You've got to read this argrument from The Bilerico Project. He predicts that Obama's schedule indicates that he'll name Evan Bayh his VP tomorrow in Indiana.
You heard it here! (well, there ...)
Updated at the end of the post.
I'm going to put my neck out on the line by making a prediction. Barack Obama will announce his vice-presidential choice Wednesday morning. It will be Indiana Senator Evan Bayh.
While Washington Post columnist Chris Cillizza has positioned Bayh at the top of the heap for a few weeks now, after getting tips to Bilerico-Indiana and making some logical conclusions the choice is obvious. Why?
Multiple reasons after the jump - including an inside scoop from an Obama staffer on an upcoming event.
So what do you think? Is my thinking flawed or have I reached the logical conclusion? By the time you add in the case for Evan Bayh - foreign policy experience, former Clinton supporter, popularity in the Midwest, not a media whore, experience as a popular former Governor and his youth and good looks - it seems like a slam dunk to me.
12:20pm Update: While a highly placed Indiana Democrat who requested anonymity has confirmed that my theory is correct, numerous Democrats I've spoken to coming out of this weekend's IDEA convention stated that they were given the indication that no decision would be made this week.
1:40pm Update: Brian Howey has a solid commentary on the Howey Political Report that I wanted to point out. Brian waffles between an announcement this week or the week leading up to the convention. Two other journalists have chimed in to say they've been told to expect the announcement in that last week as well. Am I off on my timing and this is just another test balloon?
From Howey's story:
Bayh will be there to introduce Obama, his spokesman Eric Kleiman confirmed for Howey Politics Indiana this morning. What we don't know is the time. The Obama campaign said doors will open at 7:15 a.m., but there is no starting time established. If it's before 10 a.m,, it's highly unlikely this would be a veep rollout. Anything after 10 a.m. would allow West Coast viewers to watch on the Today Show, Good Morning America or Morning Joe. Most vice presidential rollouts tend to come in the afternoon (i.e. George H.W. Bush announced Dan Quayle's selection at 3:30 p.m. Tuesday during the Republican National Convention in 1988). We know there is a long press flight layover in South Bend, with the Obama media arriving at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday and not leaving until 3:25 p.m. Wednesday. It seems like a long layover, but an explanation could be that Obama will be at his Chicago home for the night. Democratic media consultant Chris Sautter was at Obama's Chicago headquarters and spent time with David Axelrod last weekend. " He seemed to me more a like a guy who was going to finally get some rest over the weekend rather than someone gearing up for a major rollout the next week," said Sautter. "I could be completely wrong, but everyone seemed a little loose for a VP announcement. Larry Grisolano told me he was going away for the weekend. On the other hand, David perked up when I told him that Indiana had the highest jump in unemployment in the month of June. So anything is possible, I guess." ... Finally, the event will be held in the Concord HS basketball gym. Veepstakes usually aren't rolled out in a basketball gym. To which we respond: yes, but this is Indiana.
Bayh will be there to introduce Obama, his spokesman Eric Kleiman confirmed for Howey Politics Indiana this morning. What we don't know is the time. The Obama campaign said doors will open at 7:15 a.m., but there is no starting time established. If it's before 10 a.m,, it's highly unlikely this would be a veep rollout. Anything after 10 a.m. would allow West Coast viewers to watch on the Today Show, Good Morning America or Morning Joe. Most vice presidential rollouts tend to come in the afternoon (i.e. George H.W. Bush announced Dan Quayle's selection at 3:30 p.m. Tuesday during the Republican National Convention in 1988).
We know there is a long press flight layover in South Bend, with the Obama media arriving at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday and not leaving until 3:25 p.m. Wednesday. It seems like a long layover, but an explanation could be that Obama will be at his Chicago home for the night. Democratic media consultant Chris Sautter was at Obama's Chicago headquarters and spent time with David Axelrod last weekend. " He seemed to me more a like a guy who was going to finally get some rest over the weekend rather than someone gearing up for a major rollout the next week," said Sautter. "I could be completely wrong, but everyone seemed a little loose for a VP announcement. Larry Grisolano told me he was going away for the weekend. On the other hand, David perked up when I told him that Indiana had the highest jump in unemployment in the month of June. So anything is possible, I guess." ... Finally, the event will be held in the Concord HS basketball gym. Veepstakes usually aren't rolled out in a basketball gym. To which we respond: yes, but this is Indiana.
Here's the article.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PRIMARY_RDP?SITE=CARIE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
As things are starting to shape up, despite repeated denials from both campaigns, I don't think we're about to see something good play out.
At first everyone worried that a prolonged race would fracture the Democratic party. Now most people agree that it's actually been a good thing.
Right now, however, I'm not as concerned with Sen. Clinton dropping out now (or ever) as I am with her soliciting the vice presidency, and here's why:
If Sen. Obama says yes, the Republicans may well exploit his "appeasement" of Sen. Clinton as indicative of his weakness to stand up to power plays. A few people have characterized her justification for being on the ticket as "blackmailing" Sen. Obama. From that language, it's relatively easy (unfair, of course, but easy) to compare his reaction to her to how he might respond during a hostage crisis, for example.
If Sen. Obama says no, he risks alienating many voters, such as those who view this race through a gender filter. They might view his rejection of her appealing for this "consolation prize" after showing such endurance on the campaign trail as cruel and senseless.
And what do we have in the middle of this mess, beyond an impossible decision for Sen. Obama? A Democratic party just as divided as everyone feared it would be as the primary season dragged on.
Yes, I'm just playing fortune teller, but to me, it seems more important to the health of the party that someone (anyone) discourage Sen. Clinton from persuing a shared ticket over calling for her to drop out. Does anyone agree?
I'm inspired to write after reading a post on Andrew Sullivan's blog, where a reader wondered why Sen. Clinton doesn't take a stand against those who told complete strangers during an exit poll that race played a factor in their vote -- 20 percent in Kentucky.
What a missed opportunity for Sen. Clinton to not only give a shout-out to the steadfast dignity of her opponent -- who certainly acknowledged her favorably in his speech in Iowa last night -- but to really educate this section of America.
Instead, she'd rather keep quiet and count their votes.
Last night Sen. Obama held Sen. Clinton up as an inspiration for his daughters and daughters everywhere (paraphrasing). When has Sen. Clinton responded in kind that Sen. Obama has certainly broken through similar barriers as someone perceived as African-American? (I love how everyone convieniently forgets that Sen. Obama is also half-white.)
Sen. Clinton could've had her version of the race speech in Philadelphia, waxing poetically about the Clinton legacy with African-Americans. As the Sullivan blog noted, she even could have tied Sen. Kennedy to the thought. She may think that it's verboten to criticize the people who just voted for you, but think of the greater gain! The increased credibility! The big picture!
Instead, she says nothing. And the prejudice remains.
Let's overlook the fact that it has been mathematically impossible for Sen. Clinton to receive the nomination for more than 2 months and be grateful that the MSM is now accurately reporting this.
I'd like to point out that when Huckabee and Paul's efforts to obtain the Republican nomination also became impossible, they were literally wiped off the face of your television and computer screens. They have received miniscule to no press coverage for several months, even though they had some pretty impressive percent totals as recently as the Indiana and North Carolina Republican primaries.
So if Sen. Clinton's chances of receiving the nomination are similarly impossible, I have a message for the MSM: STOP COVERING HER. Reassign reporters following her on the campaign trail. Do not announce her schedule for the day, and don't air footage of her speeches or meetings.
Of course, that would be bad for ratings, wouldn't it. And we can't have that. *snark* But it surely would be fair given how Republican candidates who still have supporters have been treated.
I know it's a strange position to take on this Web site -- am I defending the right for Republican candidates to receive coverage? Well, sort of. What I'd like to see is simply accurate reporting. If someone's still in the race, perhaps they should receive coverage. I mean, doesn't it say something about the Republican party that a quarter of all voters in a recent primary supported someone other than the de facto nominee? Or, for we Democrats, that some are still voting for Mike Gravel?
If there's a good reason not to cover those who are still running without a shot in h-e-double hockey sticks for the nomination, I'd be open to hearing it. And if that's the policy, then it's time to stop covering Sen. Clinton.
Tim Russert on MSNBC just suggested that the Clintons will attempt to broker some sort of a deal with the Obamas that will involve Obama paying off the Clinton campaign debt.
Obviously the implication is that Obama would use the money he's raised from his 1.5 million supporters to do this.
As a contributor, you would have to be INSANE to think that I want the money I've given to this campaign -- repeatedly -- given to a person I don't support who ran such a financial train wreck of a campaign that she's now deeply in debt.
Obama has the biggest and most valuable (pun sort of intended) donor list in the history of U.S. politics. I would be blown away if he chose to bargain with OUR hard-earned money.
And bargain for what? But that's another post ...
I'm seeing a lot of speculation about who will win tomorrow and of course even more speculation about what the percentage difference will be between the candidates.
As a very active supporter/volunteer in Texas, I want to remind everyone that Clinton won Texas by 3.53 percent. And that's only the primary vote, not the caucuses, which eventually gave more delegates to Obama.
Imagine how thrilled you would be if Clinton wins Pennsylvania by "only" 3.53 percent.
Now imagine how the media might react if Clinton wins Pennsylvania by "a decisive" 3.53 percent.
Remember Texas -- I do. I was at the Obama Dallas party on March 4 watching CNN's Gloria Borger gleefully react to the primary win (I do not use the adverb "gleefully" lightly). Here in Texas we knew the caucuses could change the delegate count in Obama's favor, but you would have never known it because CNN chose to project Texas for Clinton before many of the caucuses had adjourned (this was around midnight, but many caucuses went very late).
My point is: do NOT let the media get away with characterizing a small win as an "enormous victory," "blowout," or stand for breathless and baseless analysis like "Clinton's back in the game!"
We came out in force to complain about the shoddy journalism during the debate last week and our collective voice became news itself. I urge all of you to speak up if your news-channel-of-choice tomorrow night does not report Clinton's win accurately in the context of the greater nationwide delgate count.
From Robert Novak's opinion piece on Rasmussen:
"Obama is trying to change the subject, but he lost his cool demeanor when ABC News questioners Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos returned to his San Francisco statement (among other difficult issues) in Wednesday's debate. In watching campaign debates dating back to Kennedy-Nixon in 1960, I never before had seen a candidate criticize the moderator or challenge his premises so often (on at least eight occasions). "Look, let me finish my point here, Charlie," said Obama, after Gibson had interrupted him following a 126-word answer."
So essentially half the pundits are slamming him for not standing up to George and Charlie and the other half think that when he did stand up to them, he was offensive? Talk about a can't-win scenario!!!
And since when is a 126-word answer long? Want to see 126 words in print?
Obama is trying to change the subject, but he lost his cool demeanor when ABC News questioners Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos returned to his San Francisco statement (among other difficult issues) in Wednesday's debate. In watching campaign debates dating back to Kennedy-Nixon in 1960, I never before had seen a candidate criticize the moderator or challenge his premises so often (on at least eight occasions). "Look, let me finish my point here, Charlie," said Obama, after Gibson had interrupted him following a 126-word answer. Obama is trying to change the subject, but he lost his cool demeanor when ABC News questioners Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos returned to his San Francisco statement (among other difficult issues) in Wednesday's debate. In watching campaign debates dating back ...
Gee, what a windbag Obama is, he goes on and on and on ... *snark*
I wish we could post comments on Rasmussen about this nonsense.
Just got a call from my husband, who is an Obama delegate for our precinct.
He'd arrived around 9 and called around 10:30 to say he had just completed the sign-in process. He described the atmosphere as chaotic and unorganized, mostly because there are so many people and the organizers chose to place the tables inside the venue (a high school) instead of outside. So no one outside in line can hear, for example, if someone inside is shouting "The last name G-M line is open!"
But there is some positive news. Thanks to his organizational efforts this week, five of the six Obama delegates from our precinct are already sitting in the right spot, and the sixth one was in the sign-in line.
Of the seven Clinton delegates expected from our precinct, only one (the delegate chair) was already seated.
Our precinct only gets to elect one delegate to go to state, and as I said the caucus split was 7 Clinton to 6 Obama, so we are at a disadvantage in having that one delegate be an Obama delegate. Please send positive thoughts their way that they will triumph.
Also, my husband reports widespread civility -- sorry to disappoint you, CNN etc. -- between Clinton and Obama supporters. One Clinton supporter even offered him a muffin, and he is wearing an Obama shirt so it's pretty obvious.
I'll post again the next time he checks in.
I haven't seen anyone ask this question in the blogs I read.
If as she said Sen. Clinton misspoke about landing under sniper fire in Bosnia -- and if I chose to take her at her word on that -- then I would thus assume that she confused that trip with another one.
Here's my question.
As First Lady, does anyone have evidence that she took a trip in which she landed under hazardous conditions?
It's one thing to say that she misspoke if indeed she did experience a situation like the one she described and just got the time and place wrong.
It's quite another thing to have a memory that cannot be independently corroborated, especially when it would be quite easy given media coverage of the First Lady.
Well?
I am sorry that Florida and Michigan voters will not have their delegates seated -- through no fault of their own.
However, follow my logic -- if we have a re-vote in Florida and Michigan, we should also have a re-vote in all of those states where Edwards, Richardson, Biden and Dodd were on the ballot.
Having a re-vote is an attempt to change the rules BECAUSE OF changing circumstances. Still following my logic, changing circumstances would also include candidates who have since dropped out of the race.
It's obvious that many people would change their original vote if given the opportunity for a do-over. But where do you draw the line? Oops ... in the re-vote a certain candidate didn't get enough votes, and that's not fair (insert excuse here). Need to do a re-re-vote.
It's kind of like vote tampering through official channels.
Do you agree? If not, why? Post a comment and share your thoughts.
We are out there ... it's only 36 degrees, but we have set up shop 100 feet away from the entrance with a folding table, a multitude of informational flyers, and signs all the way up and down the block.
We've got a radio playing NPR at a low volume for company, blankets, hats, gloves, tape, more tape, even more tape, a staple gun, and paperweights. It's always windy in Dallas and the signs need frequent re-securing.
Turnout seems light and it has slowed down since school dropoff.
And good news! An Obama precinct captain has his name on the election packet for running the caucus tonight! This means that he can help run the caucus according to Texas Democratic Party rules and ensure that the process is fair.
I made 19 signs for our polling place in Dallas tomorrow. 19! I just counted them all up. Some will be taped to our "visibility table." The rest will be staked. Oh -- except for the four that are for waving.
I made one with simply the Texas flag and the Obama logo -- I joked to my husband that that sign is for people tired of reading. :) I have instructional signs about what your voter registration card looks like and what the various numbers on it mean. I have instructions and information about the precinct convention. I have general slogans like "Please be patient, democracy at work" and "Your vote counts." I have official Obama signs that say Hope and Texas for Obama. I have one that I made with the state of Texas, the Obama logo over Dallas, and the words Respect, Empower, and Include. I've got that one in Spanish too.
I'm sure there will be a Hillary sign at our polling place, but I'll be shocked if there are 19 of them. And I know that the signs I have don't all say "vote Obama," but I think the whole point of his campaign is to get people involved in their government again, and there's more to that -- especially in Texas, with the whole primary/caucus hybrid -- than just voting for Obama. This is truly about empowering voters her.
Of course our organization and enthusiasm can't hurt, and I hope it impresses somebody.
Please wish us luck tomorrow. We are getting up at 5 a.m. and it's going to feel like it's 18 degrees out there. Luckily it's supposed to warm up to the mid-50s.
I've read about this ad and saw it on YouTube. I also just caught it on the local NBC station during the 10 o'clock news. We're in Texas so the ads are on full blast.
On Friday, when the news about the ad broke, my first thought was what this ad is trying to say about Obama ... that he's a deep sleeper? Who cares who actually answers the phone? It's the JUDGMENT of our leaders that's important, not their ability to pick up a telephone.
Now that I've seen it, the ad is even more bizarre. The narrator infers that Americans will need someone "tested and ready to lead" when the supposed red phone rings. Now I know that Sen. Clinton may have lived through some personal tests, but how does her experience as a U.S. senator translate to the word "tested," especially in the context of foreign policy? (I'm an editor, so I quibble with word choice for a living.)
Okay, here's the strangest thing of all. The mother of the sleeping children looks in on them, and remember, it's supposed to be 3 a.m. So what is she wearing? A nightgown? A robe? Nope -- she looks like she just walked out of a conference room, with a button-down blue shirt tucked into dress pants.
Now, does this mean that Sen. Clinton is so out of touch with reality that she doesn't know what the typical mom wears at 3 a.m. when checking on her children?
Or are we looking at a future where parents have to work so hard to make ends meet that this mother has just arrived home from work?
If Sen. Clinton "approved this message," per legal guidelines, I think her judgment is a bit off.
P.S. I just noticed another strange thing. The door the mother opens has glass panels, as if it's a patio door. These poor sleeping children really don't have much privacy, do they?
Has anyone set up a "visibility table" 100 feet from your polling place on your primary election day?
I am preparing the one in our precinct for Tuesday -- we are in Dallas, Texas.
Which flyers proved most in demand? I've already got "10 Facts about the Texas Primary/Caucus System" in English and Spanish, but wondered if "Meet Barack Obama" would be helpful.
What about the statement flyers? Did anyone specifically ask you for information about Obama's positions on Iraq, or veterans, or education, for example? Should I have one copy of each or several copies of the most pressing issues?
Are there any do-it-yourself flyers you printed out that people just loved?
I've also got voter registration applications and the deadlines for turning them in for voting in the general election, if someone is turned away for not being registered. So I'm trying to cover all the bases.
What about balloons? Signs? What did your signs say? Did you have food?
Please advise by posting a comment. Thank you all for your wisdom!
