Kathleen Sebelius Could Head Health and Human Services

Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius now appears to be at the top of the list.

AP: Sebelius was in town last week to give a pair of speeches, one on clean energy jobs and the other at the National Education Association. She also met at the Ritz Carlton hotel with Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett.
Sebelius' trip was planned before Daschle bowed out as nominee for HHS secretary as a result of fallout from about $140,000 in back taxes and interest he paid last month.
Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen also was on Obama's list to run the nation's massive health programs. Already, though, some advocacy groups were lining up to oppose the Democratic governor.
He remains under consideration, the senior official said.

Here are some other names being considered.

Obama Needs to Start Pandering

This is a valid request. 
I connect with Obama's hope message and I know his specific plans for the economy, healthcare, education... because I've read all of his documents and books and watched most of the town halls.

But the average person, who doesn't connect with hope and hasn't made it a point to read up on Obama, needs more meat. All they've seen is Obama the celebrity. They don't know why he's popular. They don't connect with the local-global economy message. They don't necessarily care that Europe likes the U.S. 

They need the: What-are-you-going-to-do-for-me details. Obama needs to pander, to roll up his sleeves and pander, pander, pander. He could also use a lot more help from the democrats because Hillary has been countering much of the work Obama is trying to do. Hopefully, after the convention, we won't have to hear about sore Hillary supporters.

I hope her supporters get everything they want at the convention, find catharsis, and move on. I hope it's a moving event for them. 

NYT: These Democrats — 15 governors, members of Congress and state party leaders — say Mr. Obama has yet to convert his popularity among many Americans into solutions to crucial electoral challenges: showing ownership of an issue, like economic stewardship or national security; winning over supporters of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton; and minimizing his race and experience level as concerns for voters.

Mr. Obama has run for the last 18 months as the candidate of hope. Yet party leaders — while enthusiastic about Mr. Obama and his state-by-state campaign operations — say he must do more to convince the many undecided Democrats and independents that he would address their financial anxieties rather than run, by and large, as an agent of change — given that change, they note, is not an issue.

“I particularly hope he strengthens his economic message — even Senator Obama can speak more clearly and specifically about the kitchen-table, bread-and-butter issues like high energy costs,” said Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio. “It’s fine to tell people about hope and change, but you have to have plenty of concrete, pragmatic ideas that bring hope and change to life.”

Or, in the blunter words of Gov. Phil Bredesen, Democrat of Tennessee: “Instead of giving big speeches at big stadiums, he needs to give straight-up 10-word answers to people at Wal-Mart about how he would improve their lives.”

On the Minds of Superdelegates 7

this is the seventh in my series of "what's on the minds of superdelegates?" this one is action packed.

supers will decide the race. in fact, they were invented in the 1980s as a way to override the will of the people.

supers seem to be leaning toward obama because of the new voters that he's brought to the table. see my superdelegate tally for clinton and obama in my sidebar.

interestingly, the idea has been floated to have the supers meet in june to select a candidate. but democratic national committee chairman howard dean doesn't like the idea.

WSJ:Yesterday, in an opinion piece in the New York Times, Gov. Bredesen floated a proposal for the superdelegates to meet in June, after the final nominating contest, to hear from both candidates and commit to one then. Otherwise, he argues, their battle will rage through the summer to the nationally televised convention, and leave the fractured party just two months to unite before November. He says the candidate who looked to have fewer delegates -- combining superdelegates and delegates won in the primaries and caucuses -- would come under pressure to step aside.

Clinton and Obama have been noncommittal. He says he also spoke with former Vice President Al Gore, another uncommitted superdelegate, and acknowledged that Mr. Gore, among others, pointed out the difficulty of pulling off a June conclave.

here's one who's trying to pretend he's uncommited but he's an obvious clinton supporter.

Superdelegates are watching to see whether the senator's oratory will assuage white voters outraged at Internet videos showing the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. suggesting that America be damned for its treatment of blacks. Separately, many worry that black voters will be outraged by a sense that Sen. Obama is being unfairly judged.

The superdelegates attempt to look at electability, and there is still a lot of water to go over the dam on that subject before most of them have to commit" at the convention, Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen, who is uncommitted, said in an interview yesterday. "Among the rank-and-file, persuadable middle of the road, I think the guy is a problem for Sen. Obama. It kind of reminds people of some of the wars in the past."

here's a definite obama supporter:

More than the average voter, the 795 superdelegates -- Democratic governors, House and Senate members and party officers nationwide -- are sensitive to calculations about a nominee's electability. Their own elections, and those of their party brethren down the ballot, could ride on the coattails of the presidential standard-bearer. Several hundred of these delegates remain uncommitted.

But most would prefer Sen. Obama to Sen. Clinton, Democrats widely agree. He has attracted record numbers of new voters -- especially younger ones, African-Americans and independents. Sen. Clinton, they fear, would lose many of those voters and, worse, drive more Republicans to the polls just to vote against her.

"Superdelegates tend to blow with the wind, and we don't know which way the wind is blowing," says Rep. Jim Cooper of Tennessee, an Obama supporter. "But superdelegates know two things," he added, "only one candidate in modern times," Sen. Obama, has so energized the younger generation as well as built so large a donor base.

kentucky governor is feeling the heat:

Beshear is one of the eight known Kentucky superdelegates. The state party will select a ninth in June.

"I've traded calls with Hillary Clinton," Beshear said last week. "We haven't connected up yet. And I understand Barack Obama's going to be calling."

Some of Beshear's Democratic colleagues in statehouses around the country also have been urging the governor to pick a side, he said.

here's one who went with clinton but his district liked obama:

Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Presidential nomination back in January. As a superdelegate, Thompson's support was pledged to Clinton.

Results from the February California Primary, however, shows that Thompson's District voted for Barack Obama rather than Clinton.

a possible attack by clinton:

Chris Van Hollen, a congressman from Maryland who has remained neutral because he is the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, argues that superdelegates should not overturn the will of elected delegates unless “some totally unpredictable event”, like a scandal, renders the leading candidate unelectable. Mrs Clinton's supporters may try to argue that the Jeremiah Wright affair does just that. The Daily Kos, a multi-author lefty blog, accuses Mrs Clinton of “fomenting civil war” among Democrats and plotting a “coup by superdelegate”. If that happens, the backlash from Mr Obama's supporters could be fearful.

On the Minds of Superdelegates 1
On the Minds of Superdelegates 2
On the Minds of Superdelegates 3
On the Minds of Superdelegates 4
On the Minds of Superdelegates 5
On the Minds of Superdelegates 6

On the Minds of Superdelegates 3

the third in my series of "what's on the minds of superdelegates?" superdelegates will decide who wins the democratic nomination. the only thing obama and clinton are doing now is proving to the supers that they have the ability to beat john mccain.
and now on to tennessee, where mum's the word:

“We’ve had such interest in our party and the process,” said Rep. Lincoln Davis, D-Tenn., one of seven undecided superdelegates in Tennessee. “There’s a lot of dissatisfaction and unhappiness. Both of them bring change from what we have today.”

Gov. Phil Bredesen said he also is not tipping his hand for now.

“I obviously want to see how things will play out,” he said. “I think superdelegates have an important role to play to figure how to get out of the place we’re in and be where we can be unified behind a candidate. That’s why I’m keeping my powder dry, to see if we can’t provide some leadership.”

The Democratic Party created the superdelegate system in 1984 to give high-level party officials some influence in the nomination process, and this year, with the very close race, their leanings are being scrutinized closely.

Many in the party fear that a protracted nomination battle could cause rifts in the voter base. That’s what led Georgia Democratic Party Chairwoman Jane Kidd to announce recently her support for Sen. Obama, joining Rep. John Barrow, D-Ga., and party activist Mary Long, both of whom announced their support for Sen. Obama in the past two weeks.

“I decided that the last thing I wanted to do was wait until the convention and for it to come down to a superdelegate vote and have it be contentious,” Ms. Kidd said. “I do think we need to move toward a resolution.”

Two other high-profile superdelegates, Reps. John Lewis and Davis Scott, both D-Ga., switched their support from Sen. Clinton to Sen. Obama in February.

tsk, tsk, eliot spitzer's virtually guaranteed resignation means one less super for clinton:

Should Spitzer resign he would lose his superdelegate status. Spitzer is in Clinton's corner on our endorsement list. He would be replaced by Lt. Governor David Paterson who is already a superdelegate and Clinton endorser. This may bring the total number of superdelegates back to 794 depending on how this plays out.

Paterson is currently an at-large member on the DNC roster of superdelegates. If he becomes Governor and gives up his DNC position the DNC will fill the vacancy with someone else and the number will continue to be 795. (Update: The DNC has confirmed that DNC members can also be replaced up to the beginning of the convention). If he holds his position with the DNC the number of superdelegates will go down to 794.

here's one who is completely biased and would overturn the will of the people in a heartbeat, after all, they don't know as much as he does, being he's an important politician and all... he goes on and on and on and on (of course, he's a clinton supporter):

An Open Letter to Democratic Party Super Delegates

From Steven Grossman, Former National Chairman,

Democratic National Committee

Like many Democratic activists and officials honored to have been selected as so-called super delegates to this year's Democratic national convention, I've spent most of my life engaged in the fight for the values that the Democratic party embodies. These values were perhaps best articulated by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in his second inaugural address: "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."

Like some of my colleagues, my commitment to the Democratic party and my passion for its most cherished principles can fairly be said to be part of my DNA. In my own case, my grandfather, father, uncle and I were all given the opportunity to serve as delegates to Democratic national conventions over the last 60 years. Indeed, my grandfather and father comprised the only "father-son" team among the delegates to the 1948 convention in Philadelphia that chose Harry Truman as the party's standard bearer. Given that family history, it will be understood how proud I was to serve first as Chairman of the Massachusetts Democratic Party and then as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

Some commentators, observing the current deadlock between Senators Clinton and Obama as they vie for the Democratic presidential nomination, have suggested that as super delegates, our function is to be mindless tabulators of primaries and caucuses won, or popular votes amassed. Despite the super delegates' lifetimes spent working on state, national and international issues, and thinking seriously about the grave challenges, and the dangerous adversaries, facing our country, these commentators demand that we suspend our independent judgments and jettison our profound responsibilities--to the party and, frankly, to the country itself. Even though the very party rules that provide for super delegates contemplated that we would exercise those independent judgments and fulfill those responsibilities, there are those who believe that we should confine ourselves to adding up numbers.

But super delegates were not selected by the national party to be either potted plants or rubber stamps. We were selected because under party rules that have been in place for a generation, our party concluded that we had demonstrated the ability to act as stewards of the national party--and of the national interest. By dint of our experience in the community and our public service, we were adjudged fit to fulfill a moral responsibility to act in the best interest of the country as we saw it--and to be strong enough to withstand the criticisms of those who might object to the political impact of the independent conclusions we reached.

Our duty to our party and our country is a fiduciary one, a sacred trust. We are obliged to regard ourselves in a real sense as trustees, charged with making conscientious judgments on behalf of the party but, more importantly, the country we care, and worry, about.

Any dispassionate analysis of the current nomination fight shows that Senators Clinton and Obama are breathtakingly close in terms of delegates won and popular vote recorded. It is likely that after the remaining primaries and caucuses have been held, the already narrow gap in delegates will shrink yet further, and the equally slim gap in popular vote will also close, with Senator Clinton having a meaningful chance to overtake Senator Obama's popular vote total altogether, particularly when the collective will of Florida’s and Michigan’s primary voters is finally taken into account. At a minimum, the nomination process must be permitted to run its full course, so that not only are the candidates' qualifications, character and positions fully vetted, but everyone who is entitled to vote is actually permitted to do so.

This means that, in the first instance, those super delegates who have not made up their minds or who have decided to remain neutral until all the votes have been cast should resist the pressure to abort the process. We are, after all, electing not a student council president but the President of the United States of America, the leader of the free world and, in real terms, the most powerful person on the planet. There is no amount of prudence and care which can possibly be excessive, under the circumstances.

But what happens after the final primaries are over in early June, when by most analyses neither Senator Clinton nor Senator Obama will have enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination? If the role of super delegates is merely to assess primary and caucus results, how do they wade through the thicket created by the important questions that those results have generated?

Should caucuses, in which citizens who wish to express their choice are obliged to either show up at an appointed hour and sit in a room for up to several hours or not show up at all, be regarded as reflecting the popular will as much as primaries, where voters whose lives do not permit them to spend three hours in a locked room at the end of a workday can simply go into their local elementary school, vote and leave--like voters across the country do on the first Tuesday in November?

Should the results in states that have rarely if ever voted Democratic in a presidential election over the last half century be accorded the same weight as the results in large states that form the heart of the Democratic base, and which the Democratic presidential nominee must carry in order to win the White House?

Should primaries in which voters who are not in fact members of the Democratic party voted in significant numbers be given the same standing for the purpose of choosing the Democratic party nominee as those in which only Democrats voted?

These are difficult questions, if not impossible ones, and super delegates who see their duty as mere numbers crunchers will have a difficult time sorting out the answers.

But being a super delegate is not the same as being a numbers cruncher. It is about consulting one’s conscience about what is best for the United States, and about the party that we hope will assume the leadership of the United States.

I have made my own personal judgment, and that is that Senator Clinton is the better qualified, more experienced and by far the more battle-tested Democrat to lead this country in a world that is increasingly dangerous, and where the stakes simply could not be higher. Others have made a different choice, and may yet make a different choice. But for the moment, super delegates who are not committed to either candidate should resist the blandishments of those who would trivialize their roles in the nominating process, and their responsibilities to the party, and to the country, about which we care so deeply.

On the Minds of Superdelegates 1

On the Minds Of Superdelegates 2

Superdelegates explained
Superdelegates, Superdelegates, Superdelegates

some good information about supers

Clinton’s Deliberate Race Baiting
Who Can Beat McCain?