Last week, I vlogged about why people are saying that Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius would make a solid vice presidential choice for Barack Obama.

But not everyone has a rosy outlook about Sebelius. In fact, some are saying she’d be a detriment to Obama’s campaign.

While she is very popular in Kansas, has been able to bridge the gap between Republicans and Democrats and could reel in Hillary supporters, Sebelius is light on experience outside of Kansas.

While John McCain trumps his experience in terms of national security, as well as his service in the Navy, Sebelius has next to no international experience.

Writes The Washington Post's Chris Cilizza: “Given McCain's strategy, for Obama to pick someone with even less experience than [Obama] has on national security and foreign policy matters makes very little sense.

Before being elected governor in 2002, Sebelius spent eight years as insurance commissioner and before that eight years in the state legislature. An impressive resume to be sure, but not exactly one that will reassure voters who are concerned about Obama's readiness to handle a world crisis.”

There’s no guarantee that Sebelius, a Democrat, would win Kansas for Obama. Despite winning two terms in this red state, the state legislature is Republican by a vast majority, which says something about the state’s voters: They’re probably going to vote for McCain. After all, the state’s Republicans voted overwhelmingly for Mike Huckabee in the primaries; Sebelius would be a huge departure from that trend.

A story in New York Magazine brought up some interesting, if not odd questions, regarding Sebelius’ looks…and how she’d look standing next to a black man:

“‘She's a bit older than Obama, but not old enough to be maternal. And she is quite attractive. They'd look too much like a couple together. [Putting her on the ticket] would risk evoking on a subconscious level every American trope about miscegenation — a recurrent, threatening theme throughout our cultural and political history. Every time they smile at each other, it will be triggered … And that's exactly the kind of anxiety you do not want to raise in white working-class men — the fear that this handsome, charismatic black guy is after their women.’”

The same person quoted in that story said the governor is a terrible public speaker. Her response to President Bush’s State of the Union speech was ridiculed by many who saw Sebelius as nervous, sputtering her lines. Having seen her speak on several occasions, I don’t think she is a terrible speaker, though following Obama is a tough act.

Would Hillary supporters see Sebelius as a compromise or an insult? Does adding a woman in her 60s to the ticket provide enough of an olive branch for Clinton supporters still feeling jilted by the tough primary season?

Her strong stance against adding a coal-fired plant in Holcomb, Kan., drew points with environmentalists, but Big Energy could see her as a threat to its industry.

She’s pro-life, and was recently derided for throwing a party that included Wichita doctor George Tiller, who is known through the state for his abortion clinic.

And is she too nice? From the New Republic:
“Allida Black, a major Hillary supporter who's angry at the idea of putting Sebelius on the ticket, put it to me this way yesterday:

‘It's unacceptable and condescending ... that the woman [Hillary] who fought for them [other powerful women], the woman who stood up and took all this abuse, the woman who stayed in the race after everyone said it was over, would be discounted. And to put on a safe, acceptable woman from a swing state is an affront to the woman they voted for. [Sebelius] is sweet! She’s nice! She’s effective in Kansas. But Washington is not Kansas.’”

What do you think? Would Sebelius be a compromise? When compared to someone like Dick Cheney, is she too nice?