TNR BLOGS

July 05, 2009 | 4:05 PM
July 05, 2009 | 12:13 PM
July 04, 2009 | 11:18 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 05, 2009 | 12:02 PM
July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
05.08.2008
Bayh? Bah.

My colleague Josh Patashnik and quasi-colleague Nate Silver have done a public service by placing Senator Evan Bayh in a proper ideological context. Notwithstanding Bayh's image as a squishy moderate and occasional crusader against the left, his voting record turns out to be relatively progressive. And that goes a long way to making liberals like me feel more comfortable with the possibility of Bayh becoming Barack Obama's running mate.

But ideology isn't the only reason some of us are wary of Bayh. Another is his history of accomplishment--or relative lack thereof. I've been reading clips and calling around Captiol Hill lately, looking into Bayh's record. And I'd be hard-pressed to name an issue on which he's really distinguished himself. There's no legislative agenda or intiative for which he is particularly famous. And there are no episodes in which he demonstrated particularly astute judgment.

Bayh may be smart, dedicated, and thoughtful.  But the singular achievement for which he seems to be known is that he's managed to get elected--and remain popular--in a state that's not generally fond of Democrats. And even that is something for which he can't take full credit himself, given that he is part of an Indiana political dynasty. If he had been born "Evan Smith" instead of "Evan Bayh," would he have pulled this off? 

This matters because--as I've written before--I think the most important criteria for picking a running mate is choosing somebody capable of serving as president in a time of crisis. It's particularly important when choosing somebody as young as Bayh, since--if all goes well--he'll become the heir apparent eight years hence. Accomplishments don't necessairly equal readiness to be president. But, all other things being equal, I'd argue they are a decent indicator.

Admittedly, not everybody agrees with that assessment. For many people, political considerations are paramount. Obama needs to pick somebody who can help him get elected; everything else is secondary.

But how much would Bayh help? Precisely because Bayh has no other claim to fame, pundits will jump on this as proof that Obama picked Bayh in order to overcome a political liability. That, in turn, could undermine one of Obama's biggest claims--namely, that he's not just another politician.

It's possible, of course, that appearing to act politically is a small price to pay, given all that Bayh would bring to the ticket. Bayh, who is to politics what Wonder is to bread, might really make a lot white voters feel more comfortable about backing Obama. And there's a decent chance he would help put Indiana in play, which is no small thing. 

Still, the political calculus doesn't look as simple as it seems. And that makes me wonder whether, somewhere in the party, there's a better candidate to be chosen.

--Jonathan Cohn 

Posted: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 2:51 PM with 35 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

guptatomic1 said:

"is to politics what Wonder is to bread" -- classic...  Agree that Bayh is bland, also agree that, given what Obama's facing, this is a strength...  It's the "somewhere in the party there's a better candidate" that's twisting my shorts -- who is this masked man(/woman)?  Oh Cohn!   You're such a tease!

August 5, 2008 3:44 PM

Rhubarbs said:

"And that makes me wonder whether, somewhere in the party, there's a better candidate to be chosen."

Um, yes, there is: Brad Henry.

Honestly, what would it take to get the freakin' political media to notice a young, popular two-term Democratic governor of a highly Republican state with a solid record of progressive accomplishment on crime and education, a lifetime A rating from the NRA, and a gentle Southern accent?

August 5, 2008 3:45 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Ideology isn't the only reason some of us are wary of Obama. Another is his history of accomplishment--or relative lack thereof. I've been reading clips and calling around Captiol Hill lately, looking into Obama's record. And I'd be hard-pressed to name an issue on which he's really distinguished himself. There's no legislative agenda or initiative for which he is particularly famous. And despite his crowing about opposing the Iraq War, he was wrong on the surge, so his record on demonstrating particularly astute judgment is mixed.

Obama may be smart, dedicated, and thoughtful.  But the singular achievement for which he seems to be known is that he's managed to get nominated.

August 5, 2008 3:46 PM

kgrant1054 said:

You neglect a very important point - Evan Bayh bores the pants off of all human beings with a pulse.  Hell, he even bores the dead. My God, the man in boring.  Dreadful on the stump, he makes me pine for folks like Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad (I have lived in both North Dakota and Indiana in the past).  

He makes Kerry look scintillating.  He creates narcolepsy whenever he opens his mouth.  People vote for him because they had pleasant dreams during his speeches.  He should be our secret weapon against terrorists - we could send to the border region of Pakistan and Afghanistan with his standard speech and a bullhorn and we would be certain never to hear from any of them ever again as they drifted into naps that would have done Rip Van Winkle proud.  Lions and lambs lay down together when he opens his mouth because of the irresistable waves of blissful slumber slam their eyelids shut.  Do you know why honeybees have been dying off in record numbers - yep, listening to so many Bayh speeches that they have starved to death as they slept record numbers of hours.  The Guiness Book has taken "World's Most Boring Person" out the last few volumes because Bayh is still active in politics and it wouldn't be cricket to get anyone else's hopes up.  The Ambien people keep trying slap him with restraint of trade injunctions.  (Of course, with Evan, you never really have to worry about the bizarre side-effects associatied with Ambien - with Bayh, once you are out, you are out.)

Goodness gracious, if nothing else, have pity on Gwen Ifil, what did she ever do to deserve such punishment?

August 5, 2008 3:55 PM

kgrant1054 said:

Tep, your last sentence is eye-opening.  Do you not find at least something of interest in the fact that Obama 'did' manage to get nominated?  He beat the candidate that nobody thought could lose in the Democratic primary.  Does this not say something about the way in which he would govern.  I mean this, can you not admit that the nomination victory is something that shows leadership, organization, message control, timing, etc, etc?  Just curious.  

August 5, 2008 4:02 PM

Rhubarbs said:

kgrant, you're spitting into the wind. Tep cares so much about universal healthcare that he or she would prefer to vote for the candidate who promises not to cover anyone than the candidate who promises only to cover everyone who wants coverage. Tep is also still a little bitter that the other Democratic candidate, the one who promised to cover everyone except the 15 million or so poorest residents she wanted to exclude from "universal" coverage, didn't win the nomination.

Barack Obama could personally discover the cure for leukemia and capture Osama bin Laden today, and tomorrow tep would ask, "But what has Obama done for us lately?"

August 5, 2008 4:11 PM

gregstolhand said:

Tep,

BHO was not wrong on the surge, the stated purpose was not met.  We have proven that more troops =more security and less violence, nothing more.  Is this a good thing, most likely and it is better than unmitigated chaos.  

Oh if only he were famous for some legislative agenda, the world would make sense and you could join our cult.

August 5, 2008 4:12 PM

jacobt1 said:

"his matters because--as I've written before--I think the most important criteria for picking a running mate is choosing somebody capable of serving as president in a time of crisis. It's particularly important when choosing somebody as young as Bayh, since--if all goes well--he'll become the heir apparent eight years hence. Accomplishments don't necessairly equal readiness to be president. But, all other things being equal, I'd argue they are a decent indicator."

Jonathan,

Do you have sense of irony?

August 5, 2008 4:18 PM

ironyroad said:

Bayh's name is going to be a problem -- if Obama makes the stupidest move possible and picks him, then the slogan "Obama-Bayh-Bye!" will become part of popular culture.

Biden, Webb, Clark, Sibelius, Henry -- almost anyone will be better than Kaine or Bayh, the two wimpiest Democrats the party could ever put forward.

A few sparks, a little passion, someone to balance out Obama's cool with some fire.

August 5, 2008 4:24 PM

teplukhin2you said:

His campaign team is indeed disciplined, and I have great respect for Axelrod's managerial and strategic brilliance. But let's get real here: he beat two very weak candidates-- an empty suit (Edwards) and another opponent whose husband made several shall we say "inartful" comments at strategic moments during the campaign.

Since winning hte nomination, he has not impressed many people beyond his early adopter crowd of young urban hipsters, afr-americans, and east coast journalists betting on an Obama victory leading to increased access, growth in readership, and higher book sales under an Obama administration.

All the evidence I've seen is that as people outside these core demographics get to know him, they either remain on the fence or actually move toward McCain. Obama may pull this one out but to do so he'd have to get lucky again, as he did with Jack Ryan, Alan Keyes, Hillary's husband...

(Re. the journos, a prominent writer and analyst  I'm in touch with is disappointed as I am in TNR's slide over the last year and a half and thinks that an Obama admin would hurt TNR's reputation and quality in the same way that, as he put it today, the Bush admin has "destroyed" The Weekly Standard, which "used to be a lively, interesting read.")

August 5, 2008 4:32 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Irony has it backwards. Biden or Webb would upstage Obama. They'd be forced to correct his gaffes, explain what he meant, try to inject some gravity into the ticket.

August 5, 2008 4:35 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Rhube - Obama's a nice guy, means well, gives a good speech, but he's running before his time. Even if he did pull this one out, which I seriously doubt he will, he'd be in way over his head, and the Republicans will come roaring back in 2012 just as they did in 1980. The man, the party and the nation would all have been better off if Obama had paid some dues and mastered a few complex issues, earned some scars, etc before presuming to be leader of the free world.

McCain has his flaws, but a moderate GOPer in the White House is an attractive prospect to anyone who's seen what a disaster Pelosi has been and harbors doubts about Obama's readiness to handle the full spectrum sh*tstorm heading our way.

August 5, 2008 4:40 PM

icarusr said:

kgrant1054: good think I can touch type, because my eyes are bleary with tears (of laughter) reading your Boring Bye, ahem, Bayh polemic.

And Rhubs is right about Tep and Obama - at least partly right.  I thought it was UHC, but I think it's personal.  He is too invested in his "under-achiever, preening" criticism; if I were a psychoanalyst (which I am not) and if I believe in armchair analysis (and I do not), I'd suggest that Tep was passed over for promotion - or lost a bid or a contract or an investment opportunity - to a younger, empty suit with a Golden Smile, who ended up screwing up not only his own contract but also the concept Tep was working on, hence the projection onto Obama.

Let me be clear about one thing: I was not terribly enthused about Obama's rhetoric, being allergic to the same (even as I enjoy a perfectly structured sentence), but it was his management of the campaign and mastery of the political process, and his organisational skills in caucus states, that won me over.  Call me a sucker, but I am impressed by a gifted politician's excellence in playing the game of politics.

August 5, 2008 4:51 PM

Jonathan Cohn said:

guptatomic1- I'd happily take Joe Biden. Elder statesman like Sam Nunn (who's apparently on the list) and George Mitchell (who apparently isn't) would also work. I still like Jack Reed, although his performance as a surrogate has been disappointing; I also still like HRC, but I fear her husband's finances disqualify her. Sebelius intrigues me and I'm willing to be convinced there.  

tep- As you know, I've not been shy about pointing out Obama's flaws. But I think his record does show him to have distinguished himself in what's admittedly a short career.  Made some real progress on health care in Illinois, for example. Plus he showed good judgment in opposing the war from the start.

Rhubuarbs- Be nice to tep.  He/she is right about the 15 million.

jacobt1- I think Evan Bayh is too bland. My favorite singer is Billy Joel. How's that for irony?

August 5, 2008 4:58 PM

blackton said:

I am starting to be in favor of Hillary, she and Bill are attack dogs so let them lose on McCain. I also think one of the reasons Obama has not shot up in the polls is that there are still a lot of women nursing a major grudge.

August 5, 2008 5:14 PM

Rhubarbs said:

Which 15 million? The 15 million Hillary claimed, probably falsely, that Obama's plan would leave uncovered, or the other approximately 15 million that Hillary's own "universal" plan would have left uncovered? I'm just saying that to express one's concern for "universal" health care on behalf of a candidate whose plan didn't actually cover everybody, and then when she's defeated advocate in favor of a candidate whose plan will cover nobody -- actually, McCain's health proposal is worse than that; his plan to raise taxes on employer health benefits will _reduce_ the number of people insured -- doesn't, um, make a lot of sense.

Regarding blandness, on the one hand part of me wants to scoff at anyone who admits to liking Billy Joel. On the other hand, my favorite childhood treat was the mayonnaise sandwich, and if at any time in one's life one has enjoyed the taste of Kraft mayo spread between two piece of Wonder bread, one forever forfeits the right to scoff at anyone else's bland tastes. (And it wasn't just a childhood affliction. I also like Dutch and British cooking, tall glasses of milk, and fast-food ham and cheese sandwiches.)

August 5, 2008 5:26 PM

FWright said:

I wouldn't mind Biden as the pick, but I'm not sure how you could anticipate Joe Biden having to run around correcting *someone else's* gaffes.  He makes more than enough on his own.

August 5, 2008 5:43 PM

ironyroad said:

tep says, regarding Biden (!) and Webb (!) as running mates:  "They'd be forced to correct his gaffes"

What's the story now -- the gaffe-prone Obama campaign or some such nonsense?  And these "gaffes" would be . . . what?  I mean, let's stay on the same planet here, tep.  Both Biden and Webb have a history of unfortunate statements, but it hasn't slowed them down much.  I think Obama would clearly be in charge -- unlike the current incumbent -- but his and their strengths would play effectively together.

August 5, 2008 5:54 PM

AlanSP said:

If this is the strongest case against Bayh, then he's a pretty strong choice.  More ambition as a legislator would have been nice, but I don't think it necessarily bodes ill for his ability to serve as President.  Blandness, too, is something that I think we can live with.  In the Pro column, we have the fact that he's popular, relatively young, progressive (but perceived as centrist), has ample experience both as a governor and in the Senate, from a possible swing state, and he's "smart, dedicated, and thoughtful."  Doesn't sound half bad

August 5, 2008 6:20 PM

AlanSP said:

Sort of going off on a tangent, but I'm always sort of amazed at the level of Bidenophilia here at TNR (not that that's a bad thing; I love Biden too).  The Obama supporters like Biden, the McCain supporters like Biden, the former Hillary supporters like Biden, the "none of the above" supporters (i.e. tep) like Biden.   Judging by his primary performance, at least half of Biden's supporters must be on Talkback.

August 5, 2008 6:32 PM

Robert Powell said:

No, Jonathan, there's not a better candidate than Bayh, funny name notwithstanding. Let's have a Funny Names ticket!

kgrant's ode to blandness is creative, but misses the point. The last thing Obama needs is someone who will enhance the Republican "celebrity candidate" line. Bayh is a one-man antidote.

He provides all the foreign policy cred of Biden without the gaffe-o-matic flailing that has the potential to make Tom Eagleton look like a good choice; and he's not a thousand years old with no successful electoral activity in ages like Nunn. Kaine looks good, but Bayh is the smart pick.

August 5, 2008 6:35 PM

jobeek2 said:

kgrant1054, that riff on Boring Bayh was absolutely hilarious. Props to you. Jonathan's Evan Bayh/Billy Joel remark on irony wasn't bad either.

August 5, 2008 6:39 PM

AlanSP said:

I actually think the name is a point in Bayh's favor as it satisfies Chris Orr's headline writing criterion blogs.tnr.com/.../nunn-better.aspx

you get puns with by, bye, and buy plus other words that sound sort of similar.  I'm surprised Crowley hasn't already used Bayh Watch.

August 5, 2008 6:55 PM

teplukhin2you said:

ick - I don't like your guy, which for some reason deeply offends you, but I think you can do better than to hurl rather childish little insults cooked up by your fevered imagination. Especially since we've never met and you know next to zip about me, or I you.

Aside from policy spats, I don't harbor any ill will toward Obama, I just find his rhetoric and self-image  unintentionally hilarious. Mencken would have had a field day with this guy. He's unbelievably full of himself, and as with any such character the skeptical playgoer awaits that delicious scene in whicrh the arrogant buffoon gets his comeuppance.

Look, I'm sorry you find this so offensive, and I'll try to behave and be nice. The New Republic may continue its slide into bloggery but our Great Republic will do all right, regardless who wins this fall. I truly believe that, at the end of the day, this is just politics, and we're all on the same side here. But I will reserve the right to laugh at that funny man behind the curtain who presumes to be the Mighty Oz.

August 5, 2008 8:20 PM

teplukhin2you said:

At least Obama's now got some really tough attack dogs on his side: www.breitbart.com/article.php

Paint it pink, baby!

August 5, 2008 8:45 PM

icarusr said:

Tep: In fact I am not offended, and Obama is not my guy.  I think everyone appreciates your policy differences with Obama - some of which are driven by personal experiences with the health care system, I gather - and so long as you criticise his policy proposals, or his campaign strategy, we can all have a reasonable discussion/debate.  Something about his purported lack of experience, his relative youth and his popularity appears to rub you the wrong way, in a far more deeply personal way than one would expect in a presidental campaign.  This is something a lot of commenters have commented on and I am certainly not the only one.  

What I did was not to try to hurl insults - and I apologise if it looks like I did - but rather, in a carefully hedged and qualified way, offer a possible explanation for the animus.  "Projection" is, let's agree, the pop-psychologist's bread and butter - and it is no more an insult than if I said, "now, Tep, you're being awfully defensive". ;-)

We're not in the age of Mencken - for better or for worse.  And you have every right to try to expose the Mighty Oz, if in fact Obama claimed the mantle of the great Wizard.  But - and this is where we have had our differences - by portraying Obama as the Oz and his followers as, effectively, no better than deluded Munchkins - with you as the myth-busting Toto - surely you are hurling unsubtle insults in every direction.  Now, if you insist that I, and the many millions who support Obama, are so completely besotted by an empty rhetorician, have I not the right to defend my own intellectual integrity by seeking a deeper reason for your animus than mere policy difference?

Peace, man.  

August 5, 2008 9:00 PM

teplukhin2you said:

And Toto too?! Has it come to that?

Et cum spiritu tuo,

Yours,

t

August 5, 2008 10:02 PM

teplukhin2you said:

"have I not the right to defend my own intellectual integrity by seeking a deeper reason for your animus than mere policy difference?"

You do indeed, counselor. Here's Exhibit, oh, I guess we're up to the P's and Q's by now in the category of the vast gulf between Rhetoric and Reality with this guy.

Rhetoric: "CHange you can believe in." A new politics in which the little people rule, and an end to the old rule of moneyed elitists like Bush's "Rangers."

Reality: from today's NYT article that reports what some of us have seen for over a year, try this. www.nytimes.com/.../06bundlers.html

"The fruits of [Sen, Obama's tireless fund-raising] efforts [among ultra-wealthy donors since 2004] have put Mr. Obama’s major donors on a pace that almost rivals the $147 million raised by President Bush’s network of Pioneers and Rangers in contributions of $1,000 or larger during the 2004 primary season.

"Given his decision not to accept public financing, Mr. Obama is counting on his bundlers to help him raise $300 million for his general-election campaign and another $180 million for the Democratic National Committee.

"An analysis of campaign finance records shows that about two-thirds of his bundlers are concentrated in four major industries: law, securities and investments, real estate and entertainment. Lawyers make up the largest group, numbering roughly 130, with many of them working for firms that also have lobbying arms. At least 100 Obama bundlers are top executives or brokers from investment businesses: nearly two dozen work for financial titans like Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs or Citigroup. About 40 others come from the real estate industry.

"The biggest fund-raisers include people like Julius Genachowski, a former senior official at the Federal Communications Commission and a technology executive who is new to political fund-raising; and Robert Wolf, president and chief operating officer of UBS Investment Bank..."

I'm straining with all the strength at my disposal to avoid sarcastic remarks, but please, the CMO pyramid scammers on Wall Street and a former director of the FCC who's now a "technology executive" are "bundling" hundreds of thousands of dollars in soft money contributions for... the leading advocate of "reform" in Washington?

Counselor, tell me, truly-- no sarcasm at all here, I really want a straight answer-- when a man has been raising funds furiously for almost four years, ie, since the day he was first elected to the Senate, from [deep breath, stay calm] the very same

Wall Street scam artists

who have nearly cratered this nation's financial system,

starving small and medium-sized businesses of even working capital and starving potential homebuyers (and sellers) of access to mortgages,

and who are NOW DEMANDING GOVERNMENT BAILOUTS to rescue them from the consequences of their own ineptitude and deceit

.... do you not find this evidence of something other than "change" or "reform"?

Again, I submit to thee, respectfully, as the lady sang, that this guy's inside out; and round and round. I don't hate him but I just can't close that mile-wide gap between his sugary rhetoric and this reality. I have no problem with hardball politics. But the hypocrisy here is outlandish. Again, note that this is a large chunk of Wall Street, people who right now have an urgent need to preserve a ridiculously favorable tax structure that allows them to pocket an extra $50B or so--personally, not for their shareholders or limited partners-- as income and who are also crying for the Fed to rescue their failed banks.

It's just not credible, and I think it bespeaks a degree of cynicism that rivals that other master of "bundling" contributions from gazillionaires-with-a-stake-in-key-legislation, the current WH resident.

At a minimum, will you agree that this is at odds with the image that Obama _himself_ deliberately promoted at the outset and throughout his campaign?

Respectfully,

t

August 6, 2008 2:11 AM

icarusr said:

Teppie: we know already that he is a master of playing by the rules as they exist.  As I noted in the other thread, one the one hand, you think he is a sissy, and on the other you deride his capacity to take advantage of the rules and to, perhaps, beat the Republicans at their own game.  It just does not jibe.  

If he did NOT fundraise, if he were behind in money raising, if because of that he failed to counter attack McCain and the Republicans, you would be out there saying that he is another Gore or Kerry of McGovern, more interested in being pure than winning, that he does not have the balls to win, that we should have picked Hillary because she knew what it takes to beat the Republicans.

Wait, you did say this latter already ;-) ...

Any way, in any election we are always faced with a binary choice.  McCain claims to have cleaned up politics, and he is doing the same shit.  Obama takes advantage of the rules that we have to beat the crap out of the same cynical assholes who have caused the meltdown in the first place.  You want to vote for McCain and Rovian politics, go ahead.  I like seeing a Democratic candidate who has the gumption to outdo the Republicans in fundraising and the balls to hit them where it hurts.  Will he be in the pocket of Wall Street?  Perhaps, but with McCain, the answer is an absolute yes.  I'd take my chances with Obama.  Not because I am besotted by the One, but because I am less bothered by what you call his cynicism, and because I simply disagree that an Obama administration will lie and torture and mismanage and play cronyism and ... as W has done.  

August 6, 2008 10:47 AM

butchie b said:

icarus - leave aside torture.  If you think that Obama will not lie, mismanage and play cronyism, well, his would be the first administration in our history to accomplish such.  YGBSM.

I know, you prefer your clowns to mine, but they are all (mostly) clowns.

August 6, 2008 11:39 AM

teplukhin2you said:

How likely is it that the hedge funder /  CMO scammer's best friend forever will clean up Wall Street's mess? He appointed Jim Johnson to his team, for chrissake. _Jim Johnson_. Will Obama ask that thief to give his millions back as part of the Fannie / Freddie bailout? Did I miss something on that one?

Re Jim J, it's not the "lobbying" that was the scandal, it's the strucutre of an industry that allows so many hacks and scammers to arbitrage the US state. I don't think Obama gets this.

August 6, 2008 11:52 AM

johnalthousecohen said:

Yikes, what an awkward first sentence!

August 6, 2008 12:31 PM

esmense said:

icarusr --

"Call me a sucker, but I am impressed by a gifted politician's excellence in playing the game of politics"

I will call you a sucker, because the last 8 years should surely have demonstrated to anyone with eyes to see and a brain to comprehend that political excellence has absolutely nothing to do with competent governance.

August 6, 2008 1:54 PM

icarusr said:

esmense: And you know what, without an ability to match the political savvy of the last 8 years, we would suffer for another 8, or 16.  So at a minimum, you need to have the political skills to get to power.  Beyond that, it is all guesswork.  Go back to 2001.  Remember Bush was touted as the first MBA president?  His administration the most technocratic?  You can draw the conclusion also that experience itself is corrupting and problematic.  That would be the wrong conclusion, as indeed is yours, which is that any time you have a gifted politician, you end up with bad government, because the last gifted politician gave us bad government.

In any event, Obama has other qualities that W lacks.  Curiosity for one thing.  Eloquence and ability to inspire for another.  Brains, as a third attribute.  You look at the whole man.

And butchie is right in one thing: even if he is a clown, he will be our clown.  Plus the added benefit that there will be an end to torture and posing and posturing of the last 8 years.

August 6, 2008 2:14 PM

The Plank said:

Barack Obama could surely do worse than to tap Evan Bayh as his running mate. He is an honorable and

August 13, 2008 3:38 PM