Memo to Netroots: Stop Tearing Down Obama's VP Shortlist

(UPDATE 8/23: As the world found out via text message shortly after 3:00 AM EST, my wife and I both lost our bet. Kudos to Steve Clemons for having accurate info all week long about Joe Biden being Obama's impending pick.

Biden's been on the national stage since he led the fight against Robert Bork's extreme right wing Supreme Court nomination in 1987, but stepping into the VP nominee spotlight, he'll probably surprise people who think they know him. For someone who heads the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden may be the most average Joe in the Senate, with a middle class bankroll (ranked 99th in net worth out of 100 Senators in 2005), and a daily commute to Washington on Amtrak from his home in Wilmington, Delaware. His wife, Jill, is a full-time educator at Delaware Technical and Community College.)

(UPDATE 8/21: As the veepstakes drag on, my wife's prediction is looking better and better. Yesterday, Team Obama swiftly issued a denial of press reports that he would be at an event in Indianapolis on Saturday following the VP roll-out in Springfield, IL, which sounds suspiciously like an attempt to keep the secret in the bag).

My wife and I have a bet on who Barack Obama will choose as his vice presidential nominee. She says Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN), while my money's on Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine. But the more I think about Bayh, and the mini-controversy surrounding his name being in contention, the more I'm convinced I may be backing the wrong horse.

Story continues below

advertisement

Bayh would bring a lot of strengths to an Obama ticket. He's got experience as a former two-term Governor and has served in the Senate since 1999. He is a politically moderate former chair of the Democratic Leadership Council, and would provide ideological balance to Obama's progressive credentials. He could carry his home state of Indiana for the Democrats, a reliably Republican bastion that John McCain is counting on to get to 270 electoral votes.

Most importantly, Bayh would help attract votes for Obama in the battleground Midwest, the most hotly contested region in the country. In 2004, John Kerry swept the Northeast and West Coast by large margins, and George W. Bush won by landslides in the South, Rocky Mountain West and Great Plains. However, the popular vote in the Midwest was an exact tie - 49.6% to 49.6%.

Yet a group of netroots activists are trying to scuttle Bayh's chances of getting the VP nod. Last week the New York Times ran a profile of Bayh that reminded us he co-sponsored the Iraq War Resolution in 2003, and the next day activists set up a Facebook group called "100,000 Strong Against Evan Bayh for VP."

The effort fell short of its call to arms to "grow this group to 100,000 in a day and send a clear message to the Obama campaign," with 3,794 members as of Monday afternoon. Still, noted liberal bloggers like Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon and OpenLeft's Chris Bowers and Matt Stoller signed on, as word of the campaign spread through the blogosphere and immediately attracted press coverage.

Over the weekend, Washington insider Steve Clemons of the New America Foundation posted on his blog that "sources close to Obama report to me that after the 'surge of concern' on the net about Evan Bayh, he has not been selected as Obama's VP running mate." Bloggers fanning the flames of the Bayh "reverse draft" promptly rejoiced. But if any leaks dissing Bayh are coming out of the previously ironclad, no-drama Obama machine, it's likely he was never going to be the VP pick.

The Obama camp has already shown it couldn't care less what the netroots think by its handling of the FISA wiretap issue. Which is a smart move, because netroots bloggers are a lot more irrelevant than most of them would like to believe.

This primary season, the darling presidential candidate of the blogosphere was not Obama, but John Edwards, the candidate running for president while hiding a big secret. No one can be blamed for not realizing Edwards was concealing an affair, yet his constant missteps throughout the campaign showed terrible political judgement.

Just as Howard Dean's support from bloggers in 2004 never materialized into off-line, real world votes, Edwards' campaign sputtered out in '08 after a series of mostly third place finishes in the early contests. As Obama caught fire, building an enormous online fundraising machine and winning votes without the endorsement or support of some of the biggest name liberal bloggers, some of them felt sidelined.

Is this why the netroots are wasting time and energy tearing down one of Obama's potential VP choices? I hope not.

A few of the same bloggers now campaigning against Bayh were lukewarm on Obama from the start. Amanda Marcotte was actually hired by Edwards in early 2007 as a campaign blogger before resigning in controversy over some of her incendiary past blog postings attacking Catholicism. Bowers posted an "Obama Campaign Post-Mortem" in October, 2007 that proclaimed "losing the netroots has been the downfall of Barack Obama's campaign." Following Obama's FISA vote, Stoller accused the presumptive nominee of being "part of that old politics, in this case, that he said he wasn't. It will spur us to challenge him."

The anti-Bayh Facebook group labels him "a career legacy politician who fell hook, line, and sinker for the administration's case for a disastrous war." But like John Edwards eventually renounced his vote for the Iraq War, Bayh also admits he was wrong. "Senator Bayh has shown the judgment that we need to admit that mistakes were made and we need to learn from them," said a Bayh spokesman. Since the netroots took the credibility-challenged Edwards at his word when he apologized for his Iraq vote, why can't Bayh catch the same break?

Some activists have also voiced problems with Evan Bayh (and Tim Kaine) for their less than total support for the pro-choice agenda. Bayh's record on abortion rights is mixed. In 2003, he received a 50% rating from NARAL, although in 2006, the anti-choice National Right to Life Committee gave him a 25% rating.

The pro-choice movement has lost a lot of ground over the past few decades. The right has made a concerted effort to pack the federal judiciary with rabidly conservative, anti-choice judges. Their ultimate goal is to overturn Roe v. Wade, and return us to the days of back alley abortions. Now they're only one Supreme Court seat away from a solid anti-choice majority.

Obama's pro-choice record is pretty stellar. If he selects a vice presidential nominee who has triangulated on the abortion issue, should pro-choice activists sit out the election? Not voting for Obama means helping elect John McCain and flushing Roe v. Wade right down the toilet. This is not rocket science.

And as McCain made clear last week, he might make a play for disaffected Hillary Democrats by choosing a VP who's pro-choice, like former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge. "We need to accept both points of view," said Ridge about running with McCain. "He's not judgemental about me or my belief. He just disagrees with me."

If the left is ever going to get serious about winning elections, we need to stop insisting on 100% ideological purity from our candidates. News flash to progressives: politics is about assembling winning coalitions. In 2004, only 23% of Americans described themselves as liberal, versus 26% middle of the road and 32% conservative. Unless you're running to represent a constituency that's dependably left of center, it's almost impossible to get elected without appealing to the middle.

So here's a message for the netroots. If Obama picks Evan Bayh, or Tim Kaine, or someone else who you don't agree with on every issue, get over it. Look at the realities of the political map. Save your fire for the real enemy, the GOP slime machine that's trying its best to render Obama unelectable. Encourage readers of your blogs to volunteer for the Obama campaign to register new voters. Conduct opposition research on John McCain's short list, post the findings, and set up Facebook groups opposing some of them for VP. Otherwise, by screwing around with Obama's VP selection, you're doing McCain's work for him.

Erik Ose is a veteran of Democratic campaigns in North Carolina and blogs at The Latest Outrage.

Comments

[ebbtide]

Well, you realize you are trying to herd cats, right?

Sorry, cannot, will not support Hillary and Bill Clinton as VPs. Period, I can probably accept any others and my pick is Biden.

Don't try verbal bribary on people. Did it with Kerry, will not do it again. Last night my phone rang at 8:45pm. What? I am on the do not call list---and phone ringing at that time of the night can be alarming or worrisome. It was the Democratic party and the caller would NOT take no to any donation as an answer. Someone ought to clue them in about their phone calls. No to any donations until Pelosi tows the line, as you expect us all to do in your piece. A criminal has been let loose on the country, and he will damn well get away with it. Imagine that!

[Mildmannered]

bayh looks liked edwards (e.g., same hair) -- might be some confusion in the public's mind

[BADEN]

I understand the "local" support.

Bayh is the Democratic Dan Quayle.

ChickenHawk to boot.

DLC = business as usual.

Now, admit it.
That is NOT "change"

Let's try this, ok?

"War, as a political tool, is no longer an option for the United States of America in the 21st Century."
~mommadona

[WorkingClass]

Progressives are tired of being the Democratic Party's bitch. But they are to dumb to just pack up and leave. The truth is, progressives will never have any clout, inside or outside the party, until they get focused on mobilizing the working class.

I am not a Democrat. I am a socialist. This corporate sponsored screed is totally wasted on me. Erik says progressives should SHUT UP AND GET IN LINE! He insults you and curses you while he is shouting orders at you. Why do you put up with this crap?

[Erik Ose - Huffpost Blogger]

If your goal is legislative change that will help the working class, then roll up your sleeves and get to work electing progressive, pro-union candidates to Congress and at the state and local levels. But let's be real about how to win a national election. Democrats lost 31 states in 2004. Part of the reason why Bayh and Kaine are in contention for VP is they've been able to attract support from working class voters in red states. Otherwise they wouldn't have been elected and re-elected.

Progressives scored a big victory by helping choose Obama to head the ticket, the first insurgent Democrat since 1976 to beat the establishment favorite. Anyone who insists on a further ideology test for the VP slot is only hurting Obama's chances of becoming President. There are many other more productive ways to make a difference this fall.

[JohnFromCensornati]

I largely agree with you. On the other hand, what choice do I have but to put up with Erik's crap? I kind of like freedom of speech and we don't have nearly enough of it.

[Juneau1]

We need to face the hard truth (as told by a 47 year old white female independent voter). MANY (not MOST but ENOUGH) of the middle-aged Dem voters who are drawn to Bayh, Kaine & Clinton are not going to vote for Obama even if it means that they will suffer 4 more years of headaches and hard times. When they get into the privacy of the voting booth, they will vote for McSame.

The edge that will get Obama into the WH will be the votes of the young people of all races. I have 3 sons and have never seen them and their friends so excited about politics and they will vote for Obama. But pandering to the right and Reagan Dems who are not going to vote for Obama anyway is a mistake if it turns off his young supporters. And Clinton is a definite turnoff to them!

[JohnFromCensornati]

I am one of those middle-aged Dems (at least that's how I've been registered for the last 30 years). I won't be voting for Obama or McCain (and I didn't vote for Gore or Kerry or Bush). I'm through with voting for Dems that do nothing more than deliver Republican priorities. It has nothing to do with BHO's race, age, or religion. It does have something to do with faith-based initiatives and police-state legislation. No thank you.

[YankeeCanuck]

Despite past disappointments, I'll still work on the campaign I think is closest to my philosophy. If you're a socialist, you're pretty much lost in America. Up in Canada, the discussion about many issues you're concerned about (I'm guessing) are over. It's not perfect, but it's closer to the humane reforms (only guessing here) you'd like to see. But you live in the US, right?

So, will you throw away your vote? Or tilt at windmills with a protest vote?(Even more useless)
There are things you can do. Don't just give up. People who care are needed. We live with the political system we have, and we never stop trying for change. OK, I admit, I can run back to Canada. But while in the country of my birth I will step up and keep on.

[NBNToday]

He better pick Hilary, she is also the one I'm sure he would win by a landslide. I'm just not sure why he doesnt' want to?
Why even take a chance to lose. With Hilary supporters and Obama supporters together add up to "Victory".
I think Obama is gambling if he doesn't pick her, unless he does something smooth like get Al Gore out of retirement. See, what I'm saying is Obama will have to select someone we all know can command the White House. Because he is so new, he's going to need someone who can help him make moves and friends that would support his kind of thinking and ideas for this country. Equality,is unheard of in the White House, it's going to be something real new on Capitol Hill.
Sen Evan Bayh, has been mentioned let me tell you why he won't work because we don't know his ass either. lol.
It's bad enough most of us have to learn about the Presidential nominee so quickly. We don't have time to catch up on who the V.P. is too! you may know him, but blacks and latino folks don't. lol.
They have also brought up Sen. Joe Biden, he is of age and experienced but he himself says "he's not the guy" and I agree he's not. He will not help Obama, and he definitely won't get him a landslide not even a mudslide. lol. Hilary is his safest bet.
NBN

[justobserve]

Maybe because she will be second in line and you couldn't be sure of Obama's security!

[paul15260]

Thank you for saying it.

[spicegal]

Some people will never be satisfied, and unfortunately, the Dems are notorious for shooting themselves in the foot. If Dems are smart, they'll get behind whoever Obama picks whether it's their top pick or not.

[boing007]

In 2004, only 23% of Americans described themselves as liberal, versus 26% middle of the road and 32% conservative. Unless you're running to represent a constituency that's dependably left of center, it's almost impossible to get elected without appealing to the middle.

And only half of them even bothered to vote.

[Boadicea]

Thank god, an intelligent voice.

I'm fine with any VP Obama picks. I know how to work as a team for a common goal, and constantly second-guessing the quarterback is not the way.

I'm also a former Republican, and I know that constantly tearing down their own candidate is exactly how Democratic supporters continually lose national elections. Republicans don't do that, and that's why they win, even with the worst of candidates. They reach election day with all the enthusiasm for their shared journey to a win intact. Not so Democrats.

I wish to hell they'd wake up, but from what I'm seeing, Democrats are heading straight for another loss by killing enthusiasm for their own candidate.

[notamarin]

"... constantly tearing down their own candidate is exactly how Democratic supporters continually lose national elections."

That really couldn't be less true.

I'm not even sure why you would think it was. There are a lot of reasons dems have lost and that is probably around reason #79 or so.

Not picking the right candidate, in contrast, is in the top two.

[Boadicea]

You're wrong but I've learned it's not worth the trouble to argue the point online.

[iamamerican2]

They will never be satisfied he should pick whom ever he wants. If he stuck to every liberal positions and
did what ever they wanted he would never win. He's not the running for mayor in san francisco, you gotta
buck the party if he didn't he wouldn't be the leader of it. Nancy pelosi can get revenge for all you partisans.

[FogBelter]

Since the rise of Reagan, the NeoCons, Voodoo Economists, and the Moral Majority beginning in the 80s ... how much has the Right compromised?

We must learn from their success, Mr Ose.

[ProudDemocrat85]

Look no further than the 2004 exit polls. It is absolutely impossible to win with only the base. The middle is where elections are won or lost.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Liberal (21%)

Moderate (45%)

Conservative (34%)

[notamarin]

Yes, but it's how you GET the middle. And it is not by pandering.

Do you honestly think Bush is a centrist?

Heck, Bill C. campaigned as more liberal than he governed!

Most of the middle isn't even voting on issues, other than the economy. They are voting for a person.

[Boadicea]

If you read up on the Clinton/Bush contest, you'll find out that Clinton had all sorts of deals with corporate lobbyists, under the radar. He ran a stealth corporatist campaign, and he followed through on those promises.

[BarryChamplain]

Dude, this isn't about "liberal".

This is about most Americans, by any poll, by any measure, overwhelmingly wanting that bloody and corrupt war crime in Iraq to END ASAP.

So... given that...

How the hell exactly do you figure that you're playing to some sort of mythical, BS, all-American, apple pie "center" of America... by making 50% of your ticket PRO-WAR?

Ideology my butt... did you fail 5th grade math?

This is the very concept of "moderation" and "centrism" that we have been force-fed for decades, by smarmy Beltway pundits and lying corporate media... and by those highly-paid Democratic political consultants, who lost us our presidential elections in 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, and 2004. And amazingly... they're still working!

They need to get off the national stage, and go fishing permanently. They (and you) are not doing us any damned favors.

[WorkingClass]

Correct. The Democrats astonishing record of defeat results from their rejection of progressive values. The middle is progressive.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/19/middle-class-supports-key_n_119941.html

[ProudDemocrat85]

I wholeheartedly agree with this article. The fact is that elections are won in the middle. If we want to win, we have to balance out the ticket so that we can bring along the left, in addition to the middle, which includes a few Republicans that came to grips with reality and are now voting Democratic.

[booksnmore4you]

Let's do this:

Regarding the blogosphere, disregard each and everything said unless the person posts using their real name, and that real name is verified through some external service like http://www.beenverified.com/

Do this and we will suddenly have an extremely more responsible blogosphere, one where the veil of anonymity does not provide a veil for stupidity, or least things that would be said very differently.

[PennP]

Sure thing, and let's post those home addresses and SSNs, too.

Now, is it Mr. or Ms. Booksnmore4you?

[FogBelter]

Entrepreneurs

[FogBelter]

Another thing to think about ... the Federalist Papers that created the foundation for our interpretation of the US Constitution, were written by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay under pseudonyms.

So not all anonymous authors are hiding behind a "veil for stupidity".

For that matter, Mark Twain was no slouch either. Although talent and output differs, the principle is the same.

[Querent]

The real veil for stupidity is being provided by the MSM, based on their lack of comprehenison, their addiction to fictional characterization, which helps them keep their speculative long-term narrative in mind, and the orders they receive from their corporate owners.

[Steve Clemons - Huffpost Blogger]

Erik -- Terrific piece, but I think you and your wife will tie and both not win. I think Obama does care about the broad spectrum out there and doesn't want to tick off any group all the time over and over again. Biden makes a lot of groups happy, even the left, and doesn't piss off any best i can tell. We'll see how it turns out -- but nice analysis.

best regards,

Steve Clemons
http://www.TheWashingtonNote.com