Bayh As Veep? But He Co-Chaired Neocon Committee For The Liberation Of Iraq With McCain!
Senator Evan Bayh's appearance today with Barack Obama at the "21st Century Threats" summit has stirred a lot of talk in the press about the possibility of him being on Obama's Veep short-list.
But we're not sure that's such a viable idea. That's because in 2003, Bayh was an honorary co-chair of the neocon pro-war Committee for the Liberation of Iraq -- a group he joined along with none other than John McCain and Joe Lieberman, according to a press release from during the run-up to the invasion.
Check this out, from the group's press release on February 14th, 2003 (via Nexis):
The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI) is pleased to welcome Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) as an Honorary Co-Chairman. Bayh becomes the third U.S. Senator to join the committee after Sens. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) announced their participation on January 28.
The Committee is a neo-con group that was formed to propagandize the country into war. It boasted such illustrious neocon members as Bill Kristol, former CIA director James Woolsey, and even McCain senior foreign policy adviser and Chalabi-bamboozler Randy Scheunemann, whom Josh has been blogging about.
Bayh would, to put it very charitably, muddle Obama's message. It's true that Bayh was said to have subsequently removed himself from the group. But Obama's campaign is partly about -- and rightly so -- the judgment he made, and others didn't, in the run-up to the invasion.
The McCain campaign and the Repubs would have a grand time mocking the choice. Indeed, the McCain camp is already trying to make an issue of Bayh's past.
"We know Obama isn't interested in the facts on the ground in Iraq, but one would think he'd at least be interested in the facts about those rumored to be at the top of his VP list.," McCain spokesperson Michael Goldfarb emailed us about Bayh. The Obama camp didn't immediately comment.
"A lot has changed since 2003," Bayh communications director Eric Kleiman told TPM's Eric Kleefeld. "And Senator Bayh has acknowledged if we knew then what we know now, he wouldn't have cast that vote."
Not sure that'll be enough.
He's not seriously being considered. He and Obama have no personal chemistry (at least it's not readily visible). I think Edwards gets the nod (there really is no appreciable downside with him).
July 16, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. Edwards, who seemed like a bad idea before, looks more and more like a strong contender. He is thoroughly democratic and doesn't repel independents. John Edwards also will bring Elizabeth Edwards to the forefront, and in an environment where Obama is expected to do more to progress Women's leadership, she'll be an excellent personality to share the spot light.
Actually, it would be interesting to see how the polls shape out, following Obama's efforts via ads and foriegn tours to shore up C-in-C numbers. If his numbers enhance as a global leader and C-in-C he is more likely to adopt someone line Edwards. Especially, considering Edwards can keep NC really in play.
July 16, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, but after his lackluster endorsement of Obama and the fact he has been MIA on the campaign trail, I don't see that happening. Granted I like him more than a lot of choices that have been floated, but I think someone with more experience, and different experience (say, executive) would be a better choice.
And by this I of course mean Richardson.
July 16, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Womanizer and a walking gaffe machine. Plus he's not been really on the campaign trail as well. But I understand your objections.
July 16, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards isn't all that popular here in NC. His stint in the senate was marked by considerable absenteeism and lackluster performance. He didn't help Kerry, remember I agree with you about Elizabeth. And without question I'd take him over Bayh, who comes across a real lightweight.
July 16, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards already rounded out a losing ticket. In the spirit of "change," I really can't agree with that choice. And what is the upside? Does he really deliver NC? So many other, better, more interesting and electability-enhancing choices out there.
July 16, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Edwards gets a bum-wrap for the demise of the Kerry ticket. I always thought it was a bad fit, primarily because Edwards was running as an insurgent and was FAR more charismatic than Kerry. Edwards' and Obama's personal chemistry is demonstrably better than that of Kerry and Edwards, and Edwards' does not overshadow Obama in the charisma department.
Plus, Edwards has been vetted, he doesn't step on Obama's toes with Foreign Policy (an area where Obama doesn't believe he needs to shore up with his VP nod), brings his populist message to the ticket, brings Elizabeth to the ticket (and frankly her and Michelle would be a force to be reckoned with if you ask me) and has already demonstrated that he can be a helluva bull dog in a debate (I will acknowledge that he phoned it with Cheney, but how do you think you'd perform in the presence of the Dark Lord of the Sith/).
He may go another direction, but I think it's going to be Edwards, Kaine or Sebeilus (sp).
July 16, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kaine is a good choice. Sebilius cannot deliver Kansas and I don't know if she will amplify women's vote any further than Obama can without a woman on the ticket. I agree with you on Edwards. I'm more worried about his validity of Iraq debate, but he looks like a strong contender.
July 16, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please, no Kaine! That would mean Lt. Governor Bolling (R-rightwing) would become governor of Virginia, effective undermining both Mark Warner's and Tim Kaine's progress as governors. That would be disastrous for a state that is becoming more red every year. It would be a huge step backward.
July 16, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is VA becoming more rightwing? I thought the opposite was true, at least or most especially in NoVA. And NoVA is the demographic and economic powerhouse of the State.
July 16, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it is not. That is the point. We do not want another right-winger (Bolling) taking over as governor, ruining all the progress from Mark Warner and Tim Kaine after we dealt with neanderthal George Allen and despicable Jim Gilmore. The Republican party is still far right-wing here and can do a lot of damage with a like-minded governor in charge.
July 16, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Virginia is not becoming more right wing all the time - it's not a particularly Democratic state (yet!), but three Novembers in a row now we've beaten the Republicans (Kaine '05, Webb '06, State Senate '07). And for a state that hasn't gone Dem in a presidential election since 1964, toss up right now.
July 17, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I need to see Kaine in action to get a better sense of him. I like Sebeilus, but I'm not sure she'd be very effective on the stump or in a debate.
Those questions have been answered by John. It was the ticket I endorsed early in the primary before the voting started (I would have been happy with either at the top of the ticket).
July 16, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sebilius cannot deliver Kansas and I don't know if she will amplify women's vote any further than Obama can without a woman on the ticket.
She doesn't have to deliver KS, what she delivers is a bit of a bump in neighboring MO (which is already bordered on the East side by IL), and I think a major bump in Ohio, especially in the Cincinnati area, where her father, the former Governor of OH, is still politically active. Also, while her help among women might be only a marginal addition to Obama, she is a Catholic, and Catholic Women are significant bloc of swing voters. If Obama could only do as well as Kerry but get a boost among Catholic women in OH, the Dems will win '08.
July 16, 2008 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
All fair points. I guess I just like Sebelius because she eliminates the "two Senators" criticism. Although, it must be conceded that KS is kind of a distant hope.
July 16, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think Obama is going to make a geographical pick. Or at least I don't believe it will figure high in the political calculus he's using to determine who gets the nod.
July 16, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards already rounded out a losing ticket. In the spirit of "change," I really can't agree with that choice. And what is the upside? Does he really deliver NC?
Despite the change message, Obama is better off with a well known "All American" on the ticket. There are some baseless yet fears of the unknown and Obama can afford a known quanitity on the ticket. With NC, if Obama is running within the Margin of Error, may be Edwards can pull-in 3-5 points enough to cause an upset.
My only major problem with Edwards: He has much less validity left on the Iraq War debate, after repeated public endorsement of the War in the beginning.
July 16, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
sorry for the bold face, meant to Italacize...
July 16, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Try the <blockquote> and </blockquote> tags.
July 17, 2008 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Luckily, as VP, he won't be driving foreign policy issues. And Obama, all by his lonesome, has put North Carolina in play. Edwards may add the extra couple of points he needs to go over the top (I certainly don't think Edwards would HURT Obama's chances there).
July 16, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish people will get off the John Edwards kick. Edwards brings ZERO to an Obama ticket. Obama's one "need" is experience (or the appearance of experience). Having a one-note, one-term senator who couldn't carry his own home state in the 2004 election as VP doesn't help.
July 16, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a question I'm too lazy to Google at the moment: I know both parties have recycled losing Presidential nominees (Stevensen, Nixon); but has either party ever re-nominated a losing Veep nominee? Under two different Presidential candidates?
Personally, both Sitting Senator and Recycled Loser are automatic DQ's for an Obama running mate. So neither Bayh nor Edwards holds any appeal to me at all.
(btw, veepstakes threads kick ass.)
July 17, 2008 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Edwards.
No, not John, Chet Edwards, D-Waco.
July 16, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Breaking News via Plouffe mail.
Obama camp that they raised 52 mil in June and they have a total of 72 mil in bank. Wow. His base didn't desert him him after all that FISA stuff.
Sorry to jump the queue but this is a great news indeed.
July 17, 2008 6:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you're right. I vote for this guy every six years by default, but he's had a spine-ectomy. Hell, there are times that Lugar's more of a Dem than Ev is.
This would be a waste of a pick. Personally I think there's a good chance O can take Indiana without him. Myself, I'd prefer General Clark.
July 17, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bayh is a fucking joke in general, as a human being. he was never a serious contender for the VP spot.
July 16, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bayh is a joke I dont know why he was there.
July 16, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
MSM reads too much into everything. Veep stakes is a good game for ratings. The event being in IN is the most apparent reason for Bayh being there. I have to say though, at the end of the VP slot is over rated and seems important only until we have one on the ticket.
July 16, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo. Bayh was there because the event was at Purdue.
Plus, Bayh was a big Hillary supporter, so it doesn't hurt to see him making nice with the Big O.
But he's not serious contender for VP, in my opinion. If I had to make a bet, I'd bet on Richardson. (But I wouldn't bet too many $$.)
-- ARG
(Hoosier by birth...)
July 16, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have to seriously disagree with your thought on Bayh's chances. I think he is in the Top 4 for Obama and with good reason...in fact I have this strong hunch he will be the pick.
He brings a lot to Obama
1)He is handsome, centrist, All American, midwestern, with a picture perfect family.
2)Can deliver battleground state Indiana's 11 electoral votes where Obama leads by 1 pt. If Obama holds the Kerry states and wins Iowa and Indiana he is elected.
3)Experience - He was a 8 year governor, been in Senate for 10 including serving on Armed Services and Intelligence Committees. But importantly he doesn't make Obama look inexperienced like other would (they look the same age)
I really caution readers here to stop eliminating good VP candidates just because the GOP thinks they conflict with Obama's views. Remember the VP doesn't make policy...the President does. And another thing...centrism is not a bad thing. The center is where Obama will have to govern.
July 17, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good Catch Greg. Jesus, does Obama have any VP options that won't be disastrous? If he picks any female beside Hillary, her supporters would riot and burn effigy's of Obama in the streets. Jim Webb's a bit of a loose cannon and doesn't have a great history with women. Sam Nunn has a ton of foreign policy experience, but his age is a factor and my gay brothers and sisters would be pissed. I once liked Chuck Hagel, but Tena(shout out to Tena) very quickly schooled me on how much of a mistake that would be. Who in the hell is left?
July 16, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
John Edwards.
July 16, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why nobody mentions Bob Graham? Could help in Florida, voted against the war specifically because as a member of the Intelligence Committee he was not persuaded by the WMD-intel, and in general strikes me as an intelligent guy. Plus, as he is not in office right now, he would not give up a valuable Senate or governor's seat.
July 16, 2008 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bob Graham was the perfect candidate in 2004, but not for those planning for Hilliary Campaign in 2008.
July 16, 2008 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
He isn't mentioned frequently but has popped up in some of the SUSA polling pair ups as VP.
Brian Schweitzer.
I can't think if someone better than him to fill out the ticket.
Primary complication - he's currently running for re-election as governor.
July 16, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Schweitzer has a wow factor of zero. I don't know why he is floated so often as a VP choice, because he really isn't that great at all. If you want a governor of a state that matters pick Richardson, who has a hell of a lot more experience than Schweitzer, could make sure we get New Mexico and a bunch of other states, maybe even TEXAS, and compared to Schweitzer he is a rockstar, especially with the beard.
Don't get me wrong, Schweitzer is doing a decent job in Montana, but I can't for the life of me figure out why he would be floated as a VP choice. If Obama picked him I'd shit myself in disbelief. The only pick that would be more shocking to me would be Hillary.
July 16, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd love to see Schweitzer as the pick because he helps in the west and upper plains states and he appeals to sportsmen and blue color workers. But I doubt that he'll be the choice.
Jack Reed still seems like a solid choice from my perspective; his background is complementary to Obama's and his politics align well too. He helps and doesn't hurt.
Edwards would also be a good choice I just doubt if he is all that interested. My guess is that he wants another cabinet post.
Richardson's personal baggage gives me some pause but I'd be totally fine with him.
Biden or Dodd are also fine with me too.
The Lincoln approach of a team of rivals is a nice story.
But I'm still leaning toward Reed.
Ed Rendell is the one Hillary backer that would be a good fit as well. He is a good campaigner and surrogate who is politically astute and can deliver the Catholic vote.
Bayh is getting face time with Obama to help in Indiana and as an olive branch to the Clinton folks; he isn't in serious contention for the pick.
July 16, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Plenty of choices a hell of a lot better than Bayh. None are perfect, but all would work just fine, IMHO: Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, and Tim Kaine, to name four.
July 16, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Webb already took himself out of the running.
July 16, 2008 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are a million good reasons not to pick Bayh (any member of Congress is a poor choice), but this is right up there on the list in order of priority. Indiana is indeed a prize worth the try, but not if one has to pick Sen Bayh.
July 16, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, take that one off the list, not that it was really that great to begin with.
Riiichhardsooonnn....
July 16, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like Richardson. But Obama may need to White Guy with a White Wife and a couple of White kids. Also, Richardson may piss off a lot of Hillary supporters- they may percieve it as another stab. Richardson for Secretary of State, perhaps.
July 16, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Biden has Secretary of State on lock.
July 16, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Biden has Secretary of State on lock.
July 16, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really like the idea of Richardson, but the obvious drawback to Richardson is that a lot of Clinton supporters view him as a Judas, and some of those folks need careful handling. I would be pleased if Obama chose Richardson, because I think that he would make an excellent president if Obama were (God forbid) to die, but I worry that choosing Richardson would come at too steep a price in this election cycle, when Clinton supporters wounds are still too raw. A governor, however, is a good idea. I still like the ideas of either Kaine or Sebelius.
July 16, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Richardson may have a grope problem. Seriously. He apparently is, at times, or was, rather, at times, inappropriately "handy" with his female employees and colleagues.
Not much was made of this at the time it came out, but with the national spotlight on, I suspect that would change.
July 16, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Check out Bayh's vote on the cloture motion to end debate on the amendment to remove Telecom immunity from the FISA legislation.
July 16, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Greg, for pointing this out. I've been very disturbed at the increasing MSM buzz around the idea of Bayh (and Nunn, too) being VP. I don't see any way you can square a guy like him with a candidate at the top of the ticket who wants not only to get us out of Iraq but to "end the mindset that got us into Iraq." Plus, Bayh is boring, he's a DLC-er through and through, and he won't deliver Indiana either. Now, if his dad was younger, that would be another matter entirely.
July 16, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
so what bayh co-chaired newcon committee its called bipartisanship. get with it.
Awkward Exchange between McCain’s press aides and St. Louis Reporter
July 16, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think that is the kind of bipartisanship we are looking for. Obama certainly needs someone who is on the same page as him on foreign policy and Iraq, and no one associated with Lieberman, McCain and the rest of the neocons is that person.
July 16, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
And people were complaining about webb's campaigning skills? Bayh makes webb look like an obama clone. Bayh has no presence and sucks as a speaker and campaigner. Add on top of that all the other baggage, from clintons' surrogate to this and I say fuggetaboutit. I am thinking that obama may pick someone that nobody is talking about. I'm not real hot about the leading contenders at this point. I still am hoping that there is a webb miracle, but its probably wishful thinking.
July 16, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just watched Rachael Maddow's thumbs for both Bayh and Sam Nunn.
If I could jump through the TV screen I would kiss her.
Bayh as Veep? Uh no.
- -
Kathleen Sebelius
Chuck Hagel
Joe Biden
Bill Richardson
Al Gore
July 16, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
that was a thumbs down btw ;)
July 16, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have reduced my preferred short list down to two:
Senator Clair McCaskill, or Gov. Kathleen Sibelius.
I would be happy with either as the VP pick. Both are Roman Catholics.
Think about it: A Female Roman Catholic VP candidate. That would help Senator Obama with both critical groups.
July 16, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that choosing another Senator is a mistake, but if it would get FISA-backing McCaskill out of the senate and put her somewhere she could do no harm (like the VP's mansion) I would be all for it.
July 16, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Claire McCaskill is beautiful and always on point.
I would happy with that choice.
However, I still believe Mark Warner is the candidate that best complements Obama and who has the credentials to clean up the economic mess we are in.
July 16, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
We need Warner to get John Warner's seat in the Senate. There's no other Democrat in VA that's capable of winning that seat (at least to my knowledge).
July 16, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"However, I still believe Mark Warner is the candidate that best complements Obama and who has the credentials to clean up the economic mess we are in."
Isabelino, do you think like me, that Warner's Senate run is just one gigantic headfake to the republicans and that he will run as Obama's VP?
July 16, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Warner's run for Senate was a practical decision that had to be taken before the outcome of the Obama-Clinton-Edwards race was known.
It followed Warner had to give a commitment to the Virginia convention. What else could Warner say?
When Obama asks Warner to be his VP, I expect the following:
Obama: "I've admired Mark Warner for a long time. His Governorship of Virginia was exemplary. We share the same vision for the future of the country and Mark Warner is qualified to be President...I floated the idea of him being VP...At first, he politely declined."
Warner: "I was committed to the Senate race. My family, my children, were not sure that they the attention of a national campaign."
Obama: "But I knew Mark was the man for the job. So I pressed him again. The people of the Commonwealth will not have Mark Warner as their Senator, but they and the rest of the country will have the best Vice President there could be."
And so it will go. Voters will like that Obama refused to take "No' for an answer.
To some degree, yes, this is a headfake to the Republicans, state and national. There has also been the issue of mollifying the Clinton element.
Yes, I believe Warner will be Obama's VP. It's a measure of Obama's strong campaign that when the announcement comes, it will surprise pundits and invigorate voters.
July 16, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bayh was Hilliary's boy from the get-go, always at her side, particularly during Iraq press conferences. Hilliary, Evan and a Flipchart.
He was her VP before Iowa.
Mark Warner remains the most obvious choice for Obama.
July 16, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm confident this will never happen but does anybody consider Richard Clarke a possibility? He seemed fairly pro-Obama on Countdown the other night. I have to admit, I have no idea what position he takes on matters unrelated to national security. It's a lot easier to picture him in a cabinet role.
July 16, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
A Catholic is a good idea but I think he'd do better picking a guy. Isn't Biden Catholic?
July 16, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if Biden is Catholic but I am certain the right would tar him with the same brush they used on Kerry. Elite, Northeastern, liberal... not a man of the people, etc..
Perhaps more importantly, like Kerry, Biden often has difficulty being succinct.
July 16, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Biden is not from the elite ranks.
Kerry was and remains a situationally unaware Massachusetts elite liberal. Kerry was also convenient choice for the Hilliary folks back in 2004.
July 16, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would clarify one minor point. To the Republican base, "elite" describes anyone who hasn't at least considered getting hitched to a first cousin.
July 16, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kerry's problem with the Catholic vote is that he doesn't come off as culturally Catholic. He was elite and came off as a rich northeastern WASP. Obama doesn't need elite. He needs a stronger connection with the middle-class.
July 16, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a died-in-the-wool Massachusetts liberal--and you may be, too--this is spot-on correct.
Kerry has been doing yeoman's work lately; unfortunately, he's got a yahoo crank giving him a primary challenge. What a waste of everyone's time and money.
July 16, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops, "dyed." My bad. Oy. I wish there was an edit or preview function here....
July 16, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Biden's becoming much more pointed, but he doesn't want to be VP.
July 16, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Biden maybe good cabinet material. He deserves it. But Biden is not VP material.
His "Neil Kinnock speech" would be painfully rehashed.
Biden's presence would be cause management issues for Obama.
Obama needs a VP who can go off make the case without supervision. Mark Warner, for example.
July 16, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bayh pretty much sums up everything I think has been wrong with the Democratic Party. The guy has been around forever and never accomplished anything. He can't deliver his own state, moves the party to the right, and enables the Republicans on war in particular.
July 16, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now I can agree with that post 1000%. I definitely don't like bayh. Anybody know what he has done in the senate other than enable the mass killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent iraqi women and children and the deaths and horrible maiming of tens of thousands of americans. Anyone?
July 16, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
(crickets)
Couldn't agree more on Bayh.
July 16, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I predicted a long time ago that it is going to be Gov. Kaine(VA) and I am sticking to my guns.
July 16, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
And how smart would Obama look if he choose Catholic anti-abortion Kaine and McCain choose a pro-choice business woman or pro-choice politician from Pennsylvania.
Tim Kaine is a good Jesuit. The potential downside of including him on the ticket is huge.
July 16, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, Sibelius would be not be good because she is a openly pro-choice Catholic and the same issues that arose with Kerry would arise with her: e.g., should she be denied communion for her stance on abortion? This is already being debated on Catholic sites. This would make picking her as much a negative as a positive with Catholic voters.
July 16, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find you all very interesting and read you every chance I have. But I've always had this nagging question: When do you all work?
July 16, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some of us don't. Occasionally we dream of applying to TPM for a gig.
July 16, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where all temps and we click back to TPM when you're not looking.
July 16, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
er, we're all....
July 16, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
While you are reading us. Just a joke. I am retired.
July 16, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a faculty member at a university. We have the summer "off". Ha, ha.
July 16, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh...Hell No! Evan Bayh Co-chaired a Neocon Committee with that 'monster' Bill Kristol. Bayh been mentioned as a possibly VP for Obama. On camera Obama-Bayh look good together, but on paper and behind the scenes there is no connection or chemistry. Biden, Richardson, Kaine and Seblieus are much better choices for Obama than Nunn and Bayh.
July 16, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the problem. A lot of the choices left, voted for the war. It's going to be hard to find someone that pleases all of his constituencies. We might not have long to wait. I'm thinking Obama is going to announce his VP this week before his trip to Europe. This is done for two reasons.
One, to let someone on this coast attack McCain and prevent McCain from gaining any momentum by having the VP being given a "free pass" in front of the media.
Two, McCain will have very little media coverage that week anyways due to the trip overseas and this could be the nail in the coffin.
July 16, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree on the war problem. I don't want anyone who voted for this horrible war on the ticket and I don't think obama would put anyone on the ticket who voted for the war. It takes away some of his message. Now webb was against the war as well, so he would be a good pick. I'm still hoping.
I don't think that he announces his vp for quite some time. He will be sucking all the oxygen out of the media coverage with his overseas tour. Mcbush will continue gaffing along and noone will pay attention.
July 16, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Jed (at the Jed Report) has it right, he announces his VP pick before the Olympics, but after his overseas trip.
July 16, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, that makes sense.
July 16, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama had suggested wanting "to pivot quickly" with this. But perhaps closing down the Hilliary operation and the circumstances of his VP forced him to stall a little.
I was expecting Obama to announce his choice in the second to third week of July. It looks like I was wrong about that.
I think Obama gains if he campaigns with his VP in the 3 to 4 weeks leading up to Denver.
July 16, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure Obama would want to overshadow his trip by announcing a VP beforehand. I would, however, watch for McCain to make a VP announcement during Obama's trip. It's probably the only way he can capture news cycles away from Obama. I'm not convinced this will happen, but I think it's a possibility.
July 16, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still maintain hope that it will be Feingold. I think Kaine and Edwards are also strong choices. I really think it's going to be Hillary though. Notice how the media stops covering everything else when her and Obama are together. Quite simply, in their minds, there is no other story. Total media blackout except for Obama-Clinton. That's why.
Not my first or even in my top ten choices, but I could live with it, more so now than 2 months ago.
OK, let 'em rip...
July 16, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Noooooooooooooooooo clintons, no freaking way. Rule number 1 for picking a vp is to pick a vp that won't cause any damage or problems. The clintons fail rule number 1 exponentially and more than any other potential pick. It would be a disaster. No way he picks the clintons as co-vp nominees. No freaking way.
July 16, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
If he picked Feingold, I might believe he was serious about change.
July 16, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Feingold seems and probably is improbable but if you think about it, it could actually work. Sure the Republicans would claim he is too far left of center but that's the case they will try to make no matter who the candidate is. Feingold has eloquence, earnestness, and guts, more than enough in my opinion to offset any negatives.
July 16, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm. Feingold. Yes!!!! This would comfort a lot of people with respect to balancing the ticket. The only downside is the senate would lose one of its best senators ever.
I was unaware of Richardson's groping problem. If that's the case, no way. Obama has to have a squeaky clean ticket.
July 16, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you all want to really assure success out West -and have a viable chance to turn Texas blue then you need to support Richardson for VEEP - that's the political side of picking Richardson- The practical side of picking Richardson is he a very experience and skilled public servant -who would serve our Country well ..
( and in response to an earlier post I have yet to see one credible story as relates to his "womanizing " or for that matter any fatal public gaffes..)
July 16, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Richardson is not a good pick. He's a good "on paper" pick. He's not a very good campaigner, and have you seen the debates?? Outright awful. Plus, he pisses off the Clinton people completely when we need them the most. If he wants to win the west, it's Kaine or Schweitzer. Kaine, because he speaks spanish (very well, mind you) or Schweitzer, who is very down to earth.
July 16, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate the feedback. I was truly curious. Keep up the good fight.
July 16, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't liked Bayh for awhile--seems way too much of a DINO, IMHO.
Richardson? No. Those stories about him groping women barely made a blip on the national media screen, but if he were Veep choice, we'd get a snootful of them, no doubt, taking the spotlight off Obama.
I guess Edwards, maybe. I honestly can't say I'm enthused about any of the obvious choices.
But I can say that I find the McCain communications to be over the top, and wonder if all this caricaturizing that they do of Obama will wind up making them, in general, less believable.
I mean, to say that "We know Obama doesn't care about the facts on the ground in Iraq" when Obama is going there in the near future just makes them look petty and stupid. Which, I admit, I'm all for, of course, but I just wonder how effective this method of communication is.
Like yesterday's: Now Obama and Amandinejad (sp?) can have that "heart to heart". It's playground b.s., if you ask me.
July 16, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
VP pick has to be Wes Clark. he's tailor-made for this exact situation.
i'll go through the list again, since people don't like to talk about anyone but the MSM-approved choices.
Clark is: White. Male. Southern. Catholic. Half-Jewish. Rhodes Scholar. Not a Senator (no voting baggage). Opposed Iraq War from the Start. Vastly More (and Easily Conveyed) Executive and Foreign Policy Experience Than John McCain. early Clinton Supporter. Looks Good on TV. Willing to Attack John McCain on His "Strengths". Unimpeachable Military Credentials (Dozens of Decorations). Willing To Go Out of His Way for Down-Ticket Democrats. Good at Taking Orders (from Obama's Message People.
you will not find a more suitable candidate for Barack Obama's Democratic VP pick anywhere.
all of the other people mentioned in this thread have gaping flaws, even on paper. Clark doesn't. you can talk about his lack of political experience, but this is an election about Barack Obama, not his VP. Clark gives him heft, without detracting or distracting.
July 16, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
But, but, but....Clark questioned McCain's patriotism, apple pie, and the American flag!!@#$!!!
And, he's probably petless, that terrorist.
Howo could you possibly want him picked?? Are you petless, too?
July 16, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Clark went Big Time four years ago, he fumbled Big Time.
He didn't know if he was coming or going. He was shown to be completely out of his depth. Clark is best looking important standing next to Hilliary, Evan and the Flipchart and appearing on the morning shows with Harold, Joe and Mica -- that's his level.
*Oh and the dirty little secret about the Kosovo War was that it was not a success. It was just as illegal as Iraq. It may not be the blood gushing nightmare of Iraq, but it remains an unresolved festering wound.
July 16, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clark fared poorly in 2004 because his political experience was virtually nil and he was starting from scratch. his political skills have improved a bit, but more importantly he'll be in the hands of Obama's political operators and message department. Clark won't be running the show, Obama will. that's the job of the VP. and as a wingman, as you suggest, Clark is probably the best you're going to find for Obama.
and regardless of your personal feelings about the conflict, the comparison of execution (which is all Clark did, as an officer; he wasn't involved in the policy) of Kosovo to Iraq is nothing but a good talking point for Democrats.
July 16, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nah, clark is toast after his bs on mcbush's nam stuff. The vietnam stuff definitely revealed some major tone deafness on his part. Also, he is very wooden and not a very good campaigner either. Webb's better than clark. Also, I still don't get his support of the clintons, which is problematic for me. Clark, fuggetaboutit.
July 16, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually Clark talks incessantly about when as Commander of the Kosovo War he had to make decisions in tandem with policymakers, as hence knows what it's like to make those decisions (whereas McCain was just a Fighter Pilot et cetera.)
The execution of the Kosovo War was equally as disastrous as the policy and thinking behind it.
How many day of bombing did Clark and Co. plan for? And many days of bombing actually took place? How many bombs did the US actually have left in their immediate arsenal before the Yugoslav capitulation? How many real Yugoslav tanks were destroyed? And how many fake plywood Yugoslav tanks were destroyed? How many refugees became refugees because of the bombing? How many civilians died because of the bombing? How bridges were blown up in Novi Sad? We bombed the other ethnic province of Serbia and for what? To show how quickly we could trade on the Danube? How many Islamic terrorist found haven in Kosovo in the period afterwards? And how many young girls have been prostituted by numerous mafia rings that dominant the region?
July 16, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beyond Bayh's support for the Iraq War (a huge strike in my opinion), there is the fact that Bayh is (like George W. Bush) among the legacy members of our current government. Bayh's father fought for many serious issues, but the younger Bayh seems to be yet another handsome young face that was elected on the basis of his father's name and legacy. Obama's entire campaign is focused on getting rid of the old politics and the old politicians----and finding ways to bring in a new generation...... How does Bayh further this cause?
July 16, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I've said before, Obama has boxed himself in. He cannot choose any VP that voted for authorizing the war or supported it. It would mean they showed bad judgment. And in his dogmatic world that invalidates a candidate.
So who is qualified to be president that did not in any way support the war? Good luck on that one.
July 16, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Webb and any host of governors. See, that was easy.
July 16, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Governor Mark Warner
July 16, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Luckily the VP position doesn't have dick to do with foreign policy.
July 16, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sam Nunn
July 16, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
A big Feingold on that one.
July 16, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jack Reed
July 16, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wes Clark
July 16, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lincoln Chafee
July 16, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really, really like that guy. I wish he would have switched to the dem party. He would still be in the senate. Maybe if reed gets vp, chafee will switch parties and get appointed to fill reed's seat. That would be a great thing. Really, really nice man and all around good guy. I actually felt sorry for him losing his seat.
July 16, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, especially since Sheldon Whitehouse has been fairly useless.
July 16, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kathleen Sebelius
July 16, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brian Schweitzer
July 16, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tim Kaine
July 16, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the "big" list o' Senators who voted against the Iraq resolution:
Sens. Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), Wyden (D-OR).
The always been good guys. Oh, Wellstone! You are missed.
July 16, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bob Graham
July 16, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding!! Bob Graham!!!!
July 16, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Ritter
July 16, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anthony Zinni
July 16, 2008 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I could go on, but I think I've made my point.
July 16, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zinni might not be a bad idea. Hate to sound uninformed, but who is bill ritter?
July 16, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Governor of Colorado
July 16, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. I don't live in colorado, so I didn't know him.
July 16, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lots of Governors and, a number of US Senators who voted against the Iraq Folly.
July 16, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to wonder whether fogu intentionally serves up these opportunities to point out his painfully embarrassing ignorance.
I mean, no one who regularly reads TPM could be this stupid, right?
July 16, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm still pissed about Obama's throwing Wes Clark under the bus that I can't think of a single individual I'd be happy with for Veep. I can say, however, that if he picks Evan Bayh I will be Pissed with a capital "p." He's about as helpful on the ticket as freakin' Sebelius. Really, who's left, fer cryin' out loud? Misogynist Webb? Gaffer Richardson? Haircut 100 Edwards?
Geez, Obama would be better off if Caroline Kennedy were to say, "We've done an exhaustive search and decided that the best candidate for Vice President on the Democratic ticket in 2008 is me."
Now that'd be exciting. lol.
July 16, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think he threw him under any bus. After saying he would never denigrate McCain's service, he also said there were more important things to worry about than and "inartful" comment by General Clark. That's no big deal. Clark all the way.
July 16, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, it was Bill Burton, Obama's spokesman who threw him under the bus, causing all the ruckus. Obama was forced to refine his response--a good thing. Nevertheless, Clark star, which was meteoric, was extinguished in a serious way. Obama's campaign, were they serious about Clark, would have found a more artful way to finesses Clark's comments. They didn't, sending the message loud and clear that Clark is not a contender.
July 16, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wesley Clark!
July 16, 2008 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Geez, Obama would be better off if Caroline Kennedy were to say, "We've done an exhaustive search and decided that the best candidate for Vice President on the Democratic ticket in 2008 is me."
Lol...funny.
You're right it's impossible to find a perfect VP.
July 16, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the kind comments. I always like to think a little Cheney lurks in Caroline just to shake up her image a bit.
July 16, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to say how surprised I am that so many in this thread continue to talk about Webb. He said no already. Are you guys paying attention?
July 16, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi loki, long time. Yeah, I know that he said no and was pretty shermanesque about it. But, there is always hope. It could still happen, but the odds are that it won't. I can still throw props up for my fav, can't I?
July 16, 2008 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Webb is DOA. His sexist remarks about women in the military (a horny woman's paradise??) are beyond the pale and guaranteed to piss off 1) Hillary feminists and 2) female veterans (like me.)
The people who trumpet Webb don't know much about Webb.
July 16, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
You obviously know very little about him based on your rants against him. Sorry, I disagree with you and you are misquoting and taking out of context some of his statments. So the guy makes a poor statement over 20 years ago and gee he's totally out of the running and should be vilafied for eternity? I think that you may be in the wrong party. He did more for woman in the military as secretary of the navy than anyone before him and probably since. You obviously have an agenda and don't know squat about him.
July 16, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops, missed your point 2 when I skimmed. Now I get the agenda. However, you are sadly misinformed.
July 16, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't have an "agenda." Geez, isn't someone allowed to dislike Webb?
I'm sorry, but he was problem, and his Tailhook responses were divisive, dismissive, and insulting. Maybe you think I need to get over it, but I don't think so, thanks. I've not seen any evidence that he has had an epiphany in his attitude towards women in the military. Perhaps you'd like to enlighten me?
As for being in the wrong party, that sort of attack is completely beyond the pale. I'm sorry to report to you that I hold an elected office in that liberal bastion of Massachusetts, am as liberal as the day is long, and don't need to justify my credentials to you. FHS, lighten up, Francis.
July 16, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You got me. I guess I should lighten up. I liked your closing. Maybe I'll change my name to francis.
We agree to disagree on webb. Maybe when I get a chance I'll try to get some links to try to persuade you. Good luck with your elected office. The more dems the better. Thanks for your service in the military and in elected office by the way.
July 16, 2008 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, cool. Gimme the goods on Webb, I'll be glad to change my mind. I'd love to love the guy because so many people do. Plus, whenever a Republican takes off the chastity belt to cross the aisle, we should celebrate, right? I wanna believe.
We're holding down the fort up here in Heathenland--and I wouldn't live anywhere else. ;)
July 16, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Never ever pick a VP candidate that has not won at least one state wide election. The presidential election is no place for amateurs. A state wide win shows that at least they have won a contest where they had to appeal to more than a narrow base of supporters. That rules out all Generals, Mayors, Congress members, and business leaders.
If they have not won at least a state wide contest, then they have not been vetted for how well they can perform on a big stage. The risk is too large to take such a gamble. Pick someone with a history of winning.
July 16, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point.
July 16, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wes Clark is a good safe choice; Sherrod Brown is my ideal.
July 16, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Sherrod's won multiple statewide elections for executive office in an important swing state.
July 16, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
True, Brown might not be a bad choice as he's a relative newcomer to the national scene and he might be a plus in Ohio.
July 16, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brown served seven terms in the US House, but you're right, he seems fresh, working nicely with the change theme.
More importantly, he's young, liberal and ready to run eight years from now.
July 16, 2008 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seven terms? I hadn't realized he served so long. Thanks for the nice way of telling me that, too. He does seem "fresh" and would complement the change theme nicely. Is he even on a list, short or long?
July 16, 2008 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I live in Ohio (Columbus, even), after over 20 years in NYC.
Sherrod Brown does not even appear on the radar. Seriously, the last time I remember reading about him was back in 2006, when the big question was about his vote for the MCA.
Bob Geiger: Audience Member: “In 2006, when you were still a member of the House of Representatives you voted for the Military Commissions Act, which had as one of its elements, the suspension of Habeas Corpus. Given your recent efforts to restore Habeas Corpus, would you still cast that same vote today.”
Brown: “No, I was wrong.”
Well good on Sherrod for that, and certainly better than Hillary on her AUMF vote. But I don't see him doing much to deliver Ohio.
I'd rather see Wesley Clark. Never accept Rethuglican framing. Always throw same back in their hypocritical, lying faces.
~
July 16, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's hard to see how one picks Sherrod as a shield against Republican attacks, he's quite fiscally progressive and antiwar.
July 16, 2008 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm hoping for a "Cheney"..... Caroline Kennedy picks herself.
July 16, 2008 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just three little letters explain the "Bayh as VP?" media meme: D-L-C.
1. I'm sure the DLC spinners are pimping the idea; at this point their only hope of keeping a foot in the door in terms of power within the party is for one of their own to be chosen as running mate. Because whether the ticket wins or loses, one of the DLC's own is at the top of the list to win the nomination in either 2112(lose) or 2016(win).
2. The big media establishment want what they always want: a Republican. If they can't get one, they'd like a DLC Democrat. And if they can't get that, then they'll punt by pimping a DLC running-mate.
Bayh would not only bring nothing to the ticket, he'd be a negative - voters have already rejected the DLC's other offerings this year.
And please stop bringing up Biden. Senator MBNA. The single person most responsible for the shameful presence of Clarence Thomas on our nation's highest court. Edwards, if I recall, has already said he would not accept an offer to run - did he reverse that? Wes Clark is a horrible campaigner and neither Webb nor Richardson are particularly dynamic.
There's only one thing for Obama to do - pick Russ Feingold.
July 16, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would not mind Evan Bayh as a VP candidate. If Senator Obama thinks that Senator Bayh will help turn Indiana blue, then I think Senator Obama should pick him. I agree that Senator Bayh is not progressive enough, and he is not as inspiring as Senator Obama. However, I want to win this election, and if Senator Obama's team believes that Senator Bayh will greatly increase their chances of winning Indiana, then I will support it.
I just want to win.....
July 16, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's where I'm in disagreement on Clark. Clark stomped on Obama's big Patriotism speech. Sure, it was the media that drummed it up, but it wouldn't have been in discussion if Clark didn't make that comment in the first place. I don't know how I'd feel if I were Obama about that. I'm sure he really wanted that message to get out, and I don't know if it did completely.
July 16, 2008 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Evan Bayh brings to mind an anectdote from Gore Vidal. His grandfather Gore once told a story about William Jennings Bryan. He said that Jennings Bryan had once said, "You know, I base my political success on just three things." Senator Gore paused for dramatic effect. "What were they," young Vidal asked. "I don't remember." the old man said, "but I do remember wondering why he thought he was a success."
This is sort of what I think of Evan Bayh.
July 16, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I demand that Obama pick Bayh as his VP and then dump him!
July 16, 2008 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
My impressions of Bayh:
In December '04 or '05 I tuned-in, mid-interview to a NPR segment on Iraq. I was thinking, who is this neo-con twit, spouting all of Bush's talking points on whatever was going on at the time. It turned out to be Evan Bayh!
In May '08, on the Bill Press Show, again I caught it mid-interview. It seemed to be an interview with a Hillary supporter, but a very tepid one, and I couldn't really tell what his point was, or why he was supporting Hillary.
Besides nice hair, that is all I know about Evan Bayh (well, I guess also that he had a Dad named Birch or something improbable like that). In my book, not exactly Vice-Presidential timber.
July 16, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
His dad was a great senator who would have made a great president. Unfortunately, as is too often the case in political families (the Bushes being textbook example #1), here, the next generation is a pale imitation of the original.
July 17, 2008 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't the larger issue (over a VP choice) that members of the (DLC Lieberman and now Bayh) were complicit in "propagandizing" bush's war in Iraq?
The DLC/PNAC (need a New Pearl Harbor) ties also include Will Marshall, president of PPI (the DLC thinktank) who was a signatory to a PNAC issued letter expressing support for the war.
July 16, 2008 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about Ted Strickland, Ohio gov? Executive experience, well spoken.
July 16, 2008 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Evan Bayh is an excellent choice for VP. First and most importantly he can and will deliver Indiana for the democrats in November. Second off those of us that know him know he is more liberal than he puts off. You can't expect a senator in Indiana to get re-elected with 60% by voting liberal can you? Plus he is a hood looking guy that has nothing in his past that can come up and hurt the campaign. He will get out there campaigning hard when his time has come but considering he has not needed to in over 12 years shows you how strong he is here in the state. Plus he is busy getting people to rush to Jill Long Thompsons campaign so Indiana can get rid of Not My Man Mitch Daniels!
July 16, 2008 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bayh is vile. He is unacceptable. He votes wrong on EVERY core, important issue there is. He is pro-war-war-war, pro-corporation-no-matter-what, and anti-Bill of Rights. He is ALWAYS on the neocon side of any vote.
I'd rather have Lugar as a VP than Bayh. Lugar is an honest GOPer while Bayh is a GOPer who runs as a Dem.
July 17, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama will do anything to win so it should not supprise you if he took Joe Lieberman's buddy Bayh. He once threw four people off a ballot so he could run unopposed. He tells the American public that his campaign takes no money from lobbyists and then rakes in millions from lobbying firms via the back door. His political 180s are nothing new. Barack Obama has no core convictions other than his own political welfare.
July 17, 2008 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone have an opinion on Gephardt as a VP option? Labor, labor labor... would help with Michigan, Ohio and Missouri perhaps.
July 17, 2008 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
David Plouffe used to work for Gephardt.
But, Gephardt endorsed Hilliary early.
Moreover, Gephardt is the past.
July 17, 2008 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love the idea of Gephardt and I feel fairly confident that his presence on the ticket would secure Missouri for the democrats. That said, I am not sure how much good he would do elsewhere. I do not lay much stock by Isabelino's objection that he was an early Clinton supporter (Clinton now backs Obama, so how is that a problem), but I agree that Gephardt is kind of stale by now. He has been out of office for long enough that I am afraid that folks will already say "Dick Who?".
July 17, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here is my choice in order of preference
1/ Hagel -
2/ Edwards
3/ Schweitzer - governor of Montana
4/ Biden
5/ Richardson:
6/ Gephardt
7/ Tim kaine
8/ Mark Warner
July 17, 2008 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd be happy with all of your choices, except for #1 -- Hagel's right on Iraq, but wrong on most other issues, so make him defense secretary instead -- and #6 -- Gephardt's booooooring IMHO.
July 17, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
My prediction: Kaine or Biden will be the VP
July 17, 2008 1:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama does choose Kaine, I wouldn't be surprised if Obama announced his cabinet the day after the Republican National Convention to blunt the bounce that McCain will get out of that similar to McCain probably announcing his VP choice the day after the Democratic National convention as well as to show the nation that the Obama cabinet will be experienced.
If Kaine is the VP than some of the people I would like in an Obama cabinet:
Secretary of State: Joe Biden
Attorney General: John Edwards
Secretary of Veteran Affairs: Chuck Hagel
If Biden is the VP than there is no reason for Obama to announce his cabinet for the ticket will have more heft.
July 17, 2008 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Regardless of who the vp is, I think it would be an incredibly smart move for obama to announce some of his cabinet members and send them out on the trail. It's outside the box, but it makes total sense and will totally shred the alleged experience issue.
July 17, 2008 3:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like Zinni too. He was very outspoken against the Iraq invasion. As former Commander of Centcom over Iraq, I think he could neuter 'ol McCain in less than five minutes.
July 17, 2008 2:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
New Rule: If you are now or have been in the past a member of the DLC, you are disqualified to be considered a VP candidate.
July 17, 2008 5:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama raised $52 million in June.
July 17, 2008 7:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
DLC member Bayh is a neocon.
And, in other news, water is wet, summer is hot, etc.
July 17, 2008 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good Lord, Evan Bayh as VP? Rahm Emanuel as Speaker? I really thought this election was going to kill off the DLC forever, but...Please God save us from the "centrists."
July 17, 2008 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you're right. I vote for this guy every six years by default, but he's had a spine-ectomy. Hell, there are times that Lugar's more of a Dem than Ev is.
This would be a waste of a pick. Personally I think O can take Indiana without him. Personally, I think General Clark would be a nice fit.
July 17, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
How much longer are we going to wait on this VP pick?
When did Kerry choose Edwards? This seems awfully late in the game.
July 17, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, it used to be that you didn't get the pick until Wednesday or Thursday of the Convention. It's only recently that there's been a tendency to do it earlier.
July 17, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gore named Lieberman on August 8th. 6 days before the Democratic convention.
Kerry named Edwards on July 6th. 20 days before the convention.
The 2008 convention begins on August 25th, 39 days from now.
Obama to name Warner on or before August 4th? This would them 3 weeks to campaign together.
July 17, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bayh is unacceptable as a senator, let alone as a VP. He is a GOPer in all but name (literally). The form letters he sends in response to any message you send him in opposition to his MANY anti-Constitution votes are almost identical to those you get from Rep Buyer, a GOPer's GOPer.
Bayh should be drummed out of the Democrap party along with Lieberman.
July 17, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's the antithesis of Cheney. He could argue that his job as VP would be to dismantle the powers of the office.
July 17, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
the Obama camp would do well to keep in mind that even avid anti-war supporters can be pushed away from Obama and choosing Bayh will have a serious effect in that direction.
July 17, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Picking Bayh would just be another F Y too his voters. Obama and his big words have yet to ever prove leadshipa aganist a corporate rule, so lets freaking hope Obama knows how to do that.
You know, lead.
July 17, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Bradley
July 18, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Having known and supported Senator Evan Bayh since he was Secretary of State in Indiana, I can not adequately express how disappointed I have been in Senator Bayh's voting record in the last few years.
Senator Bayh is supposedly a "Democrat" but his voting record in the Senate belies that claim and many true Democrats in Indiana wish that he would just be honest about it and switch parties!
I really wish Democrats like Senator Bayh would stop behaving and voting like a Republican... We need Democrats that lead and set themselves apart from the Corporate agenda that is destroying this nation and seriously address the needs of the majority of Americans in a progressive way.
Remember when the Democratic Party was like that? Back when we won elections on values and issues that concerned and affected people instead of "fear politics" and the milquetoast strategies of "Republican Light."
July 20, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink