Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Indiana's Evan Bayh to Endorse Clinton

Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, a one-time Democratic presidential hopeful, will endorse Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) tomorrow in Washington, according to several sources briefed on the decision.

Bayh becomes the second ex-2008 candidate to offer an endorsement of one of the remaining Democrats. Former Gov. Tom Vilsack (Iowa) bowed out of the race earlier this year and is officially backing Clinton.

For the better part of two years, Bayh traveled the country, raising money for himself and his political action committee; he even opened a presidential exploratory committee in December 2006.

Less than two weeks later, Bayh reversed course, dropping from the race, citing the long odds of him winning the nomination. Bayh joined former Gov. Mark Warner (Va.) and Sen. Russ Feingold (Wisc.) as candidates who seriously considered a presidential bid before opting against it.

During his abbreviated campaign, Bayh touted his ability as a Democrat to win election to two terms as governor and two more as senator in a state that consistently votes for the Republican presidential nominee. Bayh was closely identified with the more moderate wing of the party (he was a former chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council) and seemed to struggle to build excitement among the more liberal party activists -- especially after it became clear Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was set to run.

Bayh and Clinton both serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee and traveled to Iraq and Afghanistan together earlier this year.

Bayh's endorsement could help him earn a spot in the vice presidential pool if Clinton becomes the party's nominee. Bayh is one of only a handful of senators to declare support for one of the candidates; he joins Sens. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Bob Menendez (N.J.) and Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) as Clinton supporters.

More on this story on Monday.

By Chris Cillizza  |  September 23, 2007; 8:45 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Rudy and the NRA
Next: FixCam: The Week in Preview

Comments

Hi, there!..7d547902e4e5c3eccc85929e38f073c7

Posted by: free music downloads site | October 7, 2007 7:20 AM | Report abuse

I know Hillary is taking the base for granted. But if she were to pick Bayh, I will seriously consider voting for the Green Party candidate this time around. I nearly did in 2000 when Gore picked Lieberman. And I like Hillary less than Gore. Bayh not all much more than Lieberman. Such a ticket might finally be the final straw for me and be simply too moderate for me to be able to stomach to actually cast a vote for.

Posted by: Midwestern Lib | October 4, 2007 11:27 AM | Report abuse

There are so many idiots on here. Hillary is picking Bayh as her VP, period. I would bet my life on it. I'm a political expert and all of you people aren't.

Posted by: Justin | September 29, 2007 4:11 AM | Report abuse

People here can criticize Evan Bayh all they want, but if they really understood politics, they'd know he's the obvious choice for Hillary to consider, if not glaringly so. I mean, who else is she going to pick? Who else has the political skill she feels comfortable with to assist her in running to win against Republicans? It's always been Bayh, and he's been a top 5 finalist for VP every 4 years since 2000 w/ Al Gore. And before that Bill Clinton said "I expect for Evan Bayh to one day be President."

Posted by: Justin Lozoff | September 26, 2007 5:38 AM | Report abuse

'petra2' writes:
I've always voted Republican in elections -- going all the way back to Reagan. And guess what, barring something unforeseen, I'm planning to pull the lever for Hillary in November of 2008 (and yes, folks, I know there's that little matter of her having to win the nomination). I like Obama, too, but he's frankly a bit too far to the left for me. John Edwards just seems tired, and all the Republicans running are incredible pander bears (pandering to the extreme right wing, that is). It is somewhat disconcerting to have yet another dynasty member as our next president. But the times we live in are too critical NOT to choose the best person for the job. I don't care if she's not warm, or not spontaneous, or not likable. Dogonnit, she's clearly the most polished, intelligent, hard-working, well-prepared, and competent candidate running. We can't settle for anything else. I'm personally hoping for a Hillary-Obama ticket in 2008.
'freespeak' writes:
The question is, can anyone stop Clinton?
I say, if they can, now is the time to step up to the plate. She just did five talk shows in one day and hit it out of the ballpark.
Batter up?
I'm a proud supporter of Hillary Clinton (and an Independent from New Hampshire).
I don't understand who these people are, who have these 'HORRIBLE' memories of the nation under the leadership of Bill Clinton.
When Clinton left office, 70% of the nation thought we were going in the right direction.
Currently, 70% of the nation thinks we're going in the WRONG direction.
Oh!
The people who have bad memories of the Clinton years think Bush is doing' a heckuva job!
I get it.
'charly_n' writes:
After the 2006 midterm election, I think Hillary couldn't choose a more perfect year to run for president.
The whole country is now leaning toward Democrats. People are just so unhappy and fed up with the Republican Party which has controlled the country for almost 8 years now. Any Democrats (yes even Hillary) has better chance to win 2008 presidency than any republican. I don't see all these unhappy Americans who clearly want a change in direction in 2006 would vote for another republican again over Hillary.
In 2006, we all saw a lot of good republicans lost their seats to some never-heard-before Democrats because of this effect.
I'm certain that Hillary will prove everybody wrong and she will become the first woman President.
'jnurse' writes:
All you Hillary haters on here are just mad because your candidates have been getting stomped by her for almost a year now. Underestimate her at your own expense. The woman is brilliant, and more politically skilled than her husband. In the general election, she is going to do the Republicans, what she has done to her fellow Democrats for the past year, and that is make them luck unprepared to lead the free world. In November 08, voters are going to be faced with a choice: vote to make history with electing the first woman and also change the course of the past 8 years, or vote for more of the same with a boring white male who backs all of Bush's policies. I think that we have 51% of America that will vote for the former. If you disagree, just wait and see. Her campaign has been flawless, and will continue as such... Enjoy the shadow.
'winngerald' writes:
petera1, no one could say it better than you did! The Republicans view her as a "bogeyman" because she fights back against their smears...and because they have sunk way below their previous depths to a point where they have NO positives to run on...they depend on nothing more than the modern equivalent of inciting mobs with pitchforks and torches into voting AGAINST anything/anyone from gays to non-Christians to communism to deficits (at least until Darth Cheney declared that deficits are GOOD when they're run up by Republicans) to Bill Clinton. I think their formerly mindless followers are wising up to the fact that their party has not been their friend. The left-wing fringe Democrats are so desperate to put a rehabilitated image of "liberalism" on a pedestal that they aren't bothering to notice that the nation isn't becoming, necessarily, more "liberal" as much as it is becoming "anti-right-wing-conservative"...and they hang their hats on my--yes MY--Senator Obama to be their champion without bothering to look at his actual history here in Illinois. He is NOT exactly a "liberal", and he hasn't proven that he can LEAD, let alone be an executive. You can't base your entire candidacy on a) not supporting the Iraq invasion during your tenure in the Illinois State Senate (which can't even manage to do the State's business right now), and b) NOT being Hillary. Edwards would be in the single digits were it not for sympathy for his wife (if it weren't for her tragic cancer, she'd make a better candidate), and ALL of the Republican candidates are flip-flopping jokes worse than fish just pulled out of the water.
You are absolutely right in pointing out Hillary's reelection support in highly-Republican Upstate New York...THEY have had her representing them for almost 8 years, and their Republican support of her says all that needs to be said. Her Republican Senate colleagues speak highly of her, too...she is OBVIOUSLY NOT a polarizing figure, but the fringes in both parties still try to paint her as one for the very simple reason that they are trying to beat her in the upcoming elections...and because she DOES know what she's talking about and DOES have more than basic competence, the only way they can beat her is to plant the red herring that many people have preconceived notions of not liking her. They are TRYING to scare support away from her without letting people see her for herself...without her being filtered and framed by the fringes of both parties. And they seem to forget that Bush was reelected with some very high negatives...people are so numbed by the partisan sniping of the past 12 years and incompetence of the past 6 years that personal negatives don't matter to them nearly as much as much as intelligence and competence do.
I hope that these people start pulling their heads out of their backsides pretty darned quick...and stop living in the past...and stop spewing the old venom that no one is interested in hearing anymore. The Nation has work to do, and no one is better versed, better educated, and better qualified to lead it out of the Republican-created nightmare...ready to roll up sleeves and get to work on Day 1...than Hillary. And when she DOES get elected, I hope that the Republicans give her the deference due her as President that they never gave her husband but expected for his successor for the 8 years to which we have been subjugated. They had their chance, and they've perverted everything they've touched. It's time for a woman to clean the White House!
'jmmiller' writes:
"As a moderate Republican, I find the remarks about Hillary being too divisive either unreflective or disingenuous. Of all the Democratic candidates, she is the one I would consider voting for because she is the only one who takes seriously America's role in the wider world. It strikes me that a lot of the animosity towards her is from the far left that wants to return to the labor glory days of the 1930's. They're upset because she won't hew to the MoveOn orthodoxy. The netroots who are drunk now with their power better get some religion soon - a perception that the Democratic nominee is too closely associated with them will be poison in the general election."
'ogdeeds' writes:
jeez...get over it...for every nasty accusation hurled at Clinton, you can find an equally nasty (if that is how some choose to see it) issue in someone else. All this talk about her taking big $ from corporations, etc.....it is what she does with it that matters. Mostly what I hear her talking about is helping families, children, and the middle class. And oh, by the way, she also has to be president to all those other groups (lawyers, lobbyists, teachers, carpenters, rich CEOs, etc., etc.)Which some of you may or may not like, you know, like other Americans? The last thing we need is another president who only wants to be president to his base. Clinton is inclusive, and will lead for the good of all Americans as well as putting our country back where we deserve to be....respected and (jealously) admired, both for our greatness, and for the goodness we represent...and let me tell you, goodness does not include invading other countries under the guise of "protecting America" - just so one uninformed and ideological president can play out his ideological fantasies of 'transforming the middle east'...what a joke (instead of going after bin laden, the one who attacked us on 9/11 - oops, sorry, some of you still believe Iraq was connected to 9/11) we need someone like Hillary...thoughtful, knowledgeable and smart.
'wesfromGA' writes:
One has to smile at all the "I'll never vote for her" postings. If you are a Republican you were never going to vote for her anyway, if you are one of the distinct minority of Hillary haters on the left of the Democratic Party the essential silliness of this position will soon become apparent if she gets the nod. On present evidence this seems highly likely much to the chagrin of Mr. Balz and the media world who want a horse race because it sells newspapers and air time which is why there is all the parsing in his piece although he accepts the most likely outcome. Absent a major slip up there seems little doubt she has it wrapped up. Contrary to some assertions above she does not do conspicuously worse than Edwards or Obama against any member of the Republican field. On the contrary she does better than either of them and while they have been stuck for months in the mid twenties and mid teens for months she has steadily improved her position and has now been sitting in the low forties for weeks. In Iowa she has come from behind and leads in most polls. Why? Because she is self evidently the best candidate. She has a formidable machine, plenty of money and a few more difficult to pin down advantages like Gender and the presence of Bill who is widely respected much to the chagrin of the right.
The right must have choked over their coffee when Greenspan recently gave Bill stellar grades and of course they responded as they always do by launch personal attacks (there's a typical example in today's post from Novak).
There is no question she is going to get the nomination and a 60% chance she's going to win the presidency. Even some right wingers like Karl Rove are gloomily admitting it.
All the negative comments about Hillary on this board are from disgruntled Republicans who do not have a great choice in their party and will elect a nominee called "none of the above" because Republicans will stay home in 2008.
What a stark contrast there is in the Republican nomination and the Democratic nomination campaigns. Republicans know fully well after G. W. Bush we can only have a Democratic President and its going to be Hillary this time!
People and the writer of this article give undue importance to the Iowa caucus. Isn't it time to break the back of this myth of Iowa's importance? They haven't picked a winner since 1976. And Clinton and Kerry won the democratic nominations without winning in Iowa. Enough with the rural pandering.
I fondly remember the Bill Clinton administration years as pretty good ones in spite of the personal attacks from the right. The personal problems were Bill's not Hillary's. She had to deal with him and the public and she did it expertly with a win as a junior Senator in NY and a re-election where she won 67% of the vote, with 58 of 62 counties including the MOSTly Republican "red" counties in upstate NY.
In the General election Hillary will beat the pants off any Republican nominee trying to keep us fighting the Iraq war.
People forget that Giuliani dropped out in that first Senate race not because of prostate cancer, but because he saw the writing on the wall, which was a certain defeat and an end to his political dreams.
We may have the re-match that we never had. Rudy vs. Hillary. Single point campaign of 9-11 against well rounded Hillary.
When Bill Clinton left the White House we were a nation at peace, we had a sizable surplus, we had a growing economy, and today he is the most popular politician in the nation if not the world.
Maybe that is not such a bad thing to return to. But the reality is that Hillary is not Bill. She is by all accounts smarter and definitely won't have the personal problems that Bill had. She is a master politician and is becoming a master speaker as attested to by looking at her in some of her live appearances and on yesterday's sweep of the Sunday news shows.
It is Hillary's time and it is the time for a woman to be the US President. It is time to break the highest glass ceiling in the US. I predict that many Republican women will join because they have said "I have never voted or never voted for a Democrat in my life, but if Hillary is the candidate and I have the chance to see a woman US President in my lifetime, Hillary will have my vote!"
People underestimate the positive change that will occur around the world in the way the United States is viewed when we elect Hillary. She will be symbol for women everywhere.
It's time to give up the sniping and for some women to stop venting their jealousy, which is really what it is when they complain not about her policies but about her personal choices as relates to Bill.
It's time to think about the nation and Hillary will be good for the nation and the world.
'jmartin' writes:
For people that say Hillary unelectable? Let's see.
In the September 2007 poll by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, Hillary 49% vs. Rudy 42%. Hillary 50% vs. Fred Thompson 41%. Hillary 51% vs. Romney 38%.

September 2007 poll by CNN/Opinion Research Corp.: Hillary 50% vs. Rudy 46%, Hillary 55% vs. Fred Thompson 42%. Same poll, Obama 45% vs. Rudy 49%. Obama 53% vs. Fred Thompson 41%.

Inevitable? Perhaps not. Unelectable? Not that either.

Go Hillary!

Posted by: Ajay Jain, Dallas, USA | September 25, 2007 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Chris, Hillary Clinton actually has the backing of 8 Senators, not just 4.

Mikulski
Schumer
Whitehouse
Stabenow
Pryor
Inouye
Menendez
Bayh

Posted by: Brendan | September 24, 2007 7:46 PM | Report abuse

Ben Smith just wrote an article on the clinton campaign and it explains why hillary is getting a free pass by the media.
With Smith taking a very courageous step in exposing the sleaze of the Clinton campaign to what we all suspected I am hoping this doesn't get killed before many people out in the real world can hear or read about it.
Of course, those on the air will not breath a word of it.
But, We can spread the word.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/5992.html

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2007 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Blarg,about the abortion bombing protectors vs. welfare receipiant voters. I think in the Republican rank and file, supporters of abortion rights bombers is a real constituency. Democrat's do pander to their welfare constituency. In a close election that would make a difference. So yes, I'd say you have a vaild point if you refer to the "abortion clinic bombers" as a constituency for the right wing. Sadly enough, these 2 groups would likely have some degree of influence on close primary elections. I would venture to say so, anyhow. It's sad, but I think it's likely true. To answer your question more precisly, I think maybe rep. Tom Tancredo would get that voting bloc.

Posted by: reason | September 24, 2007 4:28 PM | Report abuse

It comes as no surprise to me that Bayh endorsed Clinton. Evan Bayh is an establishment figure in the party and it is obvious that the Democratic "establishment" wants Hillary to win the nomination.

Obama and Edwards are the antithesis of the Democratic establishment in Washington. They speak to the people, not the political elite. I just hope that Hillary doesn't get too comfortable thinking that because she has all of these endorsements from political "big-wigs" that it means she is the de facto nominee.

Power to the people!

PG

Posted by: PeixeGato | September 24, 2007 4:18 PM | Report abuse

bsimon

I agree that Lieberman's debate performance was terrible. When he made some remark about Cheney doing well financially during his years out of government, Cheney shot back (paraphrasing) "the government didn't have anything to do with it". A non-brain dead candidate would have shot back - "I think those $X billion in government contracts helped".

Posted by: JimD in FL | September 24, 2007 2:07 PM | Report abuse

I'm suggesting that only a right-wing hack would talk about the "welfare recipient" vote. You're acting like that's a major constituency of the Democratic Party. It's a subtle way to hide a smear.

If I talked about which Republican candidate would get the abortion-clinic bomber vote, how would you like that? Do you think that describes a significant block of Republicans?

Posted by: Blarg | September 24, 2007 2:04 PM | Report abuse

It appears that many are jumping on the Clinton bandwagon now that she has spread the gap between her, Obama and Edwards. The question remains, are we declaring a presumed nominee too soon? We are still a few months away from the first caucuses and primaries.

Posted by: Alan in Missoula | September 24, 2007 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, are you suggesting for 1 second that if Clinton is the Democratic nominee she wouldn't receive the welfare receipant vote? Whoever the democratic candidate is will receive most of the welfare votes, they always do. Granted, the welfare folks likely prefer Edwards over the rest of the field, but if Clinton is the nominee she wins those votes.

Posted by: reason | September 24, 2007 1:43 PM | Report abuse

I'm hoping that Hillary will choose Obama as her running mate.

Posted by: FemaleNick | September 24, 2007 1:36 PM | Report abuse

I will vote for any Democrat. The country has fallen to it's lowest ebb since GWB took over. Hillary is brilliant. Some right winger's can't stand intelligent women. Born again indeed. The entire country is born again under fascism.

Posted by: Margaret King | September 24, 2007 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Brownback is one of the most conservative politicians in the country. What makes you think he has any interest in running on a Unity ticket? And how would that even work? You say that Brownback would attract social conservatives, while Biden would attract social moderates/liberals. But if elected, the Brownback/Biden ticket could only side with one of those groups. Who would get screwed?

Of course, your analysis also statements that Clinton would get the "welfare recipient" vote. So it's flawed on many levels, to put it mildly.

Posted by: Blarg | September 24, 2007 12:38 PM | Report abuse

'Guiliani and Clinton would divide the voting social bloc that leans liberal. '

Uhh, no, 'reason.' You must not know many Dems. Anyone who knows much about Guiliani understands that he is a total authoritarian who has never met a Constitituional Amendment he doesn't hate.

For anyone who leans liberal that completely disqualifies Guiliani, despite his [now very tepid] support for abortion right. What does that mean anyway, when he says he wants to appoint judges whol will overthrow Roe? And when he says he might support a ban on gay marriage? He's got nothing for Dems -- absolutely nothing.

Posted by: drindl | September 24, 2007 11:58 AM | Report abuse

"BUSH DECLARES: HILLARY WILL WIN NOMINATION"


From the perspective of a guy who doesn't want to see Sen Clinton as the nominee & given the track record of this administration with predictions, that headline is somewhat reassuring.

.

Posted by: bsimon | September 24, 2007 11:58 AM | Report abuse

I read a post by Mark in Austin that Brownback/Biden are attempting to gather support for their idea to divide Iraq into 3 parts. I have long thought Brownback/Biden would be a great "Unity 08" team in the right circumstances. That circumstance would be if Guiliani were the Republican nominee.

If it's Guiliani vs. Hillary, Brownback would make a great nominee for Unity 08'. Brownback would take the Social conservative voting bloc, about 30% of the nation. Guiliani and Clinton would divide the voting social bloc that leans liberal. On fiscal issues, Guiliani and Brownback would battle for the fiscal conservatives, while Biden helped battle for the liberal/moderate causes on both fronts: social and fiscal. Clinton would likely take the big tax & spending voters, and the welfare receipiants. Finally, the nation's voters would have 3 ideas on Iraq vs. the normal 2 options. Clinton would offer a "pack up n move out" strategy, a defeatist strategy, as R's term it. Guiliani would offer a strong "stay the course" strategy, a strategy the democrat's have termed as a failing policy with an administration to dumb to realize it and take appropriate action. Then, they have a new and fresh strategy touted by a more independent group, Brownback & Biden fighting to be strong and win the war, but divide the nation giving Shiites, Kurds and Sunni's their own space & rights while knocking down violence and getting our troops out of the civil war this nation believes were in. This would be a real & genuine 3 headed race, in my view.

Now, could Brownback/Biden Unity ticket win vs. Guilini & Clinton? I think so, yes! Would they win? That depends. Any thoughts?

Posted by: reason | September 24, 2007 11:47 AM | Report abuse

"BUSH DECLARES: HILLARY WILL WIN NOMINATION; WHITE HOUSE CALLS OBAMA 'LAZY'
Sun Sep 23 2007 18:18:16 ET

**DRUDGE EXCLUSIVE**

President Bush, for the first time, is predicting that Barack Obama will be defeated in the Democratic presidential primaries by Hillary Rodham Clinton.

"She's got a national presence and this is becoming a national primary," Bush tells author Bill Sammon in the bombshell book, EVANGELICAL PRESIDENT, set for release Monday. "And therefore the person with the national presence, who has got the ability to raise enough money to sustain an effort in a multiplicity of sites, has got a good chance to be nominated."

Breaking his vow not to play "pundit-in-chief" in the 2008 presidential race, Bush tells Sammon that Clinton ultimately will be defeated in the general election by the Republican nominee.

"I think our candidate can beat her, but it's going to be a tough race," the president predicted in an Oval Office interview. "I will work to see to it that a Republican wins, and therefore don't accept the premise that a Democrat will win. I truly think the Republicans will hold the White House."

MORE

Current and former Bush advisers sounded less certain. "It's going to be a very close election," said Karl Rove, who until this month was the president's top political strategist. "We are at this very narrow divide in politics."

The election "could go either way," Vice President Cheney told Sammon, senior White House correspondent for the WASHINGTON EXAMINER, which will begin running excerpts from the book Monday. "Right now, we're sort of in the area where we're pretty evenly balanced on both sides."

As for Obama, a senior White House official said the freshman senator from Illinois was "capable" of the intellectual rigor needed to win the presidency but instead relies too heavily on his easy charm.

"It's sort of like, 'that's all I need to get by,' which bespeaks sort of a condescending attitude towards the voters," said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity. "And a laziness, an intellectual laziness."

Developing...
"

Posted by: They wouldn't lie. They haven;t been wrong about anything | September 24, 2007 11:27 AM | Report abuse

I apologize for the double post.

Posted by: reason | September 24, 2007 11:24 AM | Report abuse

sandwich repairman wrote
"It would be more convincing to argue that Joe Lieberman's Judaism cost Gore the 2000 election."

It wasn't his religion, it was his milquetoast persona. The Lieberman v Cheney debate made Lieberman look like some kind of pantywaiste incapable of projecting the appropriate image of America at the state funerals, etc that used to be the VP's primary job. Edwards continued the tradition of throwing a lightweight up against the imposing persona of Dick Cheney. Not that I like him at all. Edwards' clumsy attempt to paint Cheney as a hypocrite on the gay issue by bringing up his daughter was one of the many mistakes made by the Kerry-Edwards team. In 2000 & 2004, the VP picks were significant factors in the eventual losses for the Dems.

Posted by: bsimon | September 24, 2007 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Just a thought, but how about my homestate gov.: Mike Easley. He's won 2 elections as governor here in NC. He won in 2000 when Bush won NC, and won again when Bush won here in 04' and Burr won Edward's senate seat. Contrary to what liberal activists will say, Burr would have defeated Edwards in 04 had he ran for re-election. In any event, Easley is a tax raising education governor. He's big on "More @ 4" and those type of big liberal programs. He's raising every tax in the book, and still got elected here in NC. How? He's a good fundraiser and a nice guy. He is moderate on social issues. In past debates, he is against homosexual marriage and has said so. He also has talked to reduce abortions through encouragement of adoption. He has brought jobs to our state by giving large corporations incentives to come. He has handled the hurricanes well that we have had. All of this experience combined makes him a great VP choice for a liberal dem. I don't think he has endorsed anyone, though. The Ntl. democratic committee has pushed him hard to run for US senate against Liddy Dole. His response: "I'm an executive. The senate moves slow and is full of a bunch of meetings. I'm just not a meeting type of guy." Easley either wants Secretary of Education post or he would be a good VP pick.

Bayh will never get a VP nod. I think Daniels will win re-election, and Dems. propably have more attractive candidates than Bayh for VP. Easley is my guess, or Nelson, Sen. of Fl.

Posted by: reason | September 24, 2007 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Just a thought, but how about my homestate gov.: Mike Easley. He's won 2 elections as governor here in NC. He won in 2000 when Bush won NC, and won again when Bush won here in 04' and Burr won Edward's senate seat. Contrary to what liberal activists will say, Burr would have defeated Edwards in 04 had he ran for re-election. In any event, Easley is a tax raising education governor. He's big on "More @ 4" and those type of big liberal programs. He's raising every tax in the book, and still got elected here in NC. How? He's a good fundraiser and a nice guy. He is moderate on social issues. In past debates, he is against homosexual marriage and has said so. He also has talked to reduce abortions through encouragement of adoption. He has brought jobs to our state by giving large corporations incentives to come. He has handled the hurricanes well that we have had. All of this experience combined makes him a great VP choice for a liberal dem. I don't think he has endorsed anyone, though. The Ntl. democratic committee has pushed him hard to run for US senate against Liddy Dole. His response: "I'm an executive. The senate moves slow and is full of a bunch of meetings. I'm just not a meeting type of guy." Easley either wants Secretary of Education post or he would be a good VP pick.

Bayh will never get a VP nod.

Posted by: reason | September 24, 2007 11:05 AM | Report abuse

tO ANY AND ALL THAT WANT ME SILENCED. To everybody who thinks only the right should have a voice in this country. You have won a small battle. i am done blogging. Rejoice, everyone who is for the silencing of free speech, and is for fascism. The right is forcing Clinton on the nation. I had hope the people would not be for it. The right is forcing the democrats to run hillary. The democractic/republican party has made it's choice. It choose more of the same. We will get the same partisan bickering for four years. At that time we will revisit this again. The GOP/Democratic party bought themselves four more years of fascist rule. They choose fascism over democracy.

The political conversation is slighted so that only conservatives opinon is heard. And the left are now crazies and voice-less. You win. I'm going back under ground. I hope you are satisfied. silence the left. Just know everything you claim to be for, you are not. Free speech, democracy, republic, right AND left.

A new thrid party will burst on the scene in the next four years. It will be for the constitution. It will be a party of the people. Watch for it.

But you win. you have tilted the conversation so much to your side it is not possible for me to make any leway in this format. The government is so one sided, for republicans, they are forcing the opposition parties candidate. Does anyone see anything wrong with this?

You win. you silenced one socialist. Congradulations. Now continue destroying the country gop. Force your will down everyone's throughts. put a camera on every corner. Listen to every conversation. Just know you have used your time foolishly and selfishly.

One party rule is slavery. You may have won this small battle. You may tilt the agrument so much the other side no longer exists. But we still will exist. I will always hold the feeling I profressed here. Whether I am silenced or now i will hold these feelings. Just becasue I am no longer allowed TO SPEAK, doesn't mean that I don't hold these feelings in my head and close to my heart.

"If you can't win cheat". That is your motto. You have destroyed the media the justice depart our foreign relations, economices and you label me the bad guy. Much like Nizon had his share of public enemies (John Lennon, MLK). Were they the problem? Or where they pointing to the problem?

You win short term gop. Toast it up. Congradulate yourself. Real americans and real patriots should be crying at what has befallen us. Not laughin, not making a mockery of the public conversation.

so peace. One last time remember what I told you people. It's for real this time. The hope I had for this nation, given by the 06 elections, has been crushed by the republicans succesfully choosin gthe oppositions party for them. Sad day. goo dluck all. I wasn't lying to you. Watch for the book. Watch for the new party.

ALL POWER BACKK TO THE PEOPLE.

ONE WORLD ONE PEOPLE.

Peace. You will hear from me again. Not on this blog though. You wasted the time we had. You used your time unwisely.

Posted by: RUFUS | September 24, 2007 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Jim Webb is real popular among Dems in general, so he would be an excellent choice, but can't see it happening because we wouldn't want to lose his seat. Too bad -- ditto Jon Tester and Gov. Schweitzer.

Posted by: Sally | September 24, 2007 9:44 AM | Report abuse

I believe a de facto partition with some semblance of a national government is the most likely path to stability in Iraq. As for the neighbors, the US will have to retain some presence in Iraq to guarantee the country's territorial integrity.

I agree that Clinton, if she wins the nomination, will choose a Southern or MidWestern white male as running mate. The best choice would be Wesley Clark. Having a four star general who was remarkably prescient about the dangers of invading Iraq would go a long way towards blunting the inevitable Republican attacks on the Democrats as soft on national security.

Posted by: JimD in FL | September 24, 2007 9:41 AM | Report abuse

Colin --how are we going to handle the very strenuous objections of Turkey and Saudi primarily, but I beleive also Jordan and Egypt.

Turkey is opposed because they beleive a soveriegn Kurdistan would embolden Kurd separatists, and I beleive every Sunni Arab country is opposed, because the Sunnis have very little oil in what would be their territory. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this going to be a hard slog?

Frankly I think it's a done deal because of the oil contracts already signed with the Kurds, but what of the ire of the neighboring states?

Posted by: drindl | September 24, 2007 9:40 AM | Report abuse

Mark A -- I hope that bill goes somewhere. Dividing the country up is, at this point, the only viable way to move forward. I will try to write a letter this week myself.

On Point -- I wonder if Bayh could be a VP possibility for Obama as well. He's not the most charismatic guy in the world, but he definitely has some strengths as a former Governor and current Senator in a red state. That kind of a midwestern ticket, where neither individual scares moderate voters, could really be a map-changer for Democrats. Something to think about. If Hillary gets the nomination, I don't think picking a moderate for the number two slot helps her much. Folks who still think she's "liberal" aren't going to be persuaded otherwise at this late date.

Posted by: Colin | September 24, 2007 9:30 AM | Report abuse

drindl,

Ron Paul's folks certainly are active in NC was well. I've seen a couple of Obama bumper stickers, but all of the signs so far (except for local races) have been for Paul. I also was given some literature by a Paul volunteer during my kids' soccer game a couple of weeks ago.

If Paul's support is as small as the polls make it out to be, then those few folks are really loud.

Posted by: J | September 24, 2007 9:29 AM | Report abuse

This is a way bigger endorsement than you guys are making it out to be. Good Story Chris.

Posted by: George | September 24, 2007 9:02 AM | Report abuse

MarkA--interesting that Biden and Brownback are working together with Sen. Hutichison. But I don't understand the gist of the amendment. What does 'transitiioning the country into a federal system' mean? Isn't that allegedly what they have now?

Or are you talking about de facto partition, something Iraq's neighbors, particular Turkey and Saudi Arabai, will NEVER agree to?

By the way, I was in the Catskills this weekend, where I lived for a couple years some time back --despite the island of Woodstock hippieness, by and large very rural and rightwing [lots of gunshows, homegrown militias, big american and Vietnam era POW flags, etc.] There were Ron Paul bumper stickers and lawn signs all over. He's got a solid base of support in deep red areas, it looks like to me.

Posted by: drindl | September 24, 2007 8:54 AM | Report abuse

OFF TOPIC:

Biden and Brownback are co-sponsoring an amendment on the Iraq funding bill
"which calls for working with the Iraqis to transition the country into a federal system, as their Constitution allows and securing the support of the United Nations and Iraq's neighbors for this plan."

Sen. Hutchison has signed on as well.

I have written to her in support of her initiative and written to Sen. Cornyn asking that he join his senior Senator in this effort. The vote is now scheduled for MONDAY AFTERNOON.

Those of you who have expressed approval for Biden's view on Iraq here should email your Senators regarding this amendment. It
has some chance of being the first small step to altering the diplomatic course. It actually has drawn more Rs than Webb-Hagel, that has been defeated twice, but for which I still have hopes, as well.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 24, 2007 8:13 AM | Report abuse

I don't get the big deal. A little known, boring senator who was a DLC chair endorses the queen of the DLC.
the guy is such a bore that in December while talking to 20 people one Sunday in NH, Senator Barack Obama was wowing 1,500 of them across town.
big deal.
It amazes me that the press goes crazy whenever some nobody endorses Hillary like it's something huge and yet, whenever anyone of any stature endorses one of the other candidates there is hardly a word.
bias much?

Posted by: vwcat | September 24, 2007 8:07 AM | Report abuse

Summary: On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh claimed that he gets Sen. Barack Obama and Osama bin Laden "confused," stating that bin Laden's call in a newly released tape "to invade Pakistan and declare war on Pakistan and [Pakistani President] Musharraf ... puts him on the same page with" Obama. However, Obama has said he "never called for an invasion of Pakistan."

He called for going in to get Osama bin Ladin -- but I guess that's something Rush doesn't want. Who would be the boogeyman then? Seems like no one in this administration is interested in going after bin Ladin -- he's so good at sending out tapes before an election and getting the based all roused to bloodthirstiness.

Just like G Bush does for Osama.

Posted by: the mental illness fo the wingers | September 24, 2007 7:57 AM | Report abuse

Meanwhile, as world leaders prepare to meet at the United Nations this week, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told 60 Minutes that his country doesn't need a nuclear weapon and denied that Tehran is arming Iraqi insurgents. The NYT has a piece from Tehran that notes how many in Iran don't understand why the West focuses so much on their president when the country's supreme leader holds more power. In fact, the attention only helps Ahmadinejad increase his power and popularity.

Posted by: xx | September 24, 2007 7:51 AM | Report abuse

The NYT takes a closer look at how conditions at Camp Arifjan in Kuwait left plenty of opportunities for corrupt dealings and there are suspicions that several accused officers worked together in a sort of network. The camp was a "tiny outpost" until it saw its responsibilities explode with the Iraq war and people with little experience were suddenly in charge of handling huge contracts. "Oversight was virtually nonexistent by design," says the NYT.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2007 7:49 AM | Report abuse

xThe Washington Post leads with word that at least some U.S. snipers in Iraq have been encouraged to set out "bait" to lure and kill suspected insurgents. The classified program calls on snipers to set out an object that they suspect an insurgent would use against U.S. or Iraqi troops, such as ammunition or plastic explosives, and then kill whoever tries to take the item.'

And in a poor and violent country, isn't that going to be anybody who sees them? What kid foraging in the streets won't take that to try to sell or trade for food? Senseless slaughter.

Posted by: xx | September 24, 2007 7:47 AM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski likened U.S. officials' saber rattling about Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions to similar statements made before the start of the Iraq war.

"I think the administration, the president and the vice president particularly, are trying to hype the atmosphere, and that is reminiscent of what preceded the war in Iraq," Brzezinski told CNN's "Late Edition" on Sunday.

Posted by: xx | September 24, 2007 7:46 AM | Report abuse

I agree with Beni Dakar ~ Duluth, GA.

"I predict that Clinton will choose a more conservative Democratic male from the Deep South or from one of the western states as her VP choice to politically and geographically balance out the ticket. The ultra liberal wing of the Democrats will object, but this choice will be politically expedient in enabling Clinton to be competitive and win in the South and other areas beyond the coastal Democratic strongholds."

I completely agree, especially in that the "ultra liberal wing of the Democrats will object". You bet, the will throw a fit, but we cannot afford to leave the moderate Republicans out of the game.

As for me, I don't think that raising taxes should be the first option, I'm perfectly okay with NAFTA, I believe that life begins at conception and I think that partial-birth abortion should ONLY be allowed if the mother's life is at risk. I am also against gay marriage. What am I, Republican or Democrat?

I am a female, Hispanic, pro-life and gay. Hillary has my vote.

Posted by: om mani padme hum | September 24, 2007 3:36 AM | Report abuse

http://watchdevil.blogspot.com/2007/09/so-election-season-is-up-and-running.html

speaking of our dear Hillary, some one needs to investigate Gingrich's new PAC, that is raising funds with a 'stop Hillary now' telephone blitzkrieg. Guess who is pocketing the moolah? Uh, Mr. G himself, getting even richer it seems. This blogger is worth reading as it seems like he's an insider. Since this is a slow news day, how bout reporting on something more serious - like the culture of corruption in these PACs

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2007 2:33 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: hillary experience | September 24, 2007 2:29 AM | Report abuse

This illusion that you get more presidential experience from the Senate is sheer nonsense. How many Senators have become President of America? Does Laura Bush have the experience to be President? Sitting in the front seat beside the driver for 8 years will never make you an experienced driver.

John Edwards spent six years in the Senate and had only 1 sponsored bill passed. Hillary has 2 insignificant bills passed in all her 9 years, while Obama has had 2 bills with his name passed in just over 2 years. And very important legislation he co-sponsored with Republican colleagues.
GovTrack describes Hillary's sponsorship as "VERY POOR" and Obama's as "AVERAGE"

In the State legislature he also passed significant healthcare, ethics reform, crime and poverty bills. Take a look at Senator Obama's bills in the State legislature: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/0...
Compare that with Hillary's record on her website. Even her ads make no reference to any tangible accomplishments of hers. Hiding behind Bill Clinton will not make her an experienced candidate. Only fools are deceived by her campaign's marketing skills.

Posted by: hillary experience | September 24, 2007 2:24 AM | Report abuse

Britain hadn't had a female Prime Minister until 1979. Canada hadn't had one until 1993. Pakistan hadn't had one until Benazir Bhutto. Germany hadn't had one until Angela Merkel. Israel hadn't had one until Golda Meir. India, New Zealand, Sri Lanka...this is a silly argument. There's a first time for everything. Like any Democrat was going to win Alabama and Mississippi anyway? If anything, Hillary evokes warm opinions in Arkansas from her 20 years there.

It would be more convincing to argue that Joe Lieberman's Judaism cost Gore the 2000 election.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | September 24, 2007 1:12 AM | Report abuse

Here's Bayh's vote in support of Roe v. Wade: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00337

Looks pro-choice to me. And assuredly, to Americans who oppose abortion rights.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | September 24, 2007 1:03 AM | Report abuse

response to: (Beni Dakar ~ Duluth, GA | September 23, 2007 10:41 PM)

You make some valid points. That said, are there enough Southern/Midwestern social conservatives who wouldn't vote for her because she's a woman? You're right, a Southern/Western--and I'd add--Midwestern, male would balance the ticket well. There's never been a female president in America. Polls should be taken with a grain of salt, as leads in polls doesn't necessarily translate into votes. I'm reminded of "Mr. and Mrs. Bridge," if memory serves me. When Mrs. Bridge gets into the voting booth, she considers bucking the system and voting for a Democrat, as her housewife friends are doing. But in the end, she votes for the Republican anyway. Winning the Democratic nomination would not be a problem for Hillary. The question is whether or not should could win a general election. More power to her if she can, but it's something to think about it.

Posted by: BlueDog | September 24, 2007 1:02 AM | Report abuse

There's a good chance Mitch Daniels won't be Governor by the time the next president and vice-president are sworn in.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | September 24, 2007 12:55 AM | Report abuse

Since when is Bayh anti-choice? Please provide evidence.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | September 24, 2007 12:48 AM | Report abuse

Evan Bayh is such a gutless wonder and shameless opportunist--a disgrace to his father's legacy. This is hardly surprising, though it does reinforce many peoples' negative opinions of Hillary. Maybe she can get Joe Lieberman's support too, or Zell Miller's. Bets on which cabinet post Bayh is angling for?

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | September 24, 2007 12:46 AM | Report abuse

Clinton is picking up these endorsements because many in the party fear retaliation if they sipport anyone else and she wins the nomination.

Hillary will be a disasterous nominee. She will kill us Democrats in down ticket races and allow the GOP to make this a competitive election when we should win it easily. Just read the comments of Bayh's home state Democratic chair in Indiana.

Bayh also will probably not be picked to be a VP nominee because the current governor of Indiana is Mitch Daniels (R). The nominee would most likely want to be assured the Daniels would not gain re-election before selecting Bayh. The Democrats have an outside shot at 60 seat majority with a little luck.

Posted by: Democratic Nole | September 24, 2007 12:38 AM | Report abuse

I predict that Clinton will choose a more conservative Democratic male from the Deep South or from one of the western states as her VP choice to politically and geographically balance out the ticket. The ultra liberal wing of the Democrats will object, but this choice will be politically expedient in enabling Clinton to be competitive and win in the South and other areas beyond the coastal Democratic strongholds.

By the way Clinton handled herself extraordinarily well on the five Sunday morning (9/23/07) talk shows. She is poised and presidential. She just outshines both her Democratic rivals and all of the GOP presidential contenders. She has the right stuff and in gaining political momentum.

Two of my best days concerning politics will be Election night 2008 and January 20, 2009; when Clinton wins the presidency and then is sworn into office:-)

And although she is my preferred candidate, I do not envy Clinton. She is inheriting a war in Iraq and the strong possibility of a war with Iran - along with the country's loss of esteem in the world community, a struggling American economy, and a host of other ills from the current administration. But Clinton is up to the task and will prove she is an able leader and a godsend to the American people.


Posted by: Beni Dakar ~ Duluth, GA | September 23, 2007 10:41 PM | Report abuse

... Also forgot Senators Mark Pryor (AR), Debbie Stabenow (MI), Daniel Inouye (HI), and Sheldon Whitehouse (RI).

Posted by: Byron | September 23, 2007 10:37 PM | Report abuse

Egrib, confused between first amendment and 'support for a traitor'?

We've got to do better at educating the populace, I think.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 23, 2007 10:32 PM | Report abuse

If either Clinton, Obama, or Edwards (whom I prefer) gets the nomination, he or she would be smart to pick Ron Paul as their v.p. His views on Iraq, upholding the Contstitution, and diplomacy are Democratic views, plus the nominee would pick up the motivated Ron Paul supporters. I think there are more Paul supporters than people realize, too.

Posted by: iacitizen | September 23, 2007 10:23 PM | Report abuse

Senator Mikulski is also supporting Hillary

Posted by: You missed one Cillizza... | September 23, 2007 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Evan Bayh is about as exciting as a piece of lint. He's a most centrist-sey centrist, moderately moderate, listing-to-the-right Indiana Democrat. Really, he's a rotten choice for any Democratic Presidential candidate. I've never, not once, seen him fiery, or even midly agitated, about a cause or idea.

Posted by: iacitizen | September 23, 2007 10:08 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has now aligned herself with Michael Moore and MoveOn.org. By refusing to vote against the General Betray Us add Hillary shows where she stands. How Bayh could ever align himself with somone who supports a traitor is disgusting in its own right and speaks volumns about Bayh. These people must be STOPPED.. We got it - Hillary and Michael Moore.... how disgusting.

Posted by: Egrib | September 23, 2007 10:04 PM | Report abuse

Bayh as VP would be the cautious, safe choice. The Democratic base would grumble if he was picked, but he probably would be acceptable if it was handled right. And he might help with moderate voters.

I do not see the Democratic nomineee picking Hagel. The Democratic base appreciates his anti-war stance, but he is far too conservative on domestic policy to be the running mate. He's ardently pro-life, whereas Bayh actually is moderately pro-choice. Hagel received a 0% rating from NARAL in 2005 and 2006. Bayh got a 75% rating from NARAL. Hagel is not popular with the labor or environmental crowd either. Too many elements of the Democratic base would revolt if he was the VP nominee.

Posted by: Ogre Mage | September 23, 2007 9:33 PM | Report abuse

response to: (Jeff | September 23, 2007 09:00 PM)

I didn't realize that Bayh was anti-abortion. But yeah, that would fair well with social conservatives and perhaps even some free-thinking Republicans. It would certainly help to counter the Rover machine's "Yankee liberal" label that you know the radical Republican reactionaries will try to put on Hillary. Perhaps "Whitewater Rafters for Truth"?

Posted by: BlueDog | September 23, 2007 9:32 PM | Report abuse

Yawn .. Political news is usually really slow on the weekend.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 23, 2007 9:26 PM | Report abuse

Who?

Or is it Who Cares?

Posted by: ILoveObama | September 23, 2007 9:18 PM | Report abuse

Hillary could do much worse than Bayh as her running mate. In fact, Democrats usually do pick worse running mates. Bayh's prolife stance would go along way with moderate prolife evangelicals who desparately want the Dems to give them a reason to vote for them. I was wondering Chris--have you heard anything about Hegel as a potential VP with a Dem?

Posted by: Jeff | September 23, 2007 9:00 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company