Bye bye to VP Bayh

August 25, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana has missed its chance to send another Hoosier to the White House.

With Saturday’s announcement that the Democratic Party’s presumptive candidate for president Sen. Barack Obama chose Delaware Sen. Joe Biden as his vice presidential candidate, the supporters of Sen. Evan Bayh let out a collective sigh and grumble at this missed opportunity.

I admit it – I got excited at the thought of having someone from Indiana as vice president. Indiana is very good at producing vice presidents, having sent five people with Indiana connections to the White House. Bayh would have been the fifth attorney from Indiana to be V.P.

For weeks, vice presidential nominees have been debated ad nauseam in the press. When I woke up Saturday morning to see Biden was selected, I was disappointed, probably like many Hoosiers who wanted to feel like they had a bit of a connection to the presidency.

Bayh would have been a logical choice for Obama in some respects – both are relatively young guys in the world of politics and Bayh could have reinforced Obama’s message of “change” and gone against the typical ticket of older, white men.

But outside of Indiana, what do people know about Bayh? He did receive a lot of coverage for supporting Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign, he has been mentioned in the past as a possible V.P. candidate, and he formed an exploratory committee for running as president this election cycle. But outsiders don’t know him like Indiana residents do.

Bayh is young and has great potential to become a vice president or presidential nominee in the future. He gives Indiana some hope that we may yet send our sixth Hoosier to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT