Bayh's Staff Cancels Tues. Night Baseball Game

Sen. Evan Bayh is going to introduce Sen. Barack Obama at an event in Bayh's home town of Indiana on Wednesday.

Is that any reason to cancel a baseball game the night before?

Bayh's team was scheduled to play "the One-Hitters", which is the team of Students for a Sensible Drug Policy. Team captain and SSDP executive director Kris Krane and SSDP's Government Relations Director Tom Angell think something is up and there could be a big announcement Wednesday by Obama and Bayh.

Since Tom thought it important enough to e-mail me about it, which he only does with big news, I'm thinking there may be something to this.

For the record, I'm fine with Sen. Bayh as the Vice Presidential candidate.

< Salim Hamdan Guantanamo Trial Goes to Jury | DNC Protesters Assigned to Fenced-Off Parking Lot for Obama's Speech >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Oh man (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:20:10 PM EST
    You could not get more DLC if you tried!

    Bayh is one of those Democrats who loves to go around saying how Democrats need to prove they can be taken seriously on national security.  Ugh.

    Wonder how good a campaigner he would be.. (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:49:37 PM EST
    Since he was always a favorite son, (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by pie on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:08:08 PM EST
    it's hard to say, isn't it.

    Let me put it this way: (5.00 / 5) (#106)
    by pie on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:11:44 PM EST
    If Obama isn't smart enough to pick Hillary, he's not smart enough to be president.

    And I will leave the top two slots empty in November.


    I'm writing in Hillary. (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Angel on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:14:22 PM EST
    Well, I think you get to vote (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:15:27 PM EST
    for both top slots or neither....

    No ticket splitting allowed.


    I'm writing in Bill for the VP. (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by Angel on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:17:26 PM EST
    Wow - what a ticket!!! HRC for POTUS (none / 0) (#127)
    by Shainzona on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:21:03 PM EST
    and WJC as Veep.  Yup.  Sounds spectacular to me!

    The "Dream Team" (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Angel on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:23:05 PM EST
    In MI, (none / 0) (#134)
    by pie on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:22:47 PM EST
    I'm pretty sure I have to fill in both spaces for prez and vice-prez.

    Since I've only voted twice in eight years, I could be wrong.

    I've also voted in Iowa, Ohio and New York, so it's hard to keep track.


    Combo tickets, Aaron Burr & Stuff (none / 0) (#143)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:26:03 PM EST
    But who knows what actually happens with voting machines and ballots...

    Huh? (none / 0) (#162)
    by pie on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:36:48 PM EST
    We do the fill-in-the blank thing here and then send it into the machine.

    Then I see the ticker register the vote.

    Works for me.


    As I recall, (none / 0) (#172)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:40:09 PM EST
    after the election involving Aaron Burr coming in second for the Presidency and thus becoming  VP, they changed the Constitution....You have to have a combined ticket to vote for...

    And after the Butterfly Ballot in Florida, what is supposed to be done may not always be done...


    Ordinarily I'd agree.... (none / 0) (#187)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:52:16 PM EST
    but in this case, he'd be right.

    Sure (none / 0) (#207)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:13:48 PM EST
    and the fact that he's right isn't even close to the issue.

    It's in the same category with Obama talking about liberals who are hostile to religion.


    Baybars Obama Bey. (none / 0) (#210)
    by Salo on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:18:26 PM EST
    ...all very medieval sounding.

    Who? (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Shainzona on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:20:20 PM EST
    Oh, Bayh's been around for a long time...strange that nothing specific springs to mind.

    So I'll ask the only VP question that is important to me:  is this person qualified to be POTUS?  If yes, how/why?  

    And finally, is he the BEST person for the job...oh, forget that question.  We know the answer is no.

    Bayh? (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by rilkefan on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:22:28 PM EST
    Isn't he an unaccomplished (relatively speaking) uninteresting centrist?  Mixed on choice, conservative on fiscal policy, bad on the war?

    Yep. (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by TheRealFrank on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:23:51 PM EST
    That's about right.

    Plus, he's boring, and that is apparently, sometimes, considered a plus for being VP.


    Well, then...let's get (none / 0) (#192)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:56:04 PM EST
    Dick Gephardt!

    Why go with the copy when you can get the original?

    You'd not be giving up any congressional seat and Dick has great congressional relationships.

    Dunno why I have to be the one to think of these things...I'm not being paid, so maybe that says it all.  Best I can do for free.


    leave Dick G. alone (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by kenosharick on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:22:54 PM EST
    I supported him in 2000, but was able to get behind Kerry when he lost. BTW- he has a lesbian daughter, that's kind of interesting.

    That is one painful review :) (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:32:49 PM EST
    bleh (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by Turkana on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:24:17 PM EST
    bayh's another milquetoast centrist, with all the pizazz of a mayo on wonder bread sandwich.

    I think he will be a weak choice. (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by ajain on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:24:47 PM EST
    He is as bland as they come and he will not be an effective attack dog.
    He has the added disadvantage - in my mind - of being a textbook centrist Democrat.

    Also, he strongly supports legislation banning third-trimester abortions.

    Well, there you have it...BO will now (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by Shainzona on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:15:16 PM EST
    ...have someone else to blame when he continues to throw women's rights under the bus!

    Birch Bayh (none / 0) (#118)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:17:46 PM EST
    wrote the ERA....Dan Quayle knocked him out and took his seat...

    Father & Son have supposedly not been all that close in terms of politics.


    Obama is removing the ERA (none / 0) (#243)
    by debcoop on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:05:27 PM EST
    from the Democratic platform.  I have them from a Congressperson whi is involved.

    Think some more about Bayh (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by christinep on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:16:10 PM EST
    Some additional thoughts here.... Senator Bayh is quite popular in Indiana (as was his father Senator Birch Bayh before him.) If he brings in Indiana, that electoral vote number can offset any loss in the western states that the party has counted in its strategy. While my husband considers Evan Bayh to be somewhat uninspiring, I've spoken with him a few times over the years at JJ dinners in Colorado and find him quietly compelling.  Check the full voting record.  Check the resume and its executive experience strength, etc.  Think a bit about the pragmatic pr aspects.  Good record, good age, midwestern, strong labor connections, from the Clinton wing, etc.  Just some thoughts.

    Bayh's best moment (none / 0) (#131)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:22:03 PM EST
    came when questioning Rumsfeld at a hearing just after the Abu Graib photos surfaced.

    He has a matter of fact and informed delivery that conservative and moderates find attractive.  Bayh asked Rumsfeld that if given all the circumstances whether Rumsfled ought to resign to send the right signal--and Rumsfeld said Bayh might be right and perhaps he (Rumsfeld) might resign.  In any event, Bayh supposedly has gravitas....in a Cheney sort of way.  


    I can't believe Bayh's Wiki site (none / 0) (#190)
    by imhotep on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:55:18 PM EST
    already has the note that he would accept veep if offered.  He's really ready!

    This makes sense to me (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Nike on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:20:34 PM EST
    since choice is going to be one of those things that  (like Fisa, offshore drilling, controls on special interests, etc) that Obama ends up "reconsidering."

    He is pretty much Obama without the (none / 0) (#197)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:04:29 PM EST

    I think he's a suitable choice.  Anyone expecting Obama to pick someone to the left of himself was bound to be disappointed.

    As an ex-gov of a medium sized, diverse state and a current senator, he is at lest as qualified as Obama himself, while not showing him up with decades more experience.

    Plus, I predicted him last week and for once in this campaign I would like to be right.


    How depressing. (5.00 / 7) (#9)
    by pie on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:26:51 PM EST
    Depressing and pathetic.

    The dems sure do know how to snap victory from the jaws of defeat.

    The few who think Bayh would be acceptable because he supported Clinton couldn't be more wrong.

    Don't you love how... (5.00 / 4) (#120)
    by Shainzona on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:18:35 PM EST
    BO supporters think we HRC supporters will fall in line with just the flick of BO's wrist?  They simply do not understand that we oppose BO because he is unqualified for the job.  Totally.  Unqualified.  

    But if he flicks an eyebrow toward anyone who supported HRC, we're all supposed to be wowed into submission.

    Not.  Going.  To.  Happen.


    Well this (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:21:55 PM EST
    Obama supporter is quite certain that you will never be happy thus there is no reason to try and make you happy.

    I'll repeat my comment. (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by pie on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:52:09 PM EST
    I want what's best for the country after Bush.

    You comment speaks volumes. (none / 0) (#226)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:39:03 PM EST
    Well, there is one thing sure... (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by weltec2 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:30:08 PM EST
    Obama won't be upstaged by his Veep. <insert mordant laugh> This is just what I would expect of Obama. No surprises here at all. But certainly he has done himself no harm.

    I don't want him as President (5.00 / 7) (#12)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:30:25 PM EST
    The most important job of the VP is to be ready to step in if necessary.  By that standard, I can only say that if Bayh were running in the presidential primary, he would not be my 10th or even 20th choice.

    Any progressive should be able to agree that he takes the party in the wrong direction.

    I really don't understand the point.  It gives me a very negative feeling.

    Well (5.00 / 10) (#32)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:44:52 PM EST
    Only three Democrats voted yes on Bush's 2003 tax cut, which passed the Senate 51-49.

    Those Democrats were Ben Nelson, Zell Miller, and Evan Bayh.

    Even John McCain voted no!

    So on economic common sense he gets a big F minus from me.


    Indiana is in dire economic straits (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:10:34 PM EST
    in much of the state, says my Hoosier spouse.

    He still has a lot of family there.  And he has been watching Hoosier politics and the Bayh dynasty for years.  And to Bayh a heartbeat away from the presidency?  Spouse says: ugh.


    Well (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:22:26 PM EST
    I like the investment theory too, but you can't have investments and tax cuts too!

    I mean, the fact that only three Democrats switched sides on that vote (and look at who the other two are) really says a lot.  That was a major, major vote.


    If so, why on earth would (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:33:07 PM EST
    he vote for a giant tax cut for the wealthy?  It makes no sense to me.

    (I remember Bill Clinton trying to argue early on that that kind of expenditure was an "investment" and getting ridiculed up the yin-yang for it.  How times do change.)


    Bahy is an obvious... (none / 0) (#222)
    by Salo on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:33:49 PM EST
    legacy kleptocrat. He's quite bright but he's a right of center Dem.

    Breaking fron Indiana might allow him to be more liberal in the thigs he advocates. But he's a legacy dude.  He'll never take risks or embarrass Obama. However he'd likely be a rerun of Gore. He'd lose the third term and the 16 years we'd need for UHC to be enacted.


    Reminds me of a comment (5.00 / 1) (#224)
    by weltec2 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:36:20 PM EST
    BO made on CNBC: "Look. I'm a pro-growth, free-market guy. I love the market."

    Good point... (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by weltec2 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:49:55 PM EST
    Reminds me of Bill's reply to the question of why he chose Al: "Because I might die."

    Can you imagine if 2000 wasn't fixed (none / 0) (#196)
    by imhotep on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:02:58 PM EST
    and Gore was installed with Lieberman?  That's what an Obama-Bayh ticket looks like to me.

    i don't want bayh to be president (none / 0) (#212)
    by Salo on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:20:57 PM EST

    Question: if Hillary were the nominee (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:33:33 PM EST
    and picked Bayh, would you all have the same response?

    We wouldn't care, because Hillary offers (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by MarkL on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:36:37 PM EST
    enough on her own. I don't actually know much about Bayh, so I don't have an opinion about choosing him for VP.

    No. (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by pie on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:37:02 PM EST
    My dream ticket was Clinton/Obama though.

    I had good reasons for that.


    This is almost amusing (none / 0) (#236)
    by IzikLA on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:36:58 PM EST
    Because it's actually true.  I wanted a Clinton-Obama ticket and, even after all that has been said and done, I have to say it would still be my preferred ticket.  I think it's obvious that a Clinton-Obama ticket would be more powerful than a Clinton-Bayh ticket or an Obama-Bayh ticket.  

    I appreciate what Jeralyn was trying to get at, but this almost proves that we're not all wacko Obama haters on here.  I wish the same could be said the other way around in other circles.


    I would (5.00 / 7) (#20)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:37:21 PM EST
    My first choice for Hillary would have been Sen. Obama.  There are lots and lots of Democrats I would have been just fine with, though.  But someone uninspiring from the DLC/centrist wing like Bayh, ugh.

    If it's going to be a centrist, at least pick a fighter, not a snoozer.


    Honestly I don't know. But I think that I would (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by Angel on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:38:12 PM EST
    have been happy with whomever Hillary chose because I trust her judgment.  I don't trust Obama's judgment.  

    Honestly, I dunno (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by ajain on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:39:06 PM EST
    But if she were the nominee I don't think she would pick a long time supporter of hers. She would pick Obama. If not, then she would pick an Obama supporter. That's what I think.

    Nonetheless. He is still an uninteresting pick especially because I think Obama needs a strong and effective attack dog VP and Bayh does not fit that bill.


    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:39:50 PM EST
    I would think her choice would have been more dynamic. Gore was equal in most areas, superior in others to BC. That was such a great ticket, and Hillary has enough confidence to do the same.

    Why do these conversations (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:48:31 PM EST
    always revolve the peccadilloes of the respective candidates?

    Bill Clinton picked Al Gore because he was a good fit for the ticket.  Contrary to his image today Al Gore was most certainly NOT a dynamic figure.  He was a mandarin.   But he was exactly what Clinton was looking for, an experienced Senator who spoke the Beltway language.  

    Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both would pick whomever they think best fits the ticket politically.  It has nothing to do with courage or vanity.  It has to do with selecting someone who fits whatever it is your campaign thinks you need.



    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:25:50 PM EST
    Al Gore was considered plenty dynamic in 1992.  Remember, the relevant comparison here is the old white guys who usually make up the ticket, not the members of AC/DC.

    Here is Al Gore on the trail in 1992.  Dynamic or not?  Judge for yourself.


    Great link! Thanks for the trip down memory lane. (none / 0) (#150)
    by Angel on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:29:45 PM EST
    And to think how far down we've come since those wonderful days.  I will never get over what the supremes did.

    Gore was dynamic in 92, (none / 0) (#176)
    by brodie on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:42:57 PM EST
    and also didn't have a lot of personal stuff that would drag the ticket down or otherwise create a negative media line.

    But the less than perfect Al also was considered fairly hawkish on FP matters, and had voted against the vast majority of his party, as senator, for Gulf War I.  That had followed a 1988 run for the presidency where he came off as not only too hawkish for the lib Dem base, but also somewhat strident and overly negative in campaigning.

    But, hey, if you want dynamic this cycle, Joe Biden's your guy ...


    In fact (none / 0) (#184)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:47:46 PM EST
    I would love for Joe Biden to be the pick, professor.

    So these are the things BO & Friends.... (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by Shainzona on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:33:48 PM EST
    think they need?  Wow, an admission that BO lied his way through the primary.  The undercarriage of the bus is getting mighty crowded.


    Voted for the war....(Obama) and his supporters have said everyone knew there was no need for war.  And now for his 1st choice and most important decision he's picking someone who voted for the war?  I don't think the netroots and the left will be too happy.

    AND...he voted twice to ban partial birth abortion.  I wonder how NARAL feels about their endorsement now?  I look forward to seeing them brush that aside and saying that it doesn't matter.  

    And for the Bush tax cuts

    And for FISA

    And he was head of the DLC for five years"


    You think that McCain won't use (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by MarkL on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:35:46 PM EST
    Obama's own words against Bayh? "Obama says that you cannot trust the judgment of anyone who voted for the war.. so why is offering one of those very people as his VP choice? Whose judgment should you trust.. ." The ad writes itself.

    Obama's own words... (none / 0) (#208)
    by christinep on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:16:45 PM EST
    Good point, Mark L. I really hadn't considered the obvious: McCain could point to any Senator who supported the War and whom Obama might choose as an example of Obama's BS (and more.) I admit to being favorably disposed toward Evan Bayh for a number of reasons--his resume and midwestern strength and the fact that, in my early voting and college days, I went to school in Indiana and worked a bit as an organizer on his father's (then Sen. Birch Bayh) campaign.  And, as someone above pointed out, Birch Bayh introduced the ERA.  So, its the emotional connection for me. While I believe, from an analytical electoral vote standpoint, that Evan Bayh might prove to be a strong VP addition, I do have conflicted feelings as a result of my strong support for Hillary's campaign and those ramifications.  But, again, your point about a Senator's vote on the war and Obama's earlier salesmanship is well-taken...and another bitter pill for the Obama fans to swallow in the way of what-is-pure.

    Wasn't he a co-sponsor on the war? (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Teresa on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:37:19 PM EST
    I read that on DKos so I don't know if it's true. Has he apologized as his supporters demand of Hillary?

    [Lieberman?] n/t (none / 0) (#49)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:51:58 PM EST
    What about him? (none / 0) (#98)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:07:38 PM EST
    Pre-9/11 Lieberman was a much different politician.

    Sometimes "best for the campaign" (none / 0) (#137)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:23:22 PM EST
    is a lousy criteria.

    I'd very much prefer "best for the job".


    Not that much different ... (none / 0) (#211)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:18:47 PM EST
    one of the reasons Gore chose him was because he took Clinton to task publicly on the Lewinsky scandal.

    Remember that?


    Did you mean "mannequin"? (none / 0) (#51)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:53:08 PM EST
    Nope (none / 0) (#95)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:06:36 PM EST
    I meant Mandarin.  Definition 6 is the best choice.

    I was kidding (none / 0) (#104)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:11:17 PM EST
    D'oh! (none / 0) (#109)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:14:05 PM EST
    Sorry.  My snarkmeter is set to kill here.

    Being Hillary's VP choice (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:43:23 PM EST
    wouldn't have made him more exciting, more pro-choice- or less centrist. However, if Hillary had secured the nomination in June, she would have turned immediately to Senator Obama and welcomed him to her ticket. Whether that would have worked well or not, we'll never know.

    Perhaps Obama (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by trublueCO on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:41:49 PM EST
    did that when they met privately. Maybe he offered her the job right then and there, and she refused for any number of reasons. We may never know.

    I agree...Bayh wouldn't be my first choice no matter which candidate tapped him for VP.


    Can we get out of fantasy land please? (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by angie on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:55:46 PM EST
    I've seen this meme that "maybe Obama offered the VP slot to her in private and she turned it down" which is so the opposite of the way things work in politics that it really makes me wonder abot the political acumen of the OFB. If in fact Obama offered it to her privately and Hillary wanted to turn the VP slot down, both camps would have arranged (either through a joint statement or separate statements) for Obama to offer it to her publicly and her turn it down diplomatically. She gets to "save face" and he gets to make the offer for "unity." point. blank. period. So please, let this ridiculous meme die already.

    I agree that is total fantasy (none / 0) (#198)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:08:23 PM EST
    I think she would have loved to be VP.

    Good Question (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by davnee on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:48:40 PM EST
    Honest answer - no.  

    To me Bayh is a great candidate from the perspective of competence.  He's got a wide range of useful experience, and seems sufficiently bright and capable to step in as POTUS in an emergency, which is the VP's most important job.  But, imo, Obama needs more than a competent pinch hitter backing him up, he needs an actual liberal and more to the point an actual fighter to balance his bland centrism and liberal impotence when it comes to the policy front.  Basically he needs someone that brings the actual progressive goods, which he most certainly does not.

    Hillary wouldn't need that counterbalance, so I'd feel differently about things.  She's already a progressive fighter.  It'd be nice if she was grooming someday great for the future of the party (definitely not Bayh), but there would be no great harm in her just hiring on a competent pinch hitter to watch her back.  She wouldn't be needing to compensate for a host of shortcomings with her pick.


    I don't think the VP slought matters for (none / 0) (#73)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:58:51 PM EST
    The progressive/ liberal agenda to take root if Obama becomes president.  What is needed instead is a progressive Democratic house and senate.

    Honestly I think one of the things that made the Bush presidency such as disaster was that his Republican congress had no interest in doing anything outside of enriching themselves.  If we have a progressive congress and Obama (or any democratic president), we can get the things we wanted put forward.


    A majority Dem congress voted for FISA (5.00 / 4) (#193)
    by angie on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:57:16 PM EST
    and Obama was one of them. But whatever helps you sleep at night.

    Certainly the congress is too conservative (none / 0) (#199)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:09:08 PM EST
    My point is that I don't think the VP position (outside of Bush and Cheney), is that type of defining position.  I personally don't think the president should have the power that a modern day president has.  ANd in that vain, I think that to get progessive laws put forward, we need a progressive congress

    slought? (none / 0) (#229)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:40:55 PM EST
    slot (none / 0) (#246)
    by dws3665 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:18:04 PM EST
    but a thoughtful one.

    If Hilary was the nomine she would not pick Bayh (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Saul on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:48:45 PM EST
    She would of picked Obama

    Please Saul... (none / 0) (#129)
    by weltec2 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:21:19 PM EST
    "would have picked" okay?
    "of" is never a verb

    I'm sorry... it just one of those little things... like when Obama smiles and waves at the crowd... that drives me nuts. -:


    No. (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by weltec2 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:58:02 PM EST
    I would want Kuchinich or Feingold... someone worthy of the position... someone who could be President if she died in office. Bayh is not presidential material and Obama is not qualified for either position.

    Personally... (5.00 / 5) (#92)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:05:47 PM EST
    ... I feel confident that I know who Hillary is, and how she'd govern. So as long as she chose someone basically competent to do the job (which Bayh is), I'd be fine with it. Since I lack such confidence in Obama, I've got to read the tea leaves of what his choice says about the kind of President he plans to be. So Bayh is a distinctly unprogressive choice, and suggests Obama intends to be a distinctly unprogressive President. That doesn't actually bother me all that much, but I expect it will bother a lot of other people.

    Fair question (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by huzzlewhat on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:39:29 PM EST
    If Hillary had been the nominee, and she'd picked Bayh, I would have been disappointed, yes. I don't like his voting record on the Bush tax cuts, on FISA, and I'm very uncomfortable with his wobbliness on choice issues. To be honest, I probably would have given her more of the benefit of the doubt, because I trust her judgement more, but it would definitely have required a leap of faith, and I wouldn't have thought it was a good pick by her, no.

    I don't think she would have picked him, honestly. I think if she'd been the nominee, she would have picked Obama, and if he'd turned her down, she would have gone with Clark. But that's just my guess -- who knows how it would have played out.


    I would not have been happy (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:42:27 PM EST
    but because at this point I have no doubt whatsoever about her commitment to liberal principles and her fighting spirit, I could live with it.  The O not so much.

    Answer: Yes (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by Coldblue on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:17:00 PM EST
    I would have wanted Obama as VP

    She may have picked if she had won early on, (none / 0) (#179)
    by masslib on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:44:07 PM EST
    but by the end of the primary, seeing the Party was split down the middle, she openly campaigned for a Unity ticket, so seems moot.  

    I think Bayh is the safest choice for BO, in terms of Hillary supporters.


    Yes (none / 0) (#220)
    by chrisvee on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:32:09 PM EST
    He's pretty bland and I would have said there were better choices for her.

    I would have hated it (none / 0) (#238)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:39:54 PM EST
    Bayh is bought and paid for by Corporate America and Hillary's endorsement of him wouldn't (and won't) change that.

    With Obama and Bayh in the White House we will not see visionary thinking or actions. We will see more of the same, the same, the same.

    I am disgusted with this election.


    YES (none / 0) (#245)
    by debcoop on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:14:01 PM EST
    I have always had the same opinion of Evan Bayh.  the first time I met him was 2000 when it clear even then he was running for president.

    He voted for the Partial Birth Abortion Ban.  He is not prochoice.  Do you want someone like that to be in  a position to name Supreme Court Justices?..or any judges?


    Really, isn't this about what was expected? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:36:45 PM EST
    Obama won't be upstaged, Bayh doesn't bring anything controversial with him, and he might help bring his state to the democrats.

    For me, Obama needed to really show some courage and good judgment in his pick. Not to get my vote, just to get me to modify my opinion of him.

    I think the most important criterion is the (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by MarkL on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:39:19 PM EST
    first you mention. Obama wants ALL the limelight.
    At least you know Bayh won't be a 4th-brancher.

    I think Obama should have attended (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:58:01 PM EST
    the baseball game, it would have showed a softer, gentler side. Instead, the game is off or postponed, Bayh has to do "his duty" and show his team spirit to "the one" instead of his team.

    It seems like off timing to me (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:41:50 PM EST
    Why would they announce the VP 2 days before the Olympics?  The only way I can see this being possible is if it were someone they felt would upset the apple cart like Tim Kaine or Joe Biden and they wanted some time to simmer things down.  

    Bayh is a pretty average choice.  Not bad but not terribly great either.  He's experienced without actually achieving a whole lot.

    Not saying it won't happen but it does surprise me.

    They should have done it today if they were (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Teresa on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:55:54 PM EST
    doing it before the Olympics. Aren't the opening ceremonies Friday? Of course, if they wait until the Olympics are over, isn't that just a day or so before the convention? Maybe they should have done it last week.

    Dang. I was still hoping for Hillary even though I knew it wouldn't happen.


    IMO (none / 0) (#69)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:58:09 PM EST
    I think that Bill's comments in that interview pretty much made it clear that Hillary was out and they know it.

    I look forward to Axelrod's memoirs about the selection process.  I really would love to know what they are thinking.


    I thought the same thing. I really didn't expect (none / 0) (#84)
    by Teresa on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:02:32 PM EST
    it anyway, but I knew after that interview.

    I'm looking forward (none / 0) (#231)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:44:49 PM EST
    to Bill Clinton telling all.  

    Because Obama goes on vacation (5.00 / 0) (#145)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:26:44 PM EST
    next week.  Hawaii.  He'll fit in a fundraiser, but the family aka Michelle says it's a vacation, otherwise.

    I know it's the Olympics, but they're not all-consuming.  So I have to say that leaving the continental U.S. yet again is not good, if the Dems really want to win.  I seriously begin to doubt it.

    It's his home state, anyway, and it has few electoral votes -- and his polls are dropping, dropping, dropping.  So he goes on vacation.  Huh.


    Needs to spend more time (none / 0) (#170)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:39:27 PM EST
    with his family.

    See, that is exactly why he needs Hillary as VP.  He could nip off for some quality time with his family and Hillary would take care of everything for him!  I would hate for the Obama family to be stressed out by the demands of the Daddy Obama's job.


    Cream...obama really is gwb redux...:) (none / 0) (#241)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:17:28 PM EST
    So they can appear in the commercials? (none / 0) (#42)
    by Lysis on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:49:19 PM EST
    Didn't Obama buy some obscene amount of ads to run during the Olympics?  Maybe it's new product roll-out time? (Though I hear August is the worst month for that.)

    Maybe (none / 0) (#61)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:56:25 PM EST
    It just seems like wasted ad money.  And completely takes wipes out any possible bump.  It would also allow McCain to call the shots afterwards.

    Then again the convention starts the day after the Olympics end so perhaps they want to get this out now rather than during the Olympics.


    I would rather they (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by MichaelGale on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:10:42 PM EST
    give the young Americans in the competition the opportunity to get some glory and recognition and not have it be interrupted by 20 Obama political ads.

    I think it will just remind everyone about his 'world wide tour' and he'll get a great big ugh.


    Really? (none / 0) (#78)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:00:24 PM EST
    I know a lot more people that follow the summer Olympics than Winter.

    Basketball, volleyball, gymnastics, and swimming are all VERY popular.

    Maybe not as much excitement for the track and field stuff but the above sports are wildly popular across the country.


    OT, but I love the summer games (none / 0) (#204)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:11:32 PM EST
    love the track and field and gymnastics, and diving.  and swimming.

    I think it is Kaine (none / 0) (#53)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:54:01 PM EST
    Obama typically sends out a hint, and then the hint becomes the decision.....

    I'd rather have Bayh than Kaine. (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Teresa on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:59:03 PM EST
    I'd rather have Hillary than either of them.

    I agree 100% (none / 0) (#148)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:28:27 PM EST
    So what?  Observers are we all....

    On the other hand, (none / 0) (#74)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:58:55 PM EST
    maybe this baseball thing is Obama's hint (the ohter noise has been Kaine's hint)--and he did say he would only talk about the pick after he had announced it....

    Maybe Bayh is a red herring... (none / 0) (#189)
    by trublueCO on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:54:21 PM EST
    Perhaps the Obama campaign is making it appear that it will be Bayh, but come Wednesday some other choice will be made that is a big surprise. Nothing to go on here, but it sure seems like the type of thing the campaign might do!

    This is exactly when I predicted they would ... (none / 0) (#214)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:22:51 PM EST
    announce.  It allows them to get the positive bump, and any negative backlash gets buried.

    Timing Challenge (none / 0) (#228)
    by waldenpond on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:40:06 PM EST
    I kept predicting his VP announcement would be all about Clinton and could take away attention from Obama if the VP announcement was near the convention.  Trying to bury the coverage of Clinton is good strategy.  Just need to balance it with the reality that the earlier they announce the more time McCain has to strengthen his choice up against Obama's.

    There are three Sundays (morning shows) before the convention, 10, 17 and 24.  If he announces now, he can get the media to go along and only cover Clinton for 1 weekend.  Then the media can move on to the Olympics and the convention for the next two weeks to give Obama a boost.


    Well, he's sort of nice looking. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Angel on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:47:18 PM EST

    But is he likeable enough? (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:50:23 PM EST
    That's important!

    (Plus undying loyalty and devotion.)


    LOL (none / 0) (#57)
    by Angel on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:54:36 PM EST
    Colin Powell, I could see. (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:49:22 PM EST
    But Condi Rice?  If I had an evil and devious mind, I would use that opportunity to mislead the opposition p. nominee in subtle ways.

    Rice has never struck me as a fan of bipartisanship.

    Obama is pushing for a win (none / 0) (#158)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:35:28 PM EST
    in the Colin Powell sweepstakes....Kissing up to Condi is part of that I assume...

    So much for the vaunted departure from (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by allimom99 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:54:09 PM EST
    "politics as usual" - this is a real yawner. And since this gives the Rs another Senate seat, it further confirms my impression that Obama doesn't give a s**t about the Democratic party. Will he even help downticket Dems in their races? Count me a skeptic on that score.

    This will NOT convince me to hold my nose to vote for him!

    Is Bayh up for re-election this year? (none / 0) (#63)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:56:29 PM EST
    These two are neighbors, aren't they? Both candidates from I-states.

    No, he won re-election to the Senate (none / 0) (#107)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:12:19 PM EST
    in 2004.  

    He never shared his donor list with Hillary.  Daschle shared his with Obama.

    I made token contributions to both campaigns in 2004.  I wanted to save Daschle and thought money would go a long way in South Dakota.  I sent a small contribution to Bayh even though he was a lock on re-election, and I also sent an e-mail asking to be placed on his volunteer list.  The reason I wanted to be on Bayh's list was because I knew he was going to be in on the action...

    So, I am now Bayh's best buddy, getting Christmas cards, etc....

    Starting in January 2007, I got daily e-mails from the Obama campaign.  Nada, zip, zilch from Hillary.  


    can he spell "Potatoe"? (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by MarkL on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:00:22 PM EST
    I demand at least that much from IN. Senators.

    Remember Perot's guy? "Who am I, and why am (none / 0) (#85)
    by Angel on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:03:00 PM EST
    I here?"  That was a load of laughs!

    I would want someone bring 18 million votes (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by Teresa on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:04:59 PM EST
    with her.

    Plus name recognition. (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:19:25 PM EST
    Plus a known brand.  Plus generous donations.  Plus at least two weeks(if not more) of intense media attention.  Plus a serious policy wonk to offset Obama's deficit.  Plus someone who knows the histories of half of Congress and many others.  

    Obama can be the only "shinning star" (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by stefystef on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:49:07 PM EST
    Axelrod and Obama are looking for someone who won't take attention away from Obama.

    Obama's VP needs to be someone who is non-threatening or challenging to Obama.  It can't be someone who can outshine Obama, so a regular white guy can be Obama's only choice because he wants to be the only so-called "change" on the ticket.

    I feel sorry for anyone who thought something more from Obama.


    I'd say Axelrod has limited strengths (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:15:29 PM EST
    and glaring deficiencies - mostly in overestimating the potential negatives of any strategy.  Packaging Obama as a Fresh New Face was about the only way Obama could win the nomination.  That much he got right.  But he got other things wrong, and he doesn't learn fast enough from his mistakes.

    Probably the most painful example from the primaries was how much Obama outspent Hillary.  It was shocking how little benefit all that money created.  At the end, the primary resembled an arms race, where the last one with money in the bank won.  That's brute force thinking, not leveraging assets for maximum benefit.  

    This (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by cmugirl on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:18:35 PM EST
    is the second news about Obama/Bayh today.  Earlier  on cnn.com there was a story with the headline "Obama, Bayh send letter to Pentagon on traumatic brain injuries" (even though 8 other senators signed the letter)


    So we will have a ticket that's right of center and uh, right of center.  Who are we supposed to vote for and why is this better than McCain?

    I'm confused.

    Oh well, so much for change (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by stefystef on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:44:49 PM EST
    Did anyone think that this election was going to be any different from any other election?

    The one thing Obama shares with those on the dollar bills is HE IS A MAN.  And so is Bayh.

    So Obama picked a white man, a Mid-westerner who he hopes can bring him some of the mid-west states to the Democrats.  So how is this "change"?  It's still MEN running everything, and women told to fall in line.

    The more I see Obama, the more I don't like.  I'm not hopeful for November anymore.  Guess I'll have to wait until 2012.  Maybe the Dems will finally get it right.

    Just fyi, to a lot of the Midwest (none / 0) (#205)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:12:02 PM EST
    a lot of Indiana is really more the South.  Many Midwestern states were settled a lot of Southerners, but Indiana more so than any but Missouri -- the only Midwestern state where slavery was legal, of course.

    So is much of Illinois, the southern part, but Indiana is much more Southern.  I.e., these are the states that, despite being under the landmark Northwest Ordinance, kept petitioning Congress to rescind it to allow slavery legally there.  (Since Congress didn't, illegal slavery under the Black Laws just continued in those states until almost the Civil War.)

    And, of course, Indiana gave rise to the revived KKK, which really ran the state -- governor, legislature, etc. -- for years.  And even today, the Confederate flag is widely seen in much of Indiana.  And lots of yard sculptures of African American children eating watermelon or fishing.

    Amid that, to give Bayh credit, he comes from a liberal family -- by Hoosier standards.  But again, by Hoosier standards.  I wouldn't vote for him for the White House.  And anyone who is pro-choice and considers themselves liberal might want to look into him more.  But that's the New Dems.


    he's non objectionable. (none / 0) (#219)
    by Salo on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:29:02 PM EST
    a centrist cypher like Gore was in 1992.

    Thanks for the background on Indiana (none / 0) (#239)
    by stefystef on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:02:33 PM EST
    I didn't know alot about the makeup of the state.  Since Bayh is a Democrat, I thought the state was the same now.

    Bayh would be a face that many would be comfortable with.  Is it real change?  No.  But it is what it is.


    Hmmm. (5.00 / 0) (#194)
    by pie on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:58:13 PM EST
    I make flippant comments to ridiculous statements.  

    You make no convincing statements.

    I guess you and Obama should work harder.

    The North Carolina debate was scheduled for (5.00 / 0) (#203)
    by Angel on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:11:03 PM EST
    April 19th.  Hillary offered Obama debates in Indiana, Oregon and North Carolina - Lincoln-Douglas style debates with no moderators.  Obama declined.  And Obama cancelled the North Carolina debate.  Google, once again, can be your friend.

    A little trip down memory lane (5.00 / 1) (#240)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:09:49 PM EST
    Here's what was/is so terrible about
    the Bankruptcy Bill  which Bayh voted for on behalf of his benefactors, the banking and credit card lobbyists.

    This, in addition to all his other terrible Senate votes, makes me ask: how is this man even considered a Democrat?

    the phonics of it trouble me (5.00 / 0) (#247)
    by dws3665 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:24:17 PM EST

    Obama bye?

    The only thing I know about Bayh is through his (none / 0) (#4)
    by Angel on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:23:38 PM EST
    father and his mother.  I read a biography about her almost 30 years ago.  She came across as the most gracious person, guess that's why I still remember it these many years later.  

    As long as it's not Biden (none / 0) (#14)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:32:52 PM EST
    I don't really care who it is at this point. I'm looking at it from the standpoint of who's a dealbreaker for me. I would hate to spend all week at the convention for a combo I couldn't even clap for in good conscience.

    Yes. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by pie on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:35:28 PM EST
    We're all looking at dealbreakers.

    I'm sure it's less than 18,000,000, but who wants to guess?


    Bayh (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by swiss473 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:52:44 PM EST
    Voted for the war.  I thought Obama has spent the past two years telling us all how superior his judgment is and how he was against the war from the start.  It was his number one attack against Clinton.  When I'm at the debates I can stand on the stage and say I was against the war, you can't.  Him and his supporters have said everyone knew there was no need for war.  And now for his 1st choice and most important decision he's picking someone who voted for the war?  I don't think the netroots and the left will be too happy.

    AND...he voted twice to ban partial birth abortion.  I wonder how NARAL feels about their endorsement now?  I look forward to seeing them brush that aside and saying that it doesn't matter.  

    And for the Bush tax cuts

    And for FISA

    And he was head of the DLC for five years

    Thats just off the top of my head

    I doubt it will be Bayh.  He has too many negatives.


    Obama can lose with Bayh as VP (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by RalphB on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:09:31 PM EST
    as easy as anyone else.  So I;m fine with it.

    Priorities (none / 0) (#202)
    by Munibond on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:10:51 PM EST
    VP position on criminal law (as compared to FISA) is a dealbreaker?

    Absolutely (none / 0) (#233)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:10:01 PM EST
    FISA wasn't broken -- it didn't need fixing -- I'm far more worried about Title III wiretapping excess in drug cases than I am about FISA. Biden loves the first and is so proud of the second and the fact that he "had a hand" in drafting FISA back in 1978. Biden loves wiretapping, he just doesn't think the president should be able to do it alone.  

    Politicians' positions on criminal law issues are the reason this blog exists and they remains its central priority.


    Does he deliver Indiana to Obama? (none / 0) (#27)
    by rilkefan on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:41:09 PM EST
    Ok, it's nice to have a governor on the ticket, and no doubt he's a good person, but I don't know why I should like him unless he can flip his state.

    He's a senator now... (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:56:58 PM EST
    ... but he's also been governor, so he's got a pretty good collection of experience. Other than that, he doesn't really excite me or offend me.

    There aren't many guarantees in (none / 0) (#52)
    by brodie on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:53:42 PM EST
    politics and we can only hope Bayh comes thru in IN if picked.  

    My guess is he would stand a far better chance of success, given the number of times elected in the state and the family name there being a positive, as compared, say, to one-termer Edwards carrying his home state of NC.

    I think too he would probably come a little closer to carrying his state as compared to Sebelius carrying KS for the ticket.


    He could help get rid of (none / 0) (#58)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:54:51 PM EST
    one of the worst drug warriors, Rep. Mark Souder. See here.

    Bayh was Governor of Indiana (none / 0) (#71)
    by wasabi on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:58:21 PM EST
    From 1989 to 1997.  He was elected to the Senate in 1998.

    Prior to that he was Indiana Secretary of State from 1987 to 1989.


    Though he's only 5 years older than Obama ... (none / 0) (#217)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:27:36 PM EST
    he was Governor of Indiana when Obama was at Law School.

    10 years in the U.S. Senate. (none / 0) (#223)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:35:28 PM EST
    Does that qualify as "not a Washington insider"?

    Don;t need him, says Hoosier spouse (none / 0) (#135)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:22:57 PM EST
    who says that southern Indiana won't go for Obama even with Bayh on the ticket.  And says that the Gary mayor -- remember that insane primary night when he was so blatant about his corruption? -- will deliver northern Indiana, anyway, Bayh or no Bayh.

    heh, someone to make Romney look good (none / 0) (#33)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:45:24 PM EST
    what a choice. I suspect this could be it. Quite boring and won't upstage Obama, so that's probably it. And given his ability to moderate almost anything, I'm not surprised Obama is comfortable with him. I suspect he'll lose in debates to Romney just as Obama will lose in debates to McCain. But since Obama has managed to avoid them and looks to be limiting them quite severely, he might squeeze through that issue without too much damage. Well, this will be boring. Wake me when it's over. :-(

    the VP slot would be yet another silver (none / 0) (#35)
    by MarkL on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:46:30 PM EST
    for Romney---yay!!

    Yeah, looked at in isolation, (none / 0) (#36)
    by brodie on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:47:04 PM EST
    Bayh seems pretty blah -- until you consider most of the rest.

    Mostly he's the Does No Harm/Low Risk candidate.  Experienced, moderate, could immediately help win one red state, and comes from the Hillary wing.

    As for taking on the oppo, Bayh is experienced in winning against Rs and seems to bring some more game to the debate table than expected.

    Last cycle, librul Dems had few complaints about Edwards, but his inexperience probably was a reason he underperformed in the one debate that mattered, in addition to some alleged possible disloyalty in carrying out Kerry campaign directives on the stump.

    No one will have to worry about Bayh being ready to debate (as aides were with the jittery Edwards) nor with his loyalty, imo.

    And who knows, if he's picked and is elevated to nat'l office, he might turn out to reveal that his true political stripes, once outside the narrow confines of narrow IN, are much closer to his liberal senator father Birch.

    Oh, good grief. (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by pie on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:54:26 PM EST
    And who knows, if he's picked and is elevated to nat'l office, he might turn out to reveal that his true political stripes, once outside the narrow confines of narrow IN, are much closer to his liberal senator father Birch.

    He could, he may, he might...

    In the final analysis, it's about Obama's qualifications for the job and his willingness to pick a strong team.  

    Who can help him win in November?


    The Stealth Liberals! (5.00 / 5) (#76)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:59:57 PM EST
    They seem like mild mannered legislators until they get into the White House, then they don their spandex and capes and become..[suspenseful chords]..Super Progressives!

    Remember how LBJ changed (5.00 / 0) (#97)
    by brodie on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:07:03 PM EST
    from being a hated (by the libs) conservative TXan as senator then VP (a choice greeted by cries of outrage by labor and social libs, and for good reason), but who, at least on DP, governed mostly as a liberal as P.

    Al Gore too went slightly leftward once he became VP, not by much but enough to register, in substance and in style.


    LBJ's circumstances were unique (none / 0) (#167)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:38:16 PM EST
    Which is a question (5.00 / 0) (#83)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:02:29 PM EST
    that his campaign has to answer.

    Like it or not but there are downsides to Hillary.  If there weren't the decision would be easy.  

    Believe it or not but just because Obama doesn't select Hillary does not mean he is a petulant child that is holding a grudge.


    You have to admit, it could mean just (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by MarkL on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:03:24 PM EST

    There is absolutely no evidence (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:04:42 PM EST
    to suggest that Obama is vindictive or holds a grudge.  As a matter of fact the opposite seems more likely.

    McCain, on the other hand, seems to be vindictive to me.


    Although Obama did state recently (5.00 / 0) (#225)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:37:24 PM EST
    he was still "miffed" as some of Hillary Clinton's statements during the campaign.

    Um, yeah, no evidence except the plain (5.00 / 0) (#237)
    by MarkL on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:38:29 PM EST
    facts which anyone can see on videotape.

    18,000,000 voters (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by pie on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:06:35 PM EST
    are nothing to sneeze at.

    That's the bottom line.


    Well, Obama showed how petulant he can be (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by Angel on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:08:27 PM EST
    in the debate where he said to Hillary, "Hillary, you're likeable enough."  Petulant and childish, IMO.  Not just what he said but how he said it.  It was obvious to me at that point that they would probably not share a ticket if Obama were the nominee.  

    Oh come on (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:11:35 PM EST
    You think that answer was petulant?  I'd say it was a bad answer but hardly indicative of anything just as several of Hillary's missteps in the debates were simply bad responses and not indicative of anything else.  

    Note: Yes I know Hillary never made any errors in the debates.  No need to argue with me about it.  Call it a hypothetical statement.


    Yep, hate to break it to you, (none / 0) (#87)
    by brodie on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:03:31 PM EST
    but pols can and do somewhat change their outlook once removed from the constricting parochial concerns of their home state.  

    They have a larger constituency at that point, and given the difference in political pov from heavily Red state IN and the US as a whole, the simple math says Bayh would have room to move slightly more progressive.

    And, as I say, the antiwar anti-Electoral College father (among other librul positions) could serve as further inspiration to Evan to leave behind some of his overly cautious MORism/carefully split the difference governing style.

    Bayh is one of those who, overall, while not perfect could help O win in November.


    that is true sometimes. Look at Al Gore. (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by Teresa on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:06:37 PM EST
    He wasn't nearly as liberal when he was my Senator. We can hope I guess.

    OMG (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:25:02 PM EST
    If every Democrat who got into the Oval Office was transformed into the next Al Gore, I'd vote (D) without hesitation.

    Think it'll happen with Obama?


    Not in my lifetime... (5.00 / 0) (#232)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:46:43 PM EST
    but then, I'm as old as John McCain.

    Call the home and see if my room is ready.


    I have to say that I was (5.00 / 0) (#163)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:37:02 PM EST
    surprisingly impressed with the strength of his advocacy for Hillary in TV appearances during the primary.  I didn't know he had it in him from past experience, frankly.  But he does seem to have a bit more steel in him when there's something important to him on the line than I would have thought.

    That's pretty much the only good thing I would have to say for him, though.


    Maybe this is a red herring and it really is Kaine (none / 0) (#70)
    by Angel on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:58:16 PM EST

    Apparently (none / 0) (#142)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:25:55 PM EST
    they needed to knock Bill Clinton off the front page....

    This might do it.

    he doesnt excite me (none / 0) (#144)
    by Little Fish on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:26:34 PM EST
    And I'm oh so very blah about the election this year. I need to be excited or else I'm  writing in Kermit the Frog.

    I don't like his vote for FISA and can't imagine having a dem ticket where both candidates voted for that #*$!. I'm also not thrilled with his stance on abortion and since the Supreme Court is a big issue this year I don't want someone who's not 100% pro-choice being a "heartbeat away" from the presidency. But it could be worse I suppose. And the republican ticket will be worse.


    Bayh's foreign policy politics (none / 0) (#160)
    by lilburro on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:36:11 PM EST
    are HORRIBLE.

    From Glenn Greenwald 7/18/08:

    That both parties at the leadership level -- in terms how they act as collective entities -- are controlled by so many of the same factions and operate by so many of the same "principles" is just undeniable. As the most recent, astonishing piece of evidence, look at House Resolution 362, a resolution sponsored by Democratic Rep. Gary Ackerman which spouts every neoconservative accusation against Iran and then demands -- literally -- that the Bush administration order a naval blockade against Iran (see clause 3), an act of war. That Resolution now has over 200 co-sponsors, roughly half of whom are Democrats (including Rep. Ed Towns -- see all of them here). A similar resolution in the Senate -- sponsored by Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh -- now has 32 sponsors, a list that includes, in addition to Joe Lieberman and some of the most extremist GOP warmongers in the Senate, 13 Democrats as well.

    Bolding mine.

    Bayh seems pretty agreeable and bland, so maybe he'll dump this aggressive neocon posturing by the side of the road if made VP by Obama.  But who will replace him as Senator from Indiana?  Bayh's place will be filled by the Repub Governor.  

    What is the gameplan here?  

    What I want to know is... (none / 0) (#183)
    by wasabi on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:46:22 PM EST
    Does Bayh have any elbows?

    Bayh won't get me excited (none / 0) (#213)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:21:03 PM EST
    like Clinton or Clark would, but he won't make me mad either.

    He is no more centrist than Obama or Clinton, in my view.  I have no doubt in my mind that Obama would have voted for the Iraq AUMF had he been in the Senate, and I think Obama knows that too, so he does not hold it against Bayh.  He will have to explain his 'judgement' statements though.

    I have given up on the Dems ever nominating a ticket as liberal as I would like.  This was the year they could have if they wanted to.

    Bayh helped Hillary win Indiana (none / 0) (#218)
    by emmy bee on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:28:35 PM EST
    He campaigned his heart out for her.  I saw them at an Indianapolis rally and he was dynamic and quite likable.  He has to be centrist to be elected in Indiana and he is popular here, I think he would help Obama win Indiana.

    oops typo (none / 0) (#221)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:33:49 PM EST
    the IN and NC primaries were two weeks after PA on 5/6, not 5/26.  OR was on 5/20 two weeks after IN and NC.

    Indiana would be huge (none / 0) (#230)
    by magster on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:44:34 PM EST
    Kerry states plus IN plus IA = 270 EV's.

    If Bayh can deliver IN, then I'm fine with the pick.

    The Simpsons could have been talking about Bayh (none / 0) (#234)
    by BrianJ on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:15:29 PM EST
    Herbert: You, what are your roots?
    Advisor: Well, I guess you could say they extend to when the Angles met the Saxons... [all except Herbert chuckle]
    Herbert: Or in other words, when white met bread.
    -- board meeting, "Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?"

    Beige Evan Bayh... (none / 0) (#235)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:19:55 PM EST
    like oatmeal or Cream of Wheat.  Nice guy, did a pretty good job of advocating for Hillary, but...there's the war vote, the tax cut vote, the partial birth abortion votes.  

    Given how much Obama has moved to the right, it's disappointing to see him possibly pick someone who's already to the right of center.  I suppose because Obama is somehow seen as being very much the liberal - I still have not figure that one out - he needs to be seen choosing someone that balances him, but all I see are two people with center-right leanings - especailly Obama, who has flipped on almost every major issue that matters to me.

    I just don't understand why the Dems don't get that we need fighters, not compromisers.  Line-in-the-sand types, not how-can-we-modify-our-position-to-please-you types.  I almost feel like Bayh would be a younger version of Kerry.  Hmmm.

    As we look at these various and sundry possible VPs, I think it's helpful to try saying their names with "President" in front of them, because this VP pick, assuming Obama wins, is your presumptive nominee for president in 2016.

    "President Bayh?"  

    Maybe it doesn't really matter; Obama hasn't listened, the DNC hasn't listened, the media is useless, so I guess they're going to do what they're going to do, because, after all...we have nowhere else to go.

    Oh, good. (none / 0) (#242)
    by hitchhiker on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:29:42 PM EST
    A man.

    I don't really know how I would handle it if the half of the adult population that has never yet held one of the 2 top spots was to find itself there.

    It's so good to know that the men are still ready and willing to bear the burden for us pathetically underqualified females.

    Thank God for men, geez.  The most mediocre of them are simply  superior to the best of us, again.

    Yesterday I met Gloria Steinem.   I thanked her for writing her op/ed about the media and HRC.  My friends, this is where we're at, decades post the days when she seemed to ushering in a whole new world.

    Baseball?!?! (none / 0) (#244)
    by kredwyn on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:11:34 PM EST
    Baseball for a cause?!? And he canceled?

    That's just bad form.

    On the Admiral Stockdale VP Scale, (none / 0) (#248)
    by KeysDan on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:39:27 AM EST
    Sam Nunn is the worst of the names bruited about and makes the Admiral look good.  Tim Kaine lands somewhat above Nunn, but is too much of an Obama "inbred" with too high a comfort level, not to mention his rightward leanings.  Senator Biden is a hip shooter and we have him to thank, in large measure, for Justice Thomas. Governor Richards has a great resume but does not seem to be media-ready and has the baggage of an inelegant Obama endorsement. Governor Sebelius gets high marks from those who know her, but is unknown, for the most part, outside of Kansas; the golden opportunity given to her to rebut the SOTU address for the Democratic party was not a spellbinder. Evan Bayh seems to be the best of the lot being discussed: he is a centrist, but he is also a Democrat in Indiana, the drawback of voting for the Iraq war resolution can be ameliorated with a John Edwards-mea culpa. He seems more likely to represent the president, rather than be the de facto president, ala Cheney. He looks good and is about the same height, if these things are important. Of course, Senator Clinton is the clear-cut choice.  In any event, Obama's choice needs to be made sooner not later, as a new team is needed fast.