On "Meet the Press," they went around and gave their predictions for each candidate.

Obama
Todd - Biden or Kaine
Murphy - Tim Kaine
Mitchell - Bayh or Biden
Woodruff - Bayh, Biden or Kaine

McCain
Todd - No one we're talking about now
Murphy - Romney or Pawlenty
Mitchell - Romney
Woodruff - Pawlenty, Romney or Cantor

I've already said I think Kaine would make the Obama ticket too lightweight, but it would emphasize the Washington outsider factor. I think Biden would tend to overshadow Obama, even though he brings foreign policy heft. So, I pick Bayh, who could bring the best of both worlds, as he had been a governor for eight years, plus help Obama with the Hillary camp (including Bill Clinton), and with working class Democrats in Midwestern states.

As for McCain, I predict he will pick Romney.

My prediction now-Kathleen Sebelius or Mike Bloomberg for Obama based on what he said
integrity
independence
out of the beltway, not an insider
vision
SHARED VISION-
Bloomberg actually is the most qualified person for either candidate, and insures not needing to waste time
raising money.
Bloomberg also would offset the Jewish problem (not that there is a Jewish problem).

As Frenchy says "I LIKE MIKE"- he is my #1 choice.

I think Joe LIeberman, Rudy Giuliani(still his best choice) or Fred Thompson will be McCAin's VP

all depends if McCain is free to choose or not


Any DEMOCRAT would value not losing a senate seat, so any senator currently in office who would be replaced by a republican is AUTOMATICALLY cancelled, no matter how much Hillary or the insiders are tossing their name around

What's the point of getting close to 60, if immediately one loses one? That insures no change.
And Obama already would need more to win Virginia/North Carolina, as he already leads in Indiana.

I think Obama will pick someone not old, not with that much experience.
Dukakis picked Bentsen and he overpowered Dukakis
Bsh picked Quayle and won

So Sebelius would make the best choice (also, she would bring in the remaining few women not already on
board who will vote democratic.

VP is unimportant anyhow, so long as the president lives for 8 years in office.

I think picking Sibelius could be perceived as a snub to Hillary. Obama is going to need ALL Democrats to support him. Plus, he needs to counter the perception that he is "risky" (for whatever reason - race, name, lack of experience). Choosing someone who is less well-known in the Party makes him more risky. He needs to pick someone more tried and true.

Won't be enough.

I agree with Beamer.

Hi, Beamer!

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Plenty of high profile names are getting bounced around as Barack Obama’s potential running mate. But Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi may have a lesser-known candidate in mind.

Newsweek and other publications say Pelosi has been lobbying for Rep. Chet Edwards (D – Texas). The 56-year-old Edwards is a 9-term congressman representing a district in central Texas that includes President Bush’s ranch in Crawford.

In an interview Sunday, Pelosi said, “I didn't want to see a discussion of candidates for vice president without showing the House of Representatives… I just wanted people to be aware of the extraordinary credentials of Chet Edwards. And I hope he will be the nominee.”

Pelosi told ABC’s "This Week" that “for years, our colleagues have said to him, why don't you run for president? He is an extraordinarily talented person. He is a champion for veterans in the Congress. Under his leadership, we have passed, including just on Friday, the biggest increase in funding for veterans' health benefits and other benefits in the history of our country. “

Pelosi called him “talented:” and “principled.” Asked if she believed Edwards, not a household name around the country, had a chance to be picked, she said, “Well, I would certainly hope so. But, you know what? Senator Dodd, Senator Biden, Senator Hillary Clinton — there's such a great array of people from whom Senator Obama can choose. So, anyone of them, I'm fine with."

"talented" and "principled" are code to mean "lies and bends over very well".

Bayh is popular with conservative Democrats, which I think could also mean he would be acceptable to independents or swing voters.

By the way, Obama will be in Indiana on Wednesday with Evan Bayh, I believe. Some people are speculating that Obama will announce before the Olympics start.

Edwards is a smart, personable guy, and a moderate to conservative Democrat. Those things would help Obama. But I don't see that he brings much else to the table. He isn't really all *that* well-known, even in Texas.

Hi Peg,

You agree about Bayh?

For some reason, the idea of two Midwestern "boys" is VERY appealing to me - a former Midwestern "girl." That region needs the attention.

The Least of my worries would be of Biden overshawdowing Barack Obama and if I read him at all correctly, I think that would be the least of Barack's worries. I think his worries about Biden would
be whether Biden scratches his a$$ to long and is a day late and a dollar short in responding.

Tom put me to sleep delivering the company talking points...Beamer, did you catch Lary King
last night on Changing One's Mind?

You are parrotting the entire meet the press, do you know that?

He will be with Kaine this week, AND Biden too
And he was in NY with Bloomberg a week ago
and the Indiana stop was planned weeks and weeks ago(you could look it up).

He doesn't need independent moderates. Bayh has MAJOR SKELETONS (of which I don't want to gossip about, but could if you pay me enough)
that disqualify him(just like his papa the tree who couldn't even bark, except up the W-R-O-N-G alley).

He is just a stalking horse for Hillary. Obama WON'T pick Bayh, unless he has a broomstick shoved up his rear end
(something someone like Bayh knows alot about proverbially, as his whole career came off the backs(and fronts)of others).

Bayh's wife also has MAJOR MAJOR problems

If he were to pcik Bayh, might as well pick Hillary.

There are 1364 people as good or better than Bayh.

Bayh's just on the list to appease hillary and has NONE of the five things Obama said last Thursday that he wants.

And I know you are just saying this in cahoots with the others to annoy me, so your jig is up anyhow.

As for Kathleen, what Hillary wants DOES NOT MATTER. She LOST. She is a LOSER. She is not even the keynoter just another old faded washed up nothing who gets to speak. BUT SHE IS NOT THE KEYNOTER...
89% of Hillary's fans already support Obama

If you watched MTP you know the other 10% are not democrats except for 2 old bags from Park Avenue who spew garbage.

Hillary lost. Get over it.

Kathleen is better than hillary.

however-

GOD WOULD BE ON OBAMA'S SIDE IF HE PICKED CAROLINE KENNEDY. THE #1 BESTEST CHOICE IN THE HISTORY OF THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE

And we would all sing
SWEET CAROLINE
GOOD TIMES NEVER SEEM SO GOOD
NEIL DIAMOND

remember 2004- red herrings abounded in the pick

just for starters- the first of 75 articles I have stored away-please forward this to all you know, far and wide

http://hoosierpundit.blogspot.com/2007/12/...st-scandal.html
Monday, December 17, 2007
Evan Bayh's Latest Scandal
It's nothing new to the Hoosier blogosphere, but a big story in the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette has brought public attention to and focused new light on the shady dealings of Evan Bayh and his wife.

Susan Bayh, as you may or may not know, has as her primary occupation sitting on the boards of directors of companies that her husband frequently votes in the Senate to impact.

Unsurprisingly, it's very lucrative to sit on the board of directors of some big company, and more lucrative still when your husband is voting in ways that can favorably benefit the juicy stock options that you are about to exercise.

Given that there have already been ethics complaints about this brought before a United States District Court, it actually rather surprising (and conspicuously unsettling) that this hasn't gotten any press at all in Indiana much sooner.

This being said, since it has already been swept under the rug once before when it came before an actual court, I am highly skeptical that this story will manage to grow legs this time around.

It is, however, from a highly reputable journalist, whose opinion pieces--let alone factual reporting and straight-up journalism such as this--notable Democratic blogs have very recently quoted and cited with favor; it's hard to discredit the source.

Unfortunately for those interested in having honest and open elected public servants, the Senate Ethics Committee isn't exactly known for its dogged pursuit of justice when it comes to the blatant ethical violations and lapses of judgment of the members of the upper house of Congress.

Given that some of Bayh's proteges, like Baron Hill (for example), campaigned in 2006 on a platform of cleaning up Washington and establishing new institutions and mechanisms for doing so, perhaps they will put their money where their mouth is and call for an independent inquiry into the activities of Evan and Susan Bayh.

Until they do, all of their talk about cleaning up Washington and establishing the most honest and open Congress *evah* is yet again shown for the empty slogan that it was, and the sham covering for a continuation of politics as usual simply under the banner of a different political party.

At the very least, this needs to be seriously and publicly investigated further. If there is evidence of wrongdoing, then the Senator will have to answer for it.

I wouldn't hold my breath on either one happening any time soon.

This post could be construed as Negative campaigning for McCain against Obama... Obama
has been tried to whatever quantity and quality that he has been tried, thus far, and a Majority of USAians I find him as True to Himself as Represented by His Public Campaign as any Candidate in recent History...Can He be everything to everybody? No, but there is no one in line who can come closer...

To tell you the truth, with the possible exception of Biden (and to me, personally, Edwards), none of the prospective names being floated about bring much to the ticket. But then, Obama definitely does not need star power.

Sebelius, to me, would be a lousy pick. Besides the "Hillary snub" factor, Sebelius is a stiff and would not even come close to delivering Kansas.

can you say influence peddling
insider trader?
getting rich without earning it for the above...
Can you say we will NEVER get health insurance of any type with Evan and his wife???
Michael Moore would be rolling in his grave if he were dead.

That is Susan Bayh...wife of Evie WHO WORKS FOR THE EVIL PHARMACEUTICAL FIRMS THAT CAUSE OUR DRUGS TO BE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS MORE EXPENSIVE!!!

................................................................

Stock options pile up, pay off for Susan Bayh
By Sylvia A. SmithWashington editor
WASHINGTON – Without billing any clients or cashing a paycheck, Susan Bayh collected $248,700 so far this year in income from one corporation.

By exercising stock options she received for sitting on the board of insurance giant WellPoint Inc. and selling the stock when it was near its highest price of the year, Bayh took advantage of one of the parts of compensation given to the directors of many publicly traded companies.

In the past four years, Bayh has exercised stock options eight times. Each time, she bought and sold stocks of three of the companies she helps direct: Indianapolis-based WellPoint; a Cambridge, Mass., pharmaceutical developer, Curis Inc.; and the privately held E-Trade Bank.

Through seven of those transactions, she has collected a pre-tax gain of more than $1.7 million. In addition, she exercised options of E-Trade Bank shares. But because E-Trade is not publicly traded, the details of the transaction are not publicly reported. In a financial disclosure report that her husband, Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., is required to file each year, the value of the E-Trade transaction was listed as between $500,000 and $1 million. But that would not take into account the cost of exercising the options to buy the E-Trade shares.

Companies often give stock options to the directors and top management. Under the system, a recipient gets the right to buy a certain number of shares at a fixed price after a certain period of time.

If the market price of the stock has gone up when that point arrives, the director or employee can exercise the option, sell the stock and make a profit. If the price has dropped, the director does nothing but can hold the option, usually for a period of up to 10 years. If the market price never exceeds the option-exercise price, the director or employee usually allows it to expire.

“Stock options represent a way to tie (directors’) economic fate, if you will, to the company’s fate and therefore assure that they will be committed and motivated to see the company be successful,” said Edward Lawler, a business professor at the University of Southern California and founder and director of the Center for Effective Organizations.

If directors’ compensation was in cash only, Lawler said, “it would basically not reflect how well the company does and the performance of the company and that therefore they would not be as motivated to see the company be successful as they should be.”

But the wisdom of awarding stock options to directors is not universally shared.

A better approach, said Warren Batts, an adjunct professor at the University of Chicago business school and former corporate executive, is for corporations to award stock that directors can take possession of only when they leave the board. That way, he said, there’s a strong incentive for them to work to improve the company – and increase the value of its stock.

Members of boards who receive the option to buy stocks as part of their compensation must report to the Securities and Exchange Commission when they exercise those options.

In the past four years, Susan Bayh told the SEC:

• In January, Bayh exercised the option to buy 3,333 shares of WellPoint stock at a price of $44.18 per share. She sold all of them for $78 per share, a pre-tax gain of $112,722.

• In May, Bayh exercised options that allowed her to buy 3,334 shares of WellPoint for $44.18 apiece. She immediately sold them for $84.95 or $84.98 per share. The stock traded between $84.15 and $85.45 that day, its highest price all year. Bayh’s pre-tax gain was $135,978.

The price slipped a few days later when WellPoint announced it had fired its finance chief for misconduct unrelated to the company’s business. The health insurer’s stock slid further when the company’s second-quarter report didn’t jazz investors despite an 11 percent profit.

On Friday, WellPoint stock closed at $86.16.

• Last year, she had a pre-tax gain of $796,078 when she exercised options allowing her to buy 20,001 WellPoint shares for prices ranging from $35.85 to $44.18 a share. She sold the stock for $77.08 a share.

• In 2004, Bayh’s pre-tax gain of $400,942 was based on 11,666 shares of WellPoint stock she bought for $71.86 or $71.70 and sold in eight blocks of stock for $106.10 to $106.40.

• Over three days in September 2003, Bayh exercised her option to buy Curis stock at $1.09, $1.50 or $3.13 a share. She sold 123,750 shares the same days in prices ranging from $5 to $5.31 a share. Bayh’s pre-tax gain for the transactions was more than $263,662 and as much as $269,874.

The days Bayh sold her Curis shares, the stocks hit $5 or higher for only the second time in the stock’s history. Since then, the value of Curis stock has tumbled. So far this year, it has traded above $2 on only one day. On Friday, Curis stock closed at $1.14.

sylviasmith@jg.net

YOU would say that if Eleanor Roosevelt was the pick.

Stiff? Evan Bayh is the #1 biggest stiff to ever walk the earth.
(and it seems Bill Clinton and stiff go together too, but in different ways)

Dan Quayle BEAT Ev's father the tree. That Dan Quayle.

What one individual has Obama colloborated with (frequency & intensity) most during the past three
or four years that would be elligible for the VP post?

AL GORE AND MIKE BLOOMBERG AND TED KENNEDY AND JIMMY CARTER

I should report this as a personal attack, but no matter. Not worth the effort. Let me just say there are much better prospective female candidates than Sebelius.

And you don't see me beating the drums for Bayh, do you?

Edwards would be a pick who might cause me to take a second look at Obama, but I concede that he would not be a name who would do much for the ticket either nationally or in Texas. On the other hand, I don't think he'd hurt, either, and he is popular with veterans.

what's personal?

You would not like any other female but Hillary, YOU yourself said so in other posts, that Hillary fans would feel its a snub.
That is what I am commenting on, nothing personal to you

No, you aren't a Bayh fan, TO YOUR CREDIT, he is one of the worst of the worst same ole' same ole'
(I would rather have Hillary than Bayh actually.)

Who is this Cliff Edwards from Texas? Is he really a national candidate now?

Chet Edwards is a congressman who represents the district in Central Texas that stretches from Burleson, just south of Fort Worth, to College Station, and includes Crawford and Waco. He is the only one of the seven white Democrats targeted by the GOP in the Texas redistricting scandal to survive. My mother thinks very highly of him and says he is a super nice guy. He's probably more conservative than most people on this site would like, but that isn't necessarily that bad of thing. And he is one of the top veterans advocates in the House.

I doubt he would be under "top-tier" serious consideration, but with Pelosi pushing him, I would imagine his name is at least on the table.

Dianne Feinstein, for one, would be a worthy female candidate. She's a bit old, but she has experience and political heft. I'm sure there are others, too, but I'd have to ponder it .....

The other woman from Calif has more pluses and few minuses.

I like Barbara Boxer, but she's too "left wing." She would only reinforce negative opinions about Obama.

Sorry, Chet Edwards (Cliff was the voice of JiminyCricket who sang When you wish upon a star) that was not intentional.

Dianne should have been Mondale's VP
Think her husbands skeletons stopped it unfortunately, she was great back then
Unfortunately last few years she has slipped in my opinion.
Boxer I like better.

caroline Kennedy is the best though. They would make a great ticket

I wasn't voting Bayh as much as Biden and Kaine. But definitely Romney.

It may take two strong women to keep Obama focused on intermediate and long-term follow-up.
Caroline and Michael might just be the ticket...

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think Pelosi might be on to something. Even though Edwards does not bring along a state or conventional voting bloc, he would bring a tremendous amount of balance to the ticket. He's more conservative, more of a "guy to have a beer with" type, has strong legislative credentials and has a strong history on veterans/military issues. Not a bad pick at all, though he's probably not enough of a "name" for it to happen. Obama certainly doesn't need "star power" on the ticket, though.

http://edwards.house.gov/html/bio.cfm

Nice-looking guy too.

Chris Cilizza doesn't think a pick is imminent. Plus, I heard Obama is broadening the selection process.

I don't think Obama has to worry about his selection being overshadowed by the Olympics, as some do. Obama is such a show on his own that he won't be ignored. Plus, outside of China and NBC, I don't think there is a tremendous amount of excitement over the Olympics this time around. The Olympics might be more of a concern for McCain.

The Olympics used to be fun when it was live at 2AM or 5AM and you could watch everything

Not what the networks forcefed you

Not when the networks only showed the "mighty" Americans and not the real Olympic stories

Not when you thought these kids were really doing something great, instead of being pumped full of drugs
and whatnot to cheat
Not when they give you those 5 minute bios of someone, who just happens to be the winner of the next
event
No, it used to be fun, before it got ruined like everything else.
Most people don't care about the Olympics anymore. Not like they used to.

But most people also don't care who the VP is...

long as the candidate lives the entire 2 terms, the VP historically is nothing and it leads nowhere at all.

Even as powerful as Cheney and Gore were, neither got seated as President.
And past nomininated vp hopefuls who lost did not become president either

Nixon and LBJ are the only two recent ones who did. And recent would be now ancient, being that Nixon was VP until 1960, and LBJ took office in 1963.

Not one other VP since then became President honestly.

Whatever happened to Spiro Agnew and Dan Quayle?

and don't forget Tom Daschle...

especially with recent anthraxxx in the news again, after all Tom got one of the packages himself.

And is rumored to be SOS or Chief of Staff anyhow...

and then there is Bob Graham...tanned, rested, ready to serve...

You forgot about Bush I.

no I didn't

see the word "honestly"
Bush41 /REagan took office dishonestly (Iran arms for hostages should have landed both in jail for treason).

Biggest difference in Olympics coverage, in my opinion: Back in the day, the Olympics used to be treated as a sports/news event. ABC/NBC morphed it into a pre-packaged "storyline" for their evening telecasts.

Maybe this year will be better, as supposedly more events are going to be shown live on the Internet.

If it is those three for the Dems I would hope that Obama picks Biden to give him "national security heavyweight" status. Bayh and Kaine both have their political pluses (selfishly I would just as soon that Kaine stay in Richmond rather than letting our nutjob Republican Lt Governor take over). Bayh would be somewhat better than Kaine vis a vis national security, but I think Biden would make the best one of the three. Sure he talks a lot more than Obama, but I don't worry about him overshadowing Obama. A few minutes of Biden talking nonstop and people will be praying to hear Obama again! Anyway, he will make good statements where they count, and the Republicans won't be able to dismiss him as a lightweight.

On this I agree. Sebelius is intriguing to me, but to be quite honest I worry that a lot of people might be turned off by the "Rainbow Coaltion" message they could perceive. (That even makes me reluctant about Bill Richardson, even though my wife would love to see a Hispanic on the ticket, even one of Mexican background.)

Does he have much expertise in national security matters? That is what I think Obama should do with his VP pick, get someone who would show how seriously he takes it.

Edwards is out. Kiss him goodbye.

Oh come on Graham. I think that you would actually have to be paid very, very little to gossip about these "skeletons".

And Obama does need independent moderates, and critically so. Democratic voters by themselves are never enough to carry an election. And don't tell me that non-Democratic, progressives will be enough to save Obama, because they won't any more than offshore drilling will solve the energy crisis.

Say what?

Must thoughtful posts like the one of Beamer you responded to always be met by tired, and rather snarky, talking points when they cause the least bit of discomfort?

She manifestly was not campaigning for McCain against Obama. I would not be surprised if a high-placed advisor or two of his has not told him pretty much the same thing.

I'm still trying to identify who of VP statue has Barack Obama collaborated more and more intensly
with during the last 3 or 4 years? Who in addition to Kerry would be on this short list?

Being a vet is nice, but does he have anything in the way of serious national security credentials?

In your view. How about in the view of the voters in the middle that Obama needs to win over?

This is pretty much where I am on her as well. I think that she is a great leader of the party, but she would not add anything much to Obama politically that he does not already have.

I think the post, over-all condems with feint praise. It gradually builds up the punch line that Obama
is not tried and true.

I agree with everything you say about Biden's unarguable credentials (including his non-stop chatter )......but I still see him more valuable as Secretary of State.

As for VP, I'm still undecided......

That's a toss up and the answer is neither. That is the side that is most likly going to lose the election.
They will be pleasantly surprized when things don't turn out as bad as they thought they would.