Just read David Leonhardt's extensive piece in the NYT on Obamanomics.  There's a passage where government investment in Virginia is put forth as a model to revive the national economy, an idea pushed by Governor Tim Kaine.  So... does this mean Tim Kaine could be the VP? I think Obama did say he wanted someone furious about the state of the economy and who would help fix it...

On the other hand, I just had this idea - perhaps others have thought of it, but I haven't seen it.  Former Governor Mark Warner is easily coasting to the VA Senate seat, and is enormously popular - more so than Kaine.  Could Obama pick Warner?  If the Democratic Presidential ticket reads Obama/Warner, it is quite likely that VA will turn blue, giving Obama the election (even without OH).  And Governor Kaine would nominate another Democrat to replace Warner, retaining that gain... Is that such a crazy thought?

[Kaine could be given a high administration post once his Governorship is complete...]

Bil Browning writes at HuffPo that Evan Bayh will be named Obama's VP on Wednesday, partly based on the announced schedule of the Obama campaign - an event Tuesday afternoon in Indiana, but departure on Wednesday afternoon without any events in-between. Browning updates his post at Bilerico to later say this may not be the case, while Howey Politics says Obama could just be spending the night at home in Chicago (via Bilerico). Rumors abound...

Evan Bayh could be a decent pick - two-term Governor and two-term Senator in a traditionally Red state, that is a toss-up this year and could turn Blue. But he apparently was front-and-center in supporting the initial decision to invade Iraq. Further, the (possibly re-elected) Republican Governor Mitch Daniels could replace Bayh with a Republican for the next two years, which would reduce the Democratic Senators count by one (but as Sylvia Smith points out, the potential Dem pickup in Alaska post the Ted Stevens indictment could compensate for this loss). I wonder how Susan Bayh's directorship of many companies - in areas where Senator Bayh apparently cast many votes - will play out.

I would personally prefer either Kansas Governor Kathleen Sibelius or Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, both of whom have been re-elected in Republican states with good majorities. Sibelius is apparently personally pro-life, but has repeatedly vetoed legislation banning abortion (after all, this is Kansas). Napolitano has called for federal comprehensive immigration reform, based on her experience as both a US attorney and as the AZ Governor (via Wikipedia). Both were named among five best Governors in America in November 2005 by Time magazine. So they are excellent candidates - who happen to be women. Of course, since both of them endorsed Barack Obama during the Democratic primaries, an Obama/Sibelius or an Obama/Napolitano ticket may not be the "unity" ticket some see in with Obama/Bayh. And Kansas is unlikely to turn blue, while Arizona may well remain red, given recent polls.

Still, I'd love to see either Sibelius or (especially!) Napolitano on the ticket. Probably not Senator Hillary Clinton; this video has Mitt Romney using her words twice to criticize Obama, while an Ohio Republican ad just came out featuring Clinton yelling "Shame on you, Barack Obama!" Not to mention the fact that the Clintons represent Washington-as-usual...

[Cross-posted at my personal blog.]

I have heard that quote from Barack Obama being lampooned as a sign of his alleged arrogance and elitism. The refrain runs, "who are we, some specially-privileged upper-crust?"
I always took that as an indication that we, the residents of the US and citizens of the world, need to take charge of our own affairs and our destiny. We can't wait for Government to fix problems; change begins from the ground-up. In other words, personal responsibility.
Now, that is not a mission usually associated with big government, tax-and-spend liberals, the alleged-champions of welfare kings and queens. That is supposed to be Republican territory, they who abhor affirmative action, government-controlled social security, and (I believe) Medicare.
Yet, in this election, it is the Democrat who says people need to stop relying on Government and instead, the common people should take measures to change the quality of their life. No wonder Republicans refuse to see this interpretation of the refrain (not unique to me), and instead try to paint it as a "we are better than you" theme.
I wonder if Obama should give a speech explaining what he means when he says "We are the ones we've been waiting for." He's good at that.

Cross-posted at my personal blog.

Via kos, Ambinder has this report from CBS5 in Arizona about trouble brewing for McCain in his home state. (Not sure about the "(Ja?)net for 2006" signs!)
So once again, allow me to push Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano for the Democratic Vice-Presidential slot.  She was re-elected with a 63-35 margin, so she's popular in AZ for sure...  As I wrote on my blog earlier (follow the "push" link above):

"Of course, Senator McCain's from Arizona as well. But that's precisely the point - the sheer audacity of the pick would show that the Democrats are taking the fight to Senator McCain's homeground. With Arizonians on both major party tickets, there's less of a "favorite progeny" factor. Senator McCain would have to spend time and money defending a "given" state, further stretching his resources (considerably lower, for sure, than Senator Obama's). And IMHO, that's a good compelling reason to have a Democratic VP pick who happens to be a woman not named Clinton."

And might I add - maybe that would make McCain blow his fuse in public ;-)

One enduring thought that always sticks in my mind: A person's character is defined by what s/he does in her/his darkest hour.

While the last week was not John McCain's darkest hour by any stretch, it was dark. Obama's foreign tour - prompted by repeated criticisms by McCain! - was successful by all counts, beginning with Iraqi PM Nuri al-Maliki's endorsement of Obama's Iraq plan, and continuing through a 200,000-crowd in Berlin to hear Obama speak. All this while, McCain had to struggle to gain any good press (though he also escaped bad press given his continuing gaffes). So in a sense, it was a dark hour for McCain - how does he fight back against the avalanche of good news* for Obama?

With allegations that Obama is unpatriotic, and would put his personal ambitions before the country. With a negative ad that even Mark Halperin had to admit was an attack ad (via Swampland). Less vile, but equally disingenuous - accusing Obama of traveling abroad and giving political speeches in foreign countries while ignoring pressing concerns back home, even though McCain himself had suggested the trip and given such speeches outside the US. Last but not the least, adopting Obama's plans for Iraq and Afghanistan, while continuing to say Obama was wrong for proposing the very same ideas.

Almost 40 years ago, Senator McCain was a prisoner-of-war, and in his darkest hour, stuck it out for over five years at the Hanoi Hilton despite the possibility of early release as an Admiral's son. And yet, today at a time of much lesser travails, he uses deception so easily just to win a media cycle.

[*Not good press - WaPo's editorial board revealed its anti-Obama bias quite clearly this week.]

[Cross-posted at my personal blog.]