Good Bayh Evan

[pstans]

Evan Bayh announced this morning that he is not running for President in 2008. Hotline On Call had this interesting analysis on Bayh's decision...

Bayh's most recent trip to NH coincided with Barack Obama's first visit to the state. One wonders if the sudden rise of Obama spooked Bayh. The coverage of the two trips was, well, incomparable. A few months ago in Iowa, Mark Warner shared the stage with Obama at the Harkin Steak Fry. It was seen by some as a real eye-opener for Warner, who made the decision not to run a few weeks later.

Bayh said that there were "too many goliaths" in the race to overcome. Obama would definitely be one of those goliaths.

Out of the early contests, Iowa was probably his best chance. Bayh's hope was that he could come to Iowa as a midwesterner with a lot of experience and do well. When Tom Vilsack announced he was running that made Bayh's chances in Iowa slim. Bayh and Vilsack have simlar political stances, both once working as head of the DLC. Bayh had greater experience than Vilsack, but that wouldn't be enough to overtake the home field advantage that Vilsack has.

Bayh worked hard at building a base of support here in Iowa. He had 25 campaign workers from Camp Bayh in the state leading up to the 2006 elections. However, he lacked the ground game that John Edwards still has after the 2004 election.

In the end, Bayh realized he couldn't out muscle Edwards, out-centrist the hometown boy Vilsack, or outshine Obama.


Also posted at Century of the Common Iowan.

[The Count]

1. Buh-Bayh! No need for war supporters to run against GOP war supporters.

War needs to be the issue between the 2 candidates in 2008 (even if, hopefully, we're out of Iraq by then). Mo one who enabled this idiotic action should even think of running!

[Renew Deal]

2. Great news but...

This is terrific news. We get to present the country with a better more left leaning slate than if he had run. But... Why are these big names either dropping out or hesitating to run. We have now lost the heart of the best opposition to Hillary. Feingold and Warner were at the top and Bayh would have been dangerous. Why is that?

I truly believe that Hillary and her people are somehow buying these people off. I just can't pinpoint how yet.

[rep the dems]

3. I'm a little concerned as well.

I'm not ready to say that I think Hillary is responsible but for whatever reason we've lost 3 potential candidates that I would have liked to see run. Maybe some new candidates will enter the field in the next few months. Who knows.

[pstans]

4. You can't buy Feingold

If Hillary offered to buy him off, he would be running for sure. It is more likely that Feingold saw Obama and maybe Gore running and thought he could do more good pushing progressive issues in the Senate.

[wisteria]

5. I think the Goliath was HRC. n/t

[pstans]

6. Goliaths are Hillary, Obama, and probably Edwards

[Clark2008]

7. And Goliaths were made to be brought down. Just ask David.

Or, Wesley Clark...

:7

[pstans]

8. I agree, but Bayh isn't he one to do that

[salin]

10. not even sure that Bayh would even qualify

as a David. He strikes this constituent as a wee bit of a lightweight.

[Joe Bacon]

9. He's far more conservative than his Dad was.

I think his Dad's loss to Quayle in 1980 scarred him.

[nickshepDEM]

13. More like it woke him up...

Realized his dads style of politics just wasnt going to cut it in Indiana anymore.

[PATRICK]

11. Is there a group strategy at play

A DLC team that seeks to blunt liberal progressives and populists by hammering the early primaries? They seem to be consolidating around Hillary and the strongest will be her rabbit for the early steps. Now Gore and kerry both may defer as well to allow Edwards or Obama to carry the torch? This is a shame because a free for all that is not too expensive is healthier for democracy and the democrats. Now one may get a studiously reduced field built on two visions of the party plus some diehards with zero chance. If this is sourly bungled as an intramural game dancing around the weird centrism that got us into surrender mode and a repulsive war I would not be surprised by a voter revolt to the gain of the consistently right and forthright Kucinich.

[RBInMaine]

12. STOP THE CONSPIRACY NONSENSE PLEASE!!

Alright folks, here we go again. FACE REALITY!! '06 was by no means a lurch to the far left! It was a TURN AWAY from the far right and the Bush/R national stranglehold given their colossal failures. Independents and MODERATES that we had lost came back to us to give us another shot because of their disgust with Bush/R's but NOT because they now want to marry the far left wing of the D party. If we blow it by not solving people's problems with a mainstream American agenda then we go back to minority status. That Bayh got out so early is too bad because he, like Mark Warner, is the kind of moderate Dem who can win NATIONALLY. If we are to win in '08 we MUST crack into red states. It is WAY WAY WAY to early to start annointing Hillary or Obama because there are so MANY doubts that either could carry a national general election. No, of course this is no DLC conspiracy to annoint Hillary. Indeed, I'm sure they would have much rather seen Warner or Bayh run. And remember that Edwards is also very much a moderate in many ways. We MUST be a big tent party in order to be a national party, and there is no reason why left-leaning Dems and moderate Dems can't agree to coalesce once and for all around the many principles they share instead of bashing each other over their honest differences. We NEED DLC'ers in this party just as much as we need Kucinich type progressives. As to me, I'm a little of BOTH. I believe in universal healthcare and very progressive labor and economic policy while I also favor capital punishment for the most serious crimes and believe it is ok to hunt deer, have "GOD" in the pledge of allegience, read the bible, and fly the flag outside my house. I am a local Dem party official and am very proud to work to beat the "ReTHUGlicans" at every turn. But I see the reality, and far lefters MUST also, that WE MUST BE THE BIG TENT MAINSTREAM, MODERATE/PROGRESSIVE PARTY THAT CAN WIN NATIONALLY!!
Right now since Bayh and Warner are out I'm with Edwards. An Edwards/Clark or Edwards/Bayh ticket would be a very strong NATIONAL ticket.

[jcrew2001]

14. hillary

I don't think Hillary bought anyone off, its just that when she talks with Donors, they demand and expect that they do not donate to other candidates. So Bayh's pool of donors diminished greatly.

Campaigns are won with money, but when Hillary recaptures the WH, then there will be more democratic initiatives.

[tulip]

15. Amen to that!

[PATRICK]

16. Yow

it was just an idea and needed no high level of conspiracy. It has been an ongoing topic of discussion about directions and factions within the party leadership. I too am an Edwards supporter, all other options including Obama considered. Knowing how zany some politicians' ambitions are as opposed to real world chances I would have liked to see some reason why they injected their hats in the ring in the first place. Kucinich is obviously fully aware that his is a cause of putting his issues on the front burner where they belong. There may be others like him.

Then there are the Gephardts and the Liebermans, wide-eyed hopeful and doomed from the start who really really thought they had a chance to go all the way. Most of these are based on the "toe in door" strategy of capitalizing on their limited regional response in the early primaries(hence the overweaning temptation). The benefits of seeing early success that becomes an affordable bargaining chip at least all enter into the calculations of non regional Quixotes who think they would be loved in Kansas.

Actual center right DLC candidates with a real chance are non-existent, the Clintons being in a league of their own and sometimes softly at odds with other members("softly at odds" being both their independent strength and potential fatal weakness in dealing with any political faction anywhere). Most of the strong candidates will be liberal progressives, populists now firmly rooted in the current center of American politics, hopefully not driven much by the false media agendas.

So, not to step into any hornets' nest or anything I just "wondered" is some of the institutional Dems of the past two decades were trying to rally round the past and their intramural positions behind a favored frontrunner as part of the equation of whether to blow millions on pre-doomed personal campaigns that could only hope for a "favorite son" early edge that doesn't happen so much anymore.

This would not be the level of a cabal since I consider that to be in league with those who consider ALL the connections between most top Dems to be darkly suggestive of ties to corporations, Skull and Bones, etc. and the dominant and secret control over all of them. Polls are not very meaningful at this stage, nor frontrunners. Calculations and moves are- and what benefits they have for various persons
and groups.