Greg, on this one I have to take issue with your framing. Nobody argued more strenuously than myself that Obama's opposition to the war was essential as contrasted with Hillary Clinton's. But I'm still willing to consider Bayh, because he's started to do something Clinton never did: admit he was wrong.

Now, let's be clear, were he to be chosen, he'd have to explain himself clearly, apologize for his vote, and very openly explain why he did what he did, why it was wrong, and why Obama's judgment ended up being so much better than his (and how he learned his lesson and will never let it happen again).

But, your selective bashing of Bayh on this is a bit odd for a few reasons:

1) He did sign on to that committee, but as far as I can turn up, he didn't actually DO anything with them or spend any real time with them.

2) Bill and Hillary Clinton were among the highest profile voices leading into this war. Had they opposed it, it would have given cover to countless other Dems to do the same. And they caved and supported it. And yet somehow they are given a pass and EVAN BAYH (!?!) of all people is considered the really odious one on this issue? By the way, others, like Biden and Dodd who also voted for it, were also more high-profile figures in the Democratic party than Evan Bayh.

3) You wrote:

Bayh, by contrast, is the sort of Democrat who leaps through GOP frames whenever Republicans say "jump," like so many trained seals jumping through hoops.

Other than the war issue, how many can you provide examples of? I'm not saying you're wrong (although Nate at FiveThirtyEight has shown he has been a pretty mainstream Democrat and a liberal one considering the state he comes from), but I am saying that you're throwing out statements like that without compelling evidence and that's not good journalistic technique.

Listen, I am in no way cheerleading for Evan Bayh (although I believe he's ultimately harmless and if he helps us win a state or two, that's fine). He isn't my first, second, or third choice for VP.

But the degree to which you have assaulted him relentlessly on this issue while giving others a pass is odd.

Not saying he doesn't deserve scrutiny on the war issue, but when figures like Bill and Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden don't come out against the insane Iraq War policy, that bothers me a HELLUVA lot more than little Evan Bayh and his ceremonial post on some organization.

http://strategy08.wordpress.com

Bayh is not along in this regard among Democrats, nor among Obama VP contenders.

The New York Times is so late on this story. Rachel Maddow and TPM uncovered this story weeks ago.

Why all these TPM Election Central broadsides against Bayh? Not that I necessarily disagree (I do think Bayh brings strengths however) But have other potential candidates been given the same scrutiny on this site? Why not?

das: Respectfully disagree. Myself, admitted political junkie and lay person, knew this vote was wrong. For Bayh to vote for the war, for whatever reason, was just a deal breaker, same as HRC. To co-chair a committee on this issue and pursue this flawed reasoning should have been enough to put him out of the VP picture. Frankly, one would wonder how he garnered Obama's respect with his record. I will go so far as to say Obama will not pick him as I personally do not see him as strong nor forward thinking, and Obama is obviously quite intelligent enough to perceive these flaws also.

OT: Greg: Have you talked to Feingold about his comments, specifically the one below in his recent interview about both candidates? This is a guy I love and respect, and to read this just really brought into question the issue of Feingold as one of the good guys. His quote might have been true about McCain in 2000, but not now. The guy is out to lunch half the time and Feingold has to know that. Per interview with Feingold re: Obama and McCain.

"They both have the intellectual ability and the maturity to form judgments about important policy issues. I'd feel comfortable with both of them in there as president," Feingold said. "They are not people who are just preening for the cameras. They're both celebrities. (But) they're the rare breed: celebrities who are actually interested in getting things done."

Would he tip Indiana? Would he be a reasonable and competent partner in an Obama administration?

If the answer to these questions are yes, then I'm fine with Bayh if it comes to that. He might not be my dream VP, but these purity tests only put handcuffs on Obama at a time when I don't think we can afford to engage in self-limiting groupthink.

Buh Bayh.

Good thing, too. Never liked the idea. Picking a Senator who voted for the Iraq War undermines one of the central themes of Obama's candidacy. We need the message to be loud and clear, and not muddied by a "for it before I was against it" pick for VP.

Who is the perfect VP choice? No one. Give me the name of any of the supposed contenders and I'll give you at least one reason why they are a horrible choice. Usually more than one. It's the nature of the beast, at this point. I was pulling for both Edwards and Richardson in 2004. This year, I'm not pulling for anyone. I'm just bracing myself for the inevitable VP backlash and hoping he'll at least choose someone who is gaffe-free.

Greg wrote

The GOP talking points would write themselves.

What would McCain say exactly?

"Bayh supported an unpopular war. I did too, and still do."

"Bayh was a co-chairman on a neocon committee. I know because I served alongside him."

Here's how it would actually go. Bayh says "I initially supported the war, like a lot of people. I was wrong." McCain says........ what?

The Bankruptcy Bill, for another.

Bayh is as DLC as they come, and would be a terrible choice and an insult to Obama supporters. Not that that ever made any difference.

Anyone notice that John Kerry is now Obama's leading surrogate? Obama/Kerry, th

Just pick Clark and be done with the whole silly process. The sooner Obama can unleash Clark and use him to attack McCain over and over the better.

I am a big fan of Joe Biden although he stamps on Obama's message of change similar to Bayh's and both voted for the Iraq War.

Thus there is no perfect VP candidate.

Bayh is a perfect choice. He adds nothing... certainly not Indiana; he muddies the distinctions on Iraq; and he pisses off millions. Another great political decision from the Dems.

"Bayh would muddle Obama's message considerably"

Maybe Obama wants to start sending out a new message, one aimed at skeptical independents and more conservative Democrats. If so, it seems to me that Bayh would be a very good choice. I wouldn't write him off just yet.

The biggest hurdle on choosing Biden is the legal problems his brother and son are in. Other wise he easily makes the most sense.

Read this and tell me he doesn't make the most sense - http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/07/18/the-obama-veepwatch-vol-7-joe-biden.aspx

So far all signs point to Bayh being Obama's VP choice, and I think he's a terrible one. awful. he's a Clintonian trojan horse. it won't just be his record which undermines Obama, he himself will actively participate. just watch. ugh, it won't be pretty.

I think there are two absolute no-no's here: picking someone who supported the war, especially as whole-heartedly as Bayh, and picking someone anti-choice, like Tim Kaine, in a year when Hillary Clinton was so close to being the nominee. This would definitely be taken as a slap in the face by legion female voters, and with good reason. I'll still vote for Barack pretty much no matter what, but his VP choice should not be someone who will be seen as a rebuke of Democratic ideals and beliefs the way either Bayh or Kaine would be.

Wes Clark is head and shoulders (and a few extra inches thrown in) above the other contenders. Incidentally, he's demonstrated that he's willing to call out McCain, and his military record and ezxperience outranks McCain's by at least as much as the four actual ranks. Admittedly he hasn't crashed any planes....

oh, and not to mention of course the first and most important rule in choosing a VP - "do no harm" with the choice. if Obama picks Bayh we'll lose a Dem. senator in a red state where it would be nearly impossible to replace him with another Dem. that alone should be a disqualifier when we're trying to get as close to 60 seats as possible.