| I actually like Evan Bayh personally, having met him a few times over the years. I had the pleasure of spending some time getting to know his father at a retreat a few weeks back, and he's a terrific guy, too- I've always been a big admirer of his. I know and respect some of Bayh's long-time staffers, and some progressive people I know in both Indiana and D.C. who know Bayh a lot better than I do tell me he's not as bad as his reputation is, and that if he didn't have to contend with Indiana's conservative politics, he would vote better than he has. I will comfort myself with all of these things should he become the nominee, and they make me think he wouldn't be that much worse from a policy perspective than many of the other people being considered.
The thing is, though, that the symbolism of the Bayh pick would be that Obama was going with the ultimate conventional wisdom pick: a safe, boring, middle-of-the-road white guy, conventional in every way imaginable.
For a candidate that is running on the basis of change, and whose winning has been, and absolutely will be in November, on the basis of passionate young/new voters surging to the polls, running a cautious, careful, safe, boring, conventional wisdom campaign is extremely dangerous. Since the VP pick is the single most visible symbol of how the campaign is being run, the message that Obama really doesn't want to change anything, that he's just going to chart the safest strategy around, will reverberate through the rest of the campaign.
To my friends on the inside: caution is not the answer in this campaign. I know it's the path of least resistance, I know that you've been at this a long time and you are getting close to home, and doing the safe thing seems like the right way to go. But caution kills in Presidential campaigns. Pick a candidate with some edge and bluntness, like Biden. Take an economic populist like Sherrod Brown who can help you with working class voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, even if he does make the CW pundits uncomfortable. Take a woman: Hillary Clinton, Kathleen Sebelius, Janet Napolitano all have their pros and cons. Take a soldier with some edge like Wes Clark, even if it will cause the pundits gums to flap.
Evan Bayh is a nice guy. I know he brings some assets to the ticket, especially help in Indiana, and I know some of my friends on the campaign- like Anita Dunn and Jim Margolis and Pete Rouse- are close to him. But I feel like picking him sends the wrong signal.
I would add one final thing- an important one- I don't like about having Bayh be the pick, which is that no other pick would divide the party the way he would. Progressives are not wildly enthusiastic about most of the other people being discussed as short listers, but in my discussions with progressive organizational leaders, donors, bloggers, and other activists, Bayh is literally the only one that everyone feels strongly is a bad idea. If Obama wants a centrist white guy on the ticket, fine, but why go with the one finalist that the progressive community universally has problems with?
I know that many of you in the OpenLeft community have reservations about him, but for my money Joe Biden is the best of the finalists I've been hearing about. He ain't perfect, but he is tough, knowledgeable as hell about national security and foreign policy, a great debater, and will bluntly call bullshit when McCain tries to pull the Obama-is-weak-and-pro-terrorist crap in this campaign. I like having a VP with some edge, and I actually like the fact that Obama is picking the guy who called him "clean and articulate" at the start of this campaign- it gives all those working class white guys out there a sense that Obama isn't too PC, and doesn't take himself too seriously.
So now that you know where I stand, Obama, let's stop messing around and pick your VP, for God's sake- let's roll baby. |
STATE BLOGS
