem cell resarch, Tysons Tunnel, Dominion reregulation - don't break down on "liberal"/"conservative" lines at all.  I agree with Jim Webb when he argues that the old labels of liberal and conservative no longer apply.

There are certainly plenty of elections (Byrne/Connolly) where blogs can't overcome other factors. But look at Webb/Allen. And when you talk about inside-baseball stuff like caucuses and especially candidate selection, blogs can have a bigger influence.

Sebelius blocked a new coal plant; Kaine supports a new coal plant.

Sebelius would be replaced with a Democrat for the remainder of her term; Kaine would be replaced with a Republican for the remainder of his term.
 

Sebelius blocked one of two new coal plants; like Kaine, she supported one new coal plant.  

Sebelius blocked 2 new coal plants 3 times.

what followed next was a compromise - a larger energy plan - by the utility with the governor.  She then allowed one of their two, and not the other, and other inititiaves were then required by the utility.  Then I thought there was a 2nd utility, which proposed only one coal plant.  Sebelius rejected it, then offered a compromise.  That 2nd utility didn't accept the compromise and the proposal scrapped.  2 out of 3 ain't bad.  That's what I thought what happened.