It's now another national security election.

Obama has to choose Biden. There's no way on earth he'll hold millions of older national-security Dems this fall if he doesn't get someone on the ticket who's a) a genuine expert in fp, b) reassuring and familiar, and c) older and wise in the ways of the big bad outside world. That's not Evan Bayh.

A crying shame we didn't put Biden at the top of the ticket and give Young Obama the No. 2 slot.

I think this whole Georgia thing will be a distant memory by the time of the election.  The state of the economy, and the sky-high inflation is going to matter a lot more to the average voter.  

Biden would be okay with me, though...

Tep, did you want Biden or something? Your preference could be made clearer.

I don't think it's necessarily a national security election, even with Russia-Georiga. The economy ain't getting any hotter, and people notice their checkbooks right away. HW Bush lost in 1992 even though there were a plethora of international issues sitll with which to be dealt. (And this was even after his success in the Gulf War.)

The Georgia thing will be a distant memory by next Tuesday.

Picking a Dem who voted for the war but now realizes that it was a strategic blunder and a moral quagmire isn't making a 'mockery' of Obama's anti-war status at all. That's reaching across the aisle, as far as I'm concerned - and it's as far as I'd want him to reach (i.e. so far that he picks Hagel). tep's endorsement aside, Biden would be a decent choice, and if he's not veep he would fit into an Obama cabinet nicely. Bayh, not so much, but there are other factors at play with him.

Face it, Obama is something of an anomaly, anyway. Most people who were smart, insightful and perceptive enough to be against the Iraq War from the beginning are treated as if they were somehow wrong instead of being right. Or right for the wrong reasons, or some other idiotic bit of rational contortionism. Meanwhile, pro-war yahoos still thrive and prosper in the media, on the Hill and elsewhere.

I agree with the point with respect to Bayh, but not Biden.  In 2002, Biden was one of the key drafters (along with Sen. Hagel I believe) of the war resolution that would have given Pres. Bush far less leeway than the Gephardt-brokered deal did.  Not only that, but Sen. Biden, even at that time, expressed real ambivalence about his vote on the Gephardt-negotiated resolution, and was ahead of the curve right from the get-go in criticizing this administration's management of the war.  He also, as recently as 2004, has led the charge on the Democratic side in putting forth proposals that would help us get out of Iraq.  

As to the "you're a Washington politician" argument against Biden, I think that is more along the lines of a "you're a two-faced/spineless/gutless/disingenuous politician" argument.  Although Biden has been in the Senate for the better part of three decades, I don't think he epitomizes what you think of when you think Washington politician (he's just too genuine, according to the CW too genuine for his own good).  

Also, remember Obama himself in one of the early Democratic debates (it may have been the first debate), when given a chance to say that anyone who voted for that war resolution didn't have the judgment to be president, explicitly refused to go there, so I think it's a stretch to say that the campaign he ran makes it impossible for him to pick someone who voted for that resolution.  Moreover, in terms of withdrawal, although Democrats were split in deciding whether the war was right in 2002-2003, they have been fairly united in terms of withdrawal plans, and in fact, some of the earliest war opponents (e.g. Sen. Levin) are actually more cautious about withdrawal than original war supporters (e.g. Sen. Harry Reid).  Sen. Obama has been very much in the mainstream of the Democratic party on this issue as well (a point Sen. Clinton tried to make a big deal out of throughout the primary in the hopes it would blur the two's Iraq records).  As such, I disagree with the notion that choosing someone who has taken a cautious line on withdrawal in any way, shape, or form makes a mockery of the Obama campaign's message up to this point.  

Finally, I think in assessing this question more generally, you have to ask yourself how much it hurts Obama to pick someone who doesn't fit neatly within his campaign's message given a VP pick's importance, beyond at best the VP's homestate, is very minimal.  On this ground, Bayh looks to be a better choice because although he may not win a popularity contest with Obama's base, it's hard to see him costing Obama votes nationwide, likely does put Indiana in play, and has a record that although not-too-terribly impressive, shows he is prepared to take over if he had to do it.    

Top Ten Headlines from Random News Sources

10. ESPN: "Phelps Triumphs Again, Australian Takes Silver, Teplukhin Supports Biden"

9. Investor's Business Daily: "Inflation to Worsen with Obama, Ease under Biden, Notes Tep"

8. Popular Mechanics: "Teplukhin: 'Wind-Driven Solar Panels A Reality' in Biden Administration"

7. O: "I, Oprah, Was Wrong About Barack (As Told to Teplukhin)"

6. Journal of Oncology: "Biden, Not Obama, Key To Blocking Angiogenesis in Pancreatic Carcinoma (Teplukhin et al.)"

5. Car and Driver: "Tep: '08 Biden Bloviator Blows '08 Obama Obfuscator Out of the Water!"

4. National Enquirer: "Tep to Barack: When Did You Stop Beating Your Wife?"

3. Real Clear Politics: "Biden Supporter Teplukhin Calmly Explains Why Hell Will Freeze Over"

2. National Geographic: "Teppologist Warms of Frequent Locust Swarms During Obama Presidency"

and the No. 1 Headline from Random News Sources"

1. Tiger Beat: "Dreamy Biden Or Dorky Barack: Teppy Gets Real So You Don't Have To!"

:o)

ok, ok I got it. You're at the top of my ticket, Mr Bill. See you when I see you.

Can Obama pick a pro-war veep?  Of course -- where exactly are the netroots going to go?  McCain?  Baar?  I've never believed that these folks are so stupid that they thought Obama or Hillary Clinton would honor their "out of Iraq" talk anyway (right, they're going to swiftly move to pull out troops and let chaos reign and the GOP hammer them with "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory" for the next 20 years).  If they were that committed to getting out of Iraq, Edwards was their man.  

tep elucidates:

"There's no way on earth [Obama] hold millions of older national-security Dems this fall if he doesn't get someone on the ticket who's a) a genuine expert in fp, b) reassuring and familiar, and c) older and wise in the ways of the big bad outside world."

You left out d) poor.

(It can be a touchy subject, but one that I can relate.)

Yard wins, as usual.

Can't relate to the 'plugs, tho.

rat - I concede, humbly (Tiger Beat-- ouch). "Thanks, I... _needed_ that!"

Where's adaglas, anyway?

I'm trying to type through tears of laughter--damn you, Yard!

Obama MUST select a "pro-war" running mate. Anyone saying otherwise is either a chump or a Republican agent provocateur.

Let's all pitch in to buy tep a "Little Bit Gay for Biden" tee-shirt.

Meanwhile, nobody noticed a certain retired four-star general who knows something about international diplomacy and the use of force, who has been fundraising and campaigning around the country for about five years, who is a Washington outsider but has policy savvy, is youthful but not young or inexperienced, and who opposed the Iraq war from the get-go.  Vice.President.Clark. Wait for it.

God, stgla, I hope not. Wes Clark is not only personally creepy, he was responsible for letting "no foreign policy/national security experience" Clinton gratuitously take ground troops off the table in Kosovo, resulting in an avoidable humanitarian disaster and the escape of nearly all of the Serb armor. This guy shouldn't be allowed within rifle shot of an Obama Administration.