Yesterday saw Washington Post blogger extraordinaire Chris Cillizza post his "Case for Evan Bayh" as part of a series looking at the accepted leaders in the Democratic veepstakes. Love him or hate him, the argument is a strong one, and I think the Cillizzard's main point warrants repeating.If you believe, as The Fix does, that Obama faces a stark choice between a fresh face and a elder statesman in his vice presidential pick, then the only candidate being seriously considered who could bridge that gap is Bayh. Today brought the other side of the punditocracy's coin, with a "Case against Evan Bayh."
The argument is threefold: Bayh lacks support in the progressive netroots, he was a vocal Clinton supporter throughout the primary process and, surprisingly, he is "too safe."
Although certain bloggers do have a tendency to overstate their significance, I'm not one to diminish the power of the 'roots. That being said, I simply don't buy the idea that Bayh's centrist history would in any way keep the highly motivated progressive voting bloc away from the polls come November. Barack Obama is too strong a candidate, McCain is too reactionary, and at the end of the day, I believe any uproar would be limited to a flash in the pan, rather than anything more problematic. In my mind, the pros definitely outweigh the cons on this one.
Regarding Bayh's support of Hillary Clinton throughout the primary process, I don't think this should really be held against any Democrat. People picked their horse, the race was run, and at the end of the day, the Democratic Party emerged stronger than ever. But don't take my word for it, because Sen. Bayh himself put out the same message last week. It's compelling, if for no other reason than it's true.
Finally, I think the most entertaining section of the piece is the assessment of Bayh as "too safe" for Obama's ticket. Bayh is widely seen as the safest pick Obama can make. He brings relatively little baggage (or potential baggage) to the ticket and is so on message that it's hard to see him making any big mistake while out campaigning in the fall.
But, the very safety that recommends Bayh to many Democrats is seen as a potential problem by others. The theory goes that Obama has generated so much excitement and interest from all sorts of people -- traditional Democratic constituencies and even those who have never been interested in politics before -- that picking a standard-issue Washington politician would drain some of the excitement and sense of "candidacy as movement" from Obama. In other words: Evan Bayh's biggest negative is his lack of apparent negatives.
I'll give Chris an 'A' for effort, but if I were the Obama campaign, the last thing I would want in a running mate is someone who is creating stories on their own.
At the end of the day, after re-reading Cillizza's previous "Case for / Case against" pieces, I'm convinced that our friend over at the Post has convinced himself that, in the least, Evan Bayh stands a serious chance in the veepstakes. And, more importantly, he would be a legitimate asset to the ticket if selected.
Agree with me? Disagree completely? Let's hear it. |
