I want to know if there would have been this type of public outcry if Clinton had won the nomination, since it was pretty much conventional wisdom that Bayh was going to be her first choice as VP.

Bayh wouldn't be my first choice at VP by any means, but I'm starting to get sick of these types of circular firing squads from Democrats. Greg seems to really enjoy cheering this particular one on.

I always liked Evan Bayh. He seemed like he would be an easy choice to get a Dem in the White House by putting just enough red in the blue.

Then I found out that there was way too much red in the blue. Then I found out about him being a co-chair of the notorious neo-con group along with the "moderates" McCain & Lieberman.

I don't know if he will ever get my vote again as a senator of my state.

Anybody else feel sorry for me because I live in the middle of deep-red Indiana where Bush was God back in the day, and now McCain is perfect except he isn't conservative enough?

I agree. Sen. Bayh undercuts Barack Obama's message. That said, its extremely counterproductive for some progressives to push a STOP BAYH movement.

Whats odd about the timing of this article is that i was just on the Huff and one of its citizen journalist as a piece on Bayh titled, Bayh: Pros and Cons. And people are sounding off.

I guess I'm confused about the mission of TPM Election Central. Is it a news and analysis site about election news or a place for pushing one author's opinion about why certain people should or shouldn't be VP? Or is it whatever you want it to be?

Greg, you know I'm a fan of your stuff, but I find your repeated foray into this territory jarring. But hey, this is your site.

NOTE: this has nothing to do with my opinion about Bayh, which is largely shared with most of you.

http://strategy08.wordpress.com

win the freakin election. thats the most important thing.

Bayh could bring in Indiana which he is very popular and help solidify the midwest where Obama is from also. he would help in MI, OH, IA. if we win those 3 we win the election.

its obvious Bayh played to the center over the years or else he wouldn't of won re-election so easily.

hmm, i wonder why Taylor Marsh is so opposed to Evan Bayh getting the nod? i wonder who she is advocating for VP...

wait a minute.

Taylormarsh.com and Openleft.com. Wow.

Now there are two sites that I'll bet have just a ton of cred and goodwill banked with the Obama campaign. I'm sure their participation will help make this movement a resounding success.

How many Dems with foreign policy experience were on the right side of the Iraq issue when it first cropped up? I'm not saying that excuses Bayh or anything - I legitimately want to know. Jack Reed and Bob Graham are the only names that come to mind.

I am a staunch progressive, and I am quite tired of the line that Bayh is horrible.

1. We're such geniuses, we lost two elections in a row we should have won. I'm willing to let Obama, advised by those who brought him this far, figure out how to win without superimposing my or our brilliance upon him. I do not want to impose an ideological purity test on his nominee, other than s/he be a Democrat.

2. This Bayh was too into Iraq thing is crap. Ok, let's get rid of half the Dems in the Senate, and all Dem Pres candidates. The party's hands are not clean here; quit imposing selective litmus tests. It was a binary function, and most of our Senate leaders failed the Iraq test.

3. It wouldn't suck so badly to win Indiana, would it (we lead by one right now)? It wouldn't be so bad to have a VP who could help in Michigan and southern Ohio with the voters Obama least won in the primaries? It would be ok to unite _different_ groups in our party, even those who aren't us, wouldn't it?

Just because I'm to the left of Evan Bayh doesn't make him a bad choice. It probably makes him a good choice. Let's think of our fellow Dems first, and ourselves second.

And I'm so sick of Dem groups criticizing the nominee with his narrow lead. This is another bullshit run up that bullshit path. Can we win before we piss on our leg, puh-leeze? Is this too much to ask? If the people who send out e-mail appeals on stock progressive issues ruled the world, we'd be the permanent 45% party. Can we not let our leaders lead?

*bangs head on wall*

Personally, I'm supporting the Democratic team no matter who Obama finally decides to pick. Still, it's a shame that with this being a considered a Democratic year, all the VP choices rumored to be on the short list come from a similar right-leaning mold. Why is it that republicans can have someone like Cheney on their ticket who doesn't even attempt to appeal to those on the left, but democrats are always pushed into accepting a VP candidate that's a DLC type or someone who politically appeals to those on the right? I would love it if Obama shocked us all and went for someone truly progressive.

I think this is a ridiculous tactic that will alienate Indiana more than anything else. I mean have some trust in Obama and his VP vetting team instead of pulling this silly stunt that isn't going to help in turning Indiana blue.

Some people can't see the forest for the trees.

Bayh is Obama's best pick to get elected. If Barack picks Kathleen Sibelius he will lose by, among other things, infuriating Hillary supporters for suggesting female politicians are fungible and repulsing misogynists who don't happen to also be racists.

This whole anti-Bayh FB group is playing right into GOP hands. Obama called for a UNIFIED United States in 2004, that's what he's calling for now. UNIFIED means that a diversity of viewpoints are offered and considered.

Yes, Bayh is less liberal than Obama, but that does not make him a conservative. Maybe it would be beneficial to have more than one point of view represented in the Democratic ticket instead of a single wing of the party alone.

It's a smarter way to govern.

Wouldn't that be a nice change we can believe in?