http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/06/cam...=rss_topstories


(CNN) -- Barack Obama on Wednesday is campaigning in Indiana with Evan Bayh, a Democratic senator who's been at the heart of the VP buzz.


Sen. Barack Obama is pushing his energy plan at an event with Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh.

Bayh will introduce Obama at the town hall in Elkhart, where Obama will push the energy plan he unveiled earlier this week.

Obama and John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, have been trading jabs over each other's energy policies all week.

Their back-and-forths have focused on offshore drilling, which McCain supports and Obama does not.

Obama on Wednesday will reiterate his call to tap into the strategic oil reserves in order to reduce gas prices. He'll also detail his proposal to eliminate the need for oil from the Middle East and Venezuela within 10 years, and he'll push for a windfall profits tax on big oil corporations that would be used to provide a $1,000 rebate to people struggling with high energy costs. Watch Obama describe his energy plan »

Bayh, a former two-term governor of Indiana, was a big supporter of Hillary Clinton during the primaries. Advocates of an Obama-Bayh ticket say he'd help unify the party and could shore up some of Obama's weak spots because of his time on the Senate Intelligence and Armed Services Committees.

"Evan Bayh is not the kind of person to make mistakes. He is loyal; he's trustworthy; he's smart; he looks terrific in a photo op," said Stu Rothenberg of the Rothenberg Political Report.

According to CNN's polling, Indiana and its 11 electoral votes are leaning toward Obama, but the senator from Illinois has not locked in the state.

Bayh tried to downplay the idea that Obama would need him in order to come out on top in Indiana, telling CNN that Obama is competitive in Indiana because of "what he stands for, who he is and the desperate need for change and a better direction in Washington."

Later Wednesday, Michelle Obama will team up with Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine for a fundraiser in Norfolk. Kaine is also considered a strong running mate candidate.

He was the first governor to endorse Obama outside Illinois, when most of the Democratic establishment was still supporting Clinton.

McCain on Wednesday starts his day in West Virginia, where he'll drop by Marshall University's football team practice. Watch McCain slam Obama on energy »

He'll then head to Ohio, a battleground state with 20 electoral votes. McCain will tour a factory in Jackson and wrap up day with an event in Chillicothe and a fundraiser in Dublin.

McCain has been stressing his "maverick" reputation as he tries to distance himself from the Bush administration. Obama has tried to paint McCain as "more of the same" on everything from energy to the war in Iraq to the economy.

McCain's emphasizes his independence in his latest television ad, telling voters the nation is "worse off than we were four years ago."

"Washington's broken. John McCain knows it. We're worse off than we were four years ago," the announcer says in the 30-second spot.

"Only McCain has taken on Big Tobacco, drug companies, fought corruption in both parties. He'll reform Wall Street, battle Big Oil, make America prosper again. "

"He's the original maverick. One is ready to lead -- McCain."

The Obama campaign issued an ad in response that asks if McCain is the "original maverick? Or just more of the same?"

The ad flashes to a video clip of McCain in May of 2003 saying he and President Bush are lockstep on most issues.


According to CNN's latest poll of polls, Obama holds a 5-point lead over McCain, 48-43 percent.

The poll of polls consists of four surveys: CNN/Opinion Research Corporation (July 27-29), AP-IPSOS (July 31-August 4), USA Today/Gallup (July 25-27), and Gallup tracking (August 2-4).


YAY!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/06/oba...ref=mpstoryview

This article raises some good questions IMHO...

I believe Bayh would make the numbers better for Obama.

more important
MICHELLE OBAMA WITH TIM KAINE THIS AFTERNOON

all Evan Blayh has is one big humongously UGLY ego. He must be defeated in his reelection campaign in 2 years. Good riddance to rubbish.

I could live with Kaine...

I would be thrilled with Bayh!

as long as Obama wins and is alive in 2017 when he retires as President, I don't really care who the VP is. Being that it is an unimportant position unless something bad happens.
And if the VP retires as VP, they alot of times go nowhere anyhow (Ask Humphrey, Bentsen, Lieberman, Edwards,Agnew,Mondale,Dukakis,Rockerfeller,and unfortunately Gore did not
get seated even though he won.)

Kaine and Obama both have family from Kansas, so they have personal ties.

And you are confusing. On the one hand you don't want Bayh to give up his seat and see it go to the Republicans if he becomes VP, on the other hand you want him to be defeated, which would almost certainly be by a Republican.

no-no
I want a Ned Lamont type challenge in 2010 (democratic challenger) to defeat him and go on to win same as any other states dem-lite (including Joe the next time he runs in CT, if he still
has a seat). Want all of them to have a challenger next time.

Recent history shows that Obama's family will want to be close to the VP family, so there might be more to the Michelle/Kaine meeting, then Obama takes a weeks vacation, Michelle tells him
how great Kaine is(Obama may already know that), and its decided (though I believe Obama and Michelle already know who they will ask and let us know 10 days from now, maybe

Well Indiana is not Connecticut, and I don't know that there would be the equivalent of Ned Lamont there. And I don't see Bayh as the equivalent of Lieberman.



I am sure that Barack and Michelle know a lot more about their thinking than any of us do.

This is the only thing I'm sure about!

I didn't invent this, and actually Kaine wasn't who this was meant for (the person who did this was referring to Kerry)

OK
Obama/Kaine
OK
nice, compact, simple bumper sticker

OK
got it?

Obma/Bayh is even more compact!

still doesn't make up for the fact that Bayh would mean a net loss of a senate seat
Why do that when the senate is all important (and it would be at least a year or two for another election?

So now you are arguing that Bayh is a positive influence in the senate?
It seems you were just calling him a traitor..

alas politics is a paradox ain't it?
illusion is just another word for nothing left to dream (whatever that means)

I agree with that!

Everyone one of us has a strong opinion.
and then we compromise.
We settle for the best we can get...and gripe about it endlessly.

POLITICS! The root of our frustration!




I'm posting this picture again because I like it!

Graham you have yet to make the case for voting against Bayh as a VP choice...

You say he's got a big ego -- you say on the first amendment flag burning he voted wrong -- I agree but that is not a reason not to support hiim as VP...IMHO...

So come on -- tell us why no Bayh...

Why?

Because we aren't getting to 60 anyway and we are likely to pick up 4 senate seats at least...

they say 7 and Stevens may be 8

but if we lose one that is one further behind

The thought is, Reid will get a few repubs to move over and it will be over 60 even discounting Joe

Graham, based on what do you think that some Republicans would move over? Do you have any names? Over the past 10 years I can think of one Republican who moved over to becoming a Democratically allied independent, Jeffords of Vermont.

not officially move over, but Reid is planning on lobbying a few repubs to side with them to break the gridlock

without the Bush's in office, they might be more amiable, especially if they only need a few

The electorate is voting for a change from the same old nasty do nothing to getting something done

So if its 57, they would need maybe 6
if its 58 they would need 5
and so on

to offset the Joe Lieberman vote too

I just don't understand why anyone would want Bayh to ruin that hope
when others are the same or better

When he doesn't need Bayh to win Indiana and when everything is being kept top secret

Why so public with Bayh?
It's obvious a red herring

Well Graham, some people like Bayh a lot. You obviously don't like him at all.

Face it, if it were a matter of some Senator you liked a lot giving up their seat to become VP then you would not be likely to see this as a big deal at all. Why should you expect the Bayh fans to consider this a compelling argument?

Hopefully Reid can get a few Republicans to vote for cloture on this or that issue. He will have to do that in any event.

Rather than obsess about Bayh why not talk about the importance of reelecting Mary Landrieu, who is defending a marginal seat in Louisiana?

she is corrupt

I say get rid of all corrupt people, bayh is one of them.

He has pocketed good money for the industry his wife got him money with.

Well Graham, you are never going to have perfection. If Landrieu is guitly of violating the law then I would not oppose indicting her (or anyone else regardless of their politics, including Chris Dodd if he got illegal favors in his loans). But we see how easily you will throw out your argument about it being so vital to keep as many Democrats in the Senate as possible. We can see that is hardly a critical matter for you.

but she will win, so where is the comparrison?
I don't get it???

another red herring

How do you know that? My understanding is that she may be the most vulnerable Democrat facing reelection this year.

it is possible in the seat charts that her seat already is counted as a loss and not included

It has nothing to do with Bayh

you keep trying to play gotcha, I am not in the mood

In the next 18 days, we will know

and if Obama lives a good long,long life, we all have nothing to worry about
then it matters little who the vp is

it really is a non-important position

I predict a major vp surprise it won't be Bayh.

A lot of things are possible. LIke you could be wrong about this.



It is your argument about the necessity of getting the maximum number of Dems in the Senate as to why it is so important to keep Bayh there. So Landrieu is relevant in terms of consistency.



If I am right and you have bad case here, all you have to do is shift to your real and important problems with Bayh. What's wrong with that?



Yes we will.



Well that would mean that we should worry little about who he picks.

big if

For me it is!

I was going to vote for Obama regardless.
If he has the sense to pick Bayh I will CAMPAIGN for him...

Its all hypocrisy Graham...as Arne pointed out.

On the one hand you say not to vote for Bayh because we'll lose a Senator in the US Senate --- and then when asked about Mary Landrieu you suggest that she's irrelevant because she is corrupt --- but her vote is just as important as Bayh's --- but you dismiss her.

Now, you say Bayh is corrupt as well but not so corrupt that you would not want to keep him in the Senate to provide that extra vote...

It seems inconsistent.

IMHO either you want all your alleged corrupt poliicians prosecuted and in jail or not?

Landrieu deserves to not be re-elected, even if the seat goes to the Republicans. They wouldn't be able to hold it more than one term. The South is trending progressive Democrat.

If you got rid of all the allegedly corrupt politicians and all of the Blue Dog Democrats the tent would look pretty empty!
Both of those ideas have been promoted by Graham.

This is precisely the dilema the whole country is hung up on. How many honest competent government servants are need to toss out the number who are unacceptably corrupt and/or
Incompetent? What kind of Presidential Leadership is needed to make that happen?

I could care what she "deserves". But I don't think that my kids deserve the byproduct of liberals demanding too much purity, a more Republican and conservative Senate for many years to come.



I think that you are likely to be wrong. Since the consequences, in my view, are likely to be rather bad if you are wrong I think you need to supply very good evidence for this statement.

The trends in the South may be good, but the Republicans could not hold a conservative place like Louisiana for more than one term? That strikes me as a very extraordinary claim! And if you are right, couldn't you just replace Landrieu with a more progressive Democrat in 2014? Why is purity so vital? Or, to put it another way, why should I care about it? What will it do for my kids' future?

That is one of the most compelling and cogent statements on this thread, IMO.

I am not being inconsistent at all

this is the dukakis question

What I personally would like is one thing

What I am politically saying is another

What I personally like is just not relevant to the political question

60 in is 60 whether I like the person or not, so it's two separate issues.

Accountability is what is vital. Landrieu has been as unaccountable to common ordinary Citizens
in La. as our distinguished senators from Ar.They have been Bush Lite Enablers who have cost the Nation and their states, terrible.

But the question in politics is ALWAYS who is the best among your set of realistic choices. As you don't discuss alternatives here your statement is not too helpful. And you don't even provide any support concerning your "vital" issue, how these Senators are lacking in acountability. I really don't consider the calling the name of "Bush Lite Enablers" as any kind of support.

And you don't deal with my questions above.

One has to choose what one will stay ignornat about since one can not know everything. I
don't pay much attention to intrastate politics at the personality level. Unless I have an occassion to make a particular case study. I offer my generalizations for whatever they may be worth. I find that
they tend to organize other posters sharing more concrete and specific observations...

Yet you chose to discuss Mary Landrieu, saying that she didn't "deserve" reelection, and then added the two individual Senators from Arkansas, similarly condemning them, and implying that they should go too, due to being "Bush Lite Enablers". And I have brought up general points, which you have not really discussed, or pointed out any flaws that they may have.

Haven't you said in the past that all corrupt politicans should be put in jail, or is it just certain corrput politcians that you do not like?

We should lighten up on Graham!
He HAS been very consistant
with his inconsistancy!

These are my general impressions, based on my general observations over the years...I make no additional claims for them.

Those impressions are strong enough for you to advocate purging them. I have more than a general impression that it is simply not wise to purge Democratic politicians for insufficient purity when there is no way, barring fundamental political changes that are not yet on the horizon (and are likely to take quite a bit of time in any event) that staunch liberals can assemble a majority coalition without including some people to the Right of them. I have argued this more than a general impression quite frequently here, and quite honestly I have never seen what I could consider to be anything near a plausible rebuttal.

Arne, I am not defending any thing or anybody here. Not re-electing someone is not the same
thing as purging someone...it is finding a better option...I am twice retired and have turned the active politicing over to the younger generation...I mostly just study and vicarously enjoy the process...

You expressed a view which I challenged. Don't you think that is a fair statement?



First of all I don't see the difference in this case. Second of all I have raised the matter of whether the likely alternatives would include much in the way of "better options", and argued that is not at all likely any time soon. You have not really dealt with my points on that. Not even concerning your own state.



Fine, but what we are doing here is discussing things. You do more than read here. You post, which of course opens you up to debate. So it should not be surprising when you are challenged. Who is here is never challenged in what they write? And all I am doing is challenging you on some of the opinions that you have expressed.

I encourage challenge from every one and I am most eager to hear your reasons for thinking
I made an indefensible statement and how it is that my thinking this way makes me look folish,
relative to your reading of what's going on politically, in these our united states...

Rla, simply because I challenged your statement does not mean that I am saying that you look foolish, nor is it necessary to use inflammatory statments like "indefensible". I simply disagreed with you. My point was to argue that, IMHO, there were problems with what you said, not that you are foolish or said anything "indefensible". And I have already given you reasons for my thinking, all you have to do to find them is look at my posts in this train of discussion. Now perhaps there are things which I said that in your opinion are flawed, and/or not clearly expressed. If so I would really like it if you could point those things out.

The Thread is about Obama and Bayh campaining together and the implications for Obama picking
Bayh VP and the larger implications for what Mission Barack Obama is setting for the Democratic
Party to lead a Major Reform in Government? Individual players necessarilly represent big chunks
of over-generalizations. Southern politicians who previously played what could called a Brokerage
Role in delivering large blocks of Black Voters and of White Voters and of Hispanic Voters and
taking care of bidness are going to have to re-tool.