Bill Manzi.com

The negotiations are complete, and the name of Hillary Clinton will be placed into nomination at the Democratic convention. The Clinton and Obama camps have issued a joint statement:

Since June, Senators Obama and Clinton have been working together to ensure a Democratic victory this November. They are both committed to winning back the White House and to to ensuring that the voices of all 35 million people who participated in this historic primary election are respected and heard in Denver. To honor and celebrate these voices and votes, both Senator Obama’s and Senator Clinton’s names will be placed in nomination.

“I am convinced that honoring Senator Clinton’s historic campaign in this way will help us celebrate this defining moment in our history and bring the party together in a strong united fashion,” said Senator Barack Obama.

Senator Obama’s campaign encouraged Senator Clinton’s name to be placed in nomination as a show of unity and in recognition of the historic race she ran and the fact that she was the first woman to compete in all of our nation’s primary contests.

“With every voice heard and the Party strongly united, we will elect Senator Obama President of the United States and put our nation on the path to peace and prosperity once again,” said Senator Hillary Clinton.

Senator Obama and Senator Clinton are looking forward to a convention unified behind Barack Obama as the Party’s nominee and to victory this fall for America.

Obama continues to bend, and Clinton continues to push. I guess this means Hillary wasn’t selected as Obama’s choice for Vice President.

The second New York Times profile of potential Vice Presidential nominees is on Indiana’s Evan Bayh. Senator Bayh is a former two term governor of red state Indiana, and the son of former Senator Birch Bayh. (I rooted for Birch Bayh when he ran for President back in 1976). Bayh was a supporter of the Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, and is known as a centrist. (He chaired the centrist Democratic Leadership Council for four years.)

Bayh, like all the other potential candidates, has all sorts of praise and criticism coming at him now. On the plus side:

But admirers, some of whom are actively promoting Mr. Bayh as a No. 2, say he could complement Mr. Obama in areas like executive experience and economic expertise, while bolstering the image of a generational change. And his earlier allegiance to Mrs. Clinton could help soothe disgruntled Clinton supporters.

Even Move On is not condemning Bayh:

Eli Pariser, the executive director of the antiwar group MoveOn.org, said that Mr. Obama had a variety of factors to weigh in making a choice and that he was not ready to say that Mr. Bayh should be ruled out because of his views at the start of the war.

“We are not going to get into which particular person is good or bad,” Mr. Pariser said. “We hope that emphasizing Senator Obama’s judgment against the war is something they consider in making their pick.”

And the negatives:

One conventional assessment of Mr. Bayh is that he is a bland, unexciting politician who would not energize a national ticket. His 1996 keynote speech to the Democratic National Convention in Chicago was panned. In a recent column, Dick Morris, a former consultant to President Bill Clinton, described Mr. Bayh as a “cream puff” for failing to go on the attack in that speech, a decision Mr. Bayh later described in a book, saying his view was that voters were tired of negative politics.

And not everyone thinks his early support for the Iraqi invasion is acceptable.

“He was not only wrong, he was aggressively wrong,” said Tom Andrews, national director of the Win Without War coalition, referring to Mr. Bayh. “In my view, he would contradict if not undermine the Obama message of change, turning a new page on foreign policy and national security.”

Bayh brings some strengths to the ticket, but would likely be not well received by the left. Could Bayh deliver his home state for Obama? I think Bayh has to be under real consideration here, and has likely gone by my early pick of Virginia Governor Tim Kaine. You still have time to enter our VEEP Sweeps.

Read the New York Times story here.

Barack Obama’s latest internet ad, hitting McCain on economics. Obama cites a story we blogged on here about the huge Iraqi surplus being built while America spends billions on Iraqi infrastructure. Do you think he picked it up by reading this blog? OK, maybe not, but it is a valid point, and one that resonates with people in the U.S.

The latest McCain effort, once again raising the celebrity issue on Obama. I know this one will be wasted on Jules, who is a founding member of the Obama fan club!

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aIOvJ0L2Rys&color1=11645361&color2=13619151&hl=en&fs=1&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true"

Another Obama ad, trying to turn the “celebrity” issue around on John McCain. If this race will be determined by trying to figure out who may constitute the biggest celebrity this ad is very important. And since McCain broached it first I guess Obama has a right to respond. Hopefully we will move beyond determining the biggest celebrity to discussing real issues.

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tBPZyXvEw6M&color1=11645361&color2=13619151&hl=en&fs=1&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" wmode="transparent"

The New York Times has started profiling some of the potential choices for Vice President in each party. They have profiled Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty a couple of days ago, and today profiled Indiana Senator Evan Bayh. I found the Pawlenty profile to be a good piece that did as much as one piece could to bring Pawlenty’s political persona forward. Some of the things I found interesting in the Times story:

Outside his home state, Mr. Pawlenty is among the least-known of the prospects Senator John McCain is said to be considering as a vice-presidential partner. But those who have followed his political rise here say Mr. Pawlenty’s personal story — his direct, everyman appeal to ordinary people — is among his most powerful attributes.

As a Republican Pawlenty talks the limited government mantra, but also tries to move beyond the corporate types to everyday folks.

Long before the polls began suggesting that Republicans could face trouble in November, Mr. Pawlenty, now in his second term, was urging his party to become “the party of Sam’s Club,” not just the country club.

“We need everybody — to grow the party and to move forward,” Mr. Pawlenty explained in a recent interview. “One of the most powerful reasons people go to Sam’s Club or Target or Costco is they want value, and Republicans are well suited to be the party that says, ‘We’re going to have a limited but also effective government.’ ”

Pawlenty was an early supporter of John McCain, and has been on friendly terms with him for some time. McCain, from what I gather, will place a premium on such qualities as he makes his determination.

While he was working for Mr. Durenberger, Mr. Pawlenty met Mr. McCain when the senator came to Minnesota, as Mr. Pawlenty recalls it, for a veterans’ program and Mr. Pawlenty (and his wife) volunteered to drive him around. They got to know each other over the better part of two days, Mr. Pawlenty said. They stayed in touch over the years, and Mr. Pawlenty was an early, vocal supporter of Mr. McCain’s presidential bid, even last year when some considered it doomed.

I have picked Pawlenty as the person I think McCain is likely to select as the Republican nominee for Vice President. Remember that our contest (the VEEP sweeps) is still on. Win that Starbucks Coffee gift certificate by correctly selecting the VP picks from each party. I enjoyed Pawlenty’s response to a media inquiry about what constitutes the most important quality a running mate would bring to the table.

Asked at a press luncheon in Washington what the most important quality of a running mate would be, Mr. Pawlenty responded, “Discretion,” and walked away from the microphone.

Touche, Governor Pawlenty.

Read the Times article here.

The Obama campaign has released a rebuttal video that “fact checks” an earlier McCain attack piece. Dealing with the claims made by McCain that Obama wants to raise taxes on a whole swarth of America the video debunks those claims, one by one. Pretty dry video by an Obama policy person, but effective, in my view, for the limited audience it was designed for.

The new “We can solve it” ad is out, and I have posted it here. Without question Al Gore draws some pretty heated responses, even on this blog. (Jules, this video is for you!) Some have said that the goals he outlines are unattainable, or to expensive to be implemented. A fair point for debate which leads me to a Tom Friedman op-ed piece in the Sunday New York Times. Friedman writes on the Danish experience with energy, and it is eye opening. I concede up front that solutions that work in one country may not necessarily work in another, but I was struck by the Danish government rolling up their sleeves and implementing plans that have led to Danish energy self sufficiency. Beyond that the Danes have created jobs and growth by becoming a world leader in alternative energy. From Friedman:

“For example, the wind industry — it was nothing in the 1970s. Today, one-third of all terrestrial wind turbines in the world come from Denmark.” In the last 10 years, Denmark’s exports of energy efficiency products have tripled. Energy technology exports rose 8 percent in 2007 to more than $10.5 billion in 2006, compared with a 2 percent rise in 2007 for Danish exports as a whole.

Not bad. And how about the Danish experience with imported energy.

In 1973, said Hedegaard, “we got 99 percent of our energy from the Middle East. Today it is zero.”

A good op-ed piece, and one that brings us to the point. There has been no effort by our government to change the energy situation here in America. Reduce our dependence on foreign oil? Promote measures that conserve and promote alternatives to fossil fuels? Our government has done nothing, and allowed us to flounder to the point of endangering our national security. So when I hear that Gore is selling a pipe dream, I wonder what the alternative is. Bring more oil online? Maybe in the short term, but when will we we start thinking about the long term prospects for the United States if we continue on this road? My final thought for this posting is that Gore has been accused of promoting plans that will make energy prohibitively expensive. As we prepare for a winter that will have people unable to pay for home heating because it is so expensive I wonder who is really promoting unaffordable energy. Read the Friedman piece here.