Sorry kids, but you gotta stay on topic.

Kisses,
Ezra.

I'm putting my fingers in my ears with your ludicrously reasonable Bayh talk.

To all your points I must say three things:

Brian Schweitzer. Brian Schweitzer. Brian Schweitzer.

Bayh is conservative, hawkish, and elevating him to veep will deprive Obama of a crucial vote in the Senate,

Unless Mitch Daniels gets toppled in the gubernatorial election. He came back to the all-important 50% in the last poll, but he's not a lock.

This isn't to say that I give two shits about Bayh -- Schweitzer would be a fantastic choice, as a genuine antithesis to Cheney, but he's apparently not interested -- but the Senate seat isn't a goner.

(Dear Prospect admins: can we lose the 'Anonymous' posting, and at least force the fucktard trolls to distinguish themselves?)

An important subliminal point in Bayh's favor is that his father was a known and respected senator. Obama's father's early desertion of his family, among many other things about him, while completely unfair to blame on Obama, are nevertheless negatives in his background.

But as the Obama campaign has lost its message a bit and watched the new politics get kicked in the teeth a couple times by the old politics, it's becoming less likely that they'll make a particularly innovative veep choice.

I don't think it's helping that a lot of people, me included, remain mystified by this "new politics" that the Obama campaign is supposed to espouse. I continue to think - given that McCain could be beaten by a begonia at this point - that Obama is his own worst enemy here, and the mistakes (the continued reliance on charisma, personality presentation and vague uplift over more issues oriented approaches) are his to make. Picking Bayh, at best, solves a bit of the lingering Clinton problems by putting one of her key supporters in a prominent place in his operation. The "whitest man" and nominal conservatism Bayh brings to the table, ultimately, don't make much of a difference either way, since the notion of Obama as especially not those things (i.e. "the blackest man" or especially left wing) has been a bit more wishful than real all along, anyway.

Sigh. If it must be, then so be it. I really don't want Bayh running for Pres as the frontrunner in 8 years though.

I am astounded by this growing consensus for Evan Bayh. I'm convinced that he is just a media darling - ever since I started seeing him pop up on Fox News every other Sunday morning.

Fortunately, the conventional wisdom on these things tends to be wildly wrong. We can only hope so.

The ONLY thing that MIGHT persuade me that Bayh should be on the ticket is that Obama's number counters are convinced that Bayh will materially help Barak in OH, MI and, of course IN. OH and MI are key, but I'm don't see Bayh making a difference. Bayh might put IN in play - but if IN has become critical then Obama is really in trouble.

Bayh is not just white bread, he is white bread soaked in water. Does he believe in anything other self-preservation? No man in politics owes more to his father for the surname bestowed.

The thought of Bayh succeeding to the WH makes my tummy threaten rebellion. In regards to the traditional role of VP candidate as attack dog, Bayh is more likely to lick someone to death than take a bite.

Yuck!

Picking Bayh, at best, solves a bit of the lingering Clinton problems by putting one of her key supporters in a prominent place in his operation.

What lingering Clinton problems? And, isn't it possible that those lingering problems, whatever they may be, will only be amplified by picking someone who isn't named Hillary Clinton? Isn't that the crux of his "Clinton problem"?

But my hunch now is that it'll be Evan Bayh, if for no other reason than Evan Bayh is the single whitest man in America, and I have a feeling that the Obama campaign wants America's Whitest Man in some pictures these days.

I think Bayh would be a smart pick for Obama, for the reasons stated above and because he is a Clinton-style New Democrat--may not deliver on that middle-class tax cut, but sure knows how to make the folks believe he will. He may be a poll-driven politician (just as his choice as VP might be poll-driven), and may not be the favorite choice of the far-lefties, but he's got a centrist appeal and a middle-of-the-road persona that could only benefit the Obama campaign with those all-important "swing voters". I think it would be a smart move, much smarter than picking someone further left than Obama. And probably smarter than picking another minority, as, for some, that migh be perceived as a big "screw you, white men". And no president has yet been elected without the majority of the white, male vote.

I'm just saying.

The Democratic party, like all political parties, is made up of lots of factions, all of whom have to be sated and paid off. Choosing Bayh as VP is the equivalent of paying off the DLC, so they recognize it as more in their interest to get behind Obama than to sit this one out. It would be no different than McCain choosing Huckabee to pay off the theocons or Romney as a sop to the moneycons.

And probably smarter than picking another minority

Women are in the majority in the US.

Please no Bayh. The only good this guy does, literally the only good, is that he caucasses with the dems in the Senate. Take him out fo the senate and anything good he does is lost immediately.

His politics are awful, I find Nate Silver's case completely uncompelling and picking Bayh is capitulating to the belief that in order for progressives to win you need to punt on a whole host of important issues. Progressives everywhere should be virulently opposed to Bayh as the pick.

No matter what it would be impossible for the Obama campaign to move far enough to the right to be worse than McCain, but progressives should hope for more than just that. This election is a real opportunity for some fresh politics to be established in this country. Bayh won't kill that opportunity but as he embodies everything that is infuriating about the middle Dems his acension would be a big step in the wrong direction.

The villain in the first Ghostbusters? He's a Sumerian deity named Zuul? (Okay, so I'm a huge dork because I just watched the original on Hulu.com, but the Stay Puft Man is not the villain, he's just a product of Dan Aykroyd's character's imagination.)

You are truly an asshole.

Who cares how white he is. He can help win Indiana.

I guess you would rather have the most boring speaker in the Country Sebilious.

When you run for President, you can make your stupid choices.

Sebilious has done nothing.

Who cares how white he is. He can help win Indiana.

Isn't that part of why he can help win Indiana? I kid, I kid.

But seriously, where's the proof that: a.) Obama needs him to win Indiana, AND/OR, b.) only Bayh can help Obama win Obama, AND/OR c.) Bayh can actually win him Obama to begin with? Also, isn't it possible that putting such a vanilla candidate next to Obama does nothing to help in other states that might go Blue, such as Virginia, Colorado, and North Carolina? Or must we leas ourselves to mediocrity due to the wishes of one state alone?

I guess you would rather have the most boring speaker in the Country Sebilious.

Last time I checked Evan Bayh was not an exciting speaker.

Sebilious has done nothing.

And Bayh has done...?

What are you his son or something?

BTW: I meant vanilla purely as a descriptive term relating to the overwhelming boringness of Evan Bayh. :)

He does look like the men on our money though! So, maybe he is worth a look.

Kevin S. Willis:
your contention that "no president has yet been elected without the majority of the white, male vote" is incorrect.

Bill Clinton won two elections in which he received 37% and 39% of the white male vote, second to Bush Sr. and Dole. That was in a 3-man race of course, but in a two-man race he still would have lost the white male vote, and likely won both elections.

"The thought of Bayh succeeding to the WH makes my tummy threaten rebellion."

It'll pass, JimPortlandOR. Obama has no worries among the dim bulbs on the left. It's the key to understanding his political strategy.

Obama will keep tacking right and fucking you over on policy after policy, and you'll say, "Thank you, sir. May I have another?"

-----

Since FDR, we've had three genuinely rightward-leaning Democratic nominees: JFK, Carter, and Obama.

Carter was the only one of the three who faced significant grumblings on the left, and thus he picked Mondale to be his successor.

But JFK and Obama were able to disarm the left via identity politics, and thus had no trouble from the left in pushing forward successors even more conservative than themselves.

I think Bayh is likely a head-fake, but fergawdsakes, Obama could pick Chuck Hagel as Veep and the idiots like you would convince themselves it was all good within 48 hours.

So that campaign surrounded by cops and heralding the end of big government and welfare reform by Bill Clinton wasn't enough to make him "rightward"?

" think Bayh is likely a head-fake"

Caveat: given the way the "roll-out" is happening, it screams head-fake to me. But over the past couple of months when I've tried to think the way Plouffe and Axelrod think, I do come up with Bayh as the pick.

He fits perfectly within their overall gameplan:

- The left is already neutered, so keep moving right
- No drama
- Leverage regional Illinois strength

I think their gameplan sucks, both for the election and for what would come after if they win, but when I try to put myself in their shoes, that's what I get.

"So that campaign surrounded by cops and heralding the end of big government and welfare reform by Bill Clinton wasn't enough to make him "rightward"?

- "End of big government" came in '95 in response to the Gingrich campaign victory, not during the '92 campaign.

- More cops on the beat is a pretty standard lefty policy to high crime levels. Compare and contrast to righty crime policy approaches like 'three strikes and you're out'.

- Welfare reform was a single tactical rightward tack to make his lefty policies like universal healthcare and infrastructure spending palatable.

Clinton '92 was a reformist lefty campaign, as opposed to a unreconstructed lefty campaign ala Mondale. Very little in common with the rightward leaning campaigns of JFK, Carter, and Obama.

What the heck is up with him being pictured with Eeyore? No wonder the Democratic party is in the crapper in Indiana. Get a tougher looking donkey, people.

I was a big Clark fan, still am, but now I come back to Biden.

Obama's big challenge will be to get swing voters and independents who just need a little nudge to go with Obama. I worry less about Obama "tainting" his youth, new-age image by picking a DC guy like Biden and more about him making it even harder to swing voters to go with him by adding another young, unknown guy to the ticket. I follow politics pretty closely and Evan Bayh just seems like an empty suit to me with no real distinguishing features.

Biden, and Clark for that matter, would add a bit of gravitas to the ticket and give people who want to vote for Obama, but are still a bit reluctant, the permission slip they need.

And as far as Sebelius goes, the essence of that pick would be to make another Kansas woman a core element of the fall campaign. Flat and simple.

The desirability or undesirability of playing that biographical card is what will make that pick happen or not. Given the "no drama" rule that the morons in Chicago hold dear, I'd bet on not.

(Isn't it a bit odd that most readers of this, who have likely been following the campaign quite closely, can't even name that other Kansas woman?)

Clinton '92 was a reformist lefty campaign, as opposed to a unreconstructed lefty campaign ala Mondale. Very little in common with the rightward leaning campaigns of JFK, Carter, and Obama.

I'll give you reformist. I think the lefty part is more problematic, in that if he was certainly to the left of his challenger(s), but to the right of what used to be left, especially in his embrace of the free market.

Or, as he said:

"“Is what I just said to you liberal or conservative?” he went on to ask. “The truth is, it is both, and it is different. It rejects the Republicans’ attacks and the Democrats’ previous unwillingness to consider new alternatives.”"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/magazine/23clintonism-t.html?ref=magazine&pagewanted=all

As for welfare, as Bai points out, Clinton had been talking about it for years, so this wasn't some tactical thing he just hit upon one day.

[And, of course, there is his foreign policy, where there were highs, but also lows (Rwanda standing highest amongst them, but also his signing Iraq Liberation Act which, combined with Serbia, helped pave the way for our Iraqi misadventure). ]

And as far as Sebelius goes, the essence of that pick would be to make another Kansas woman a core element of the fall campaign. Flat and simple.

The right is already going to make his grand mother a core element of the fall campaign regardless. Why not add another (or two, since you link to his mother)?

And, if I haven't forgotten, but didn't President Clinton come from a broken family? In in other words, what mileage exactly can they get from her? That she was a radical? Oh my!

The mere fact that Bayh has emerged as the frontrunner makes me think he is not the frontrunner. Sure, he's got a great bio, but he's not the only one with a great bio.

"The right is already going to make his grand mother a core element of the fall campaign regardless. Why not add another (or two, since you link to his mother)? And, if I haven't forgotten, but didn't President Clinton come from a broken family?"

You miss the point rather exquisitely.

Clinton's broken family background was played as a source of strength. It inoculated him from elitism charges.

I think that choosing Sebelius to help locate Obama biographically would likely be helpful to the Obama campaign. Obama's greatest general election weaknesses are his foreignness and his lack of known roots. And bringing his Kansas roots out of the shadows (in the way that only a Sebelius pick could) would help inoculate him against those ideas.

The caveat here is that emphasizing the mother risks bringing up the 'black men are coming for your white women' idea. But I think Obama's foreignness is far more damaging in general election terms than the racial issues - which is why the Berlin speech was so damaging, for example.

Of course, Sebelius likely won't happen because it means drama. And Team Chicago doesn't understand that drama can sometimes be helpful.

I think it all comes down to linguistics.

Obama / Sebelius is quite a tongue-twister and has a bit too much "Titus Andronicus" in it.

Obama / Keane sounds like a batman villian, some 1930's gangster in Chicago.

But, Obama / Bayh has that great B alliteration that takes the foreign edge off Obama while simultaneously sounding like a very wonderful place to vacation. Someplace peaceful, relaxing, and comforting.

You may think I am being unserious, but have no doubt, people have put more thought into more trivial things than this.

All I can judge Bayh from are his appearances on cable news...and he projects the same wimpy and weak image that Kerry and Daschle projected in their appearances on the Sunday talk shows this week...

We need a scrapper who will take the fight to the Republicans and not be afraid to make bold, angry and sarcastic statements about McKrusty and his failings...

I think Evan would be a pathetic pick!

What the heck is up with him being pictured with Eeyore? No wonder the Democratic party is in the crapper in Indiana. Get a tougher looking donkey, people.

The party in Indiana may be in the crapper, but don't blame Eeyore. Wapello County is in Iowa.

Lmao, does Petey realise, or care, that Hillary almost certainly would have picked Evan Bayh had she won the nomination?

I'll be a lot less likely to vote for Obama if he throws the DLC a lifeline like this. Bayh was a big part of my problem with Clinton. I'd rather Obama just pick Clinton than have him pick Evan Bayh.

I'm not sure Obama really understands how important enthusiasm is to winning elections in a relatively low-turnout country like this one.

"Lmao, does Petey realise, or care, that Hillary almost certainly would have picked Evan Bayh had she won the nomination?"

I think it was close to 100% guaranteed that HRC would've picked Obama as Veep.

And I don't have a problem with someone more on the left like HRC picking a centrist like Obama or Bayh to balance the ticket.

What I do have a problem with is one centrist picking another centrist as Veep, as would be the case if Obama picked Bayh.

-----

"I'd rather Obama just pick Clinton than have him pick Evan Bayh."

I know everyone says it's not going to happen, but I actually think there's a decent chance that you may get your wish.

And if Team Chicago really was going in that direction, they'd have every reason in the world to make it a huge surprise, which it would indeed currently be.

-----

Also, do you any ass left after you've laughed it off so many times, Soullite?

a) I think Bayh is the wrong choice for Obama. He is a conservative Democrat. There is no spinning that.

b) Petey- please give the Clinton is more progressive schtick a rest. There wasn't and hasn't been a dimes worth of difference between Clinton and Obama. The primaries was a battle between competing personalities and identity politics. That 's it.

From this and other threads, you can see that there is no really good choice for VP out there. In part this is because Obama is such a unique figure that he does not pair well with anyone. Next to Biden, he looks like a kid with a crazy old uncle. Next to Bayh, too much the outsider, too exotic a background. Next to Clinton, someone who succumbed to bullying. There seems to be no one who, by his or her presence, brings out his strengths