[Updated 8/21] The case for party unity

I have previously reacted badly to repeated news stories about PUMAs and other Clinton-supporters wanting to sink Obama. I feel no different now; just a little less intensely so. Having lived for almost eight years under a Republican administration (almost my entire stay in the US), I am just thirsty for some change from the bellicose posturing* that has embodied US policy, both domestic and foreign. And these die-hard Clintonistas (most appear to be women) are not making things any easier.
[*Props to Senator Evan Bayh for putting this term in my head.]
Thankfully, there are people like Kathryn Oberly, a strong Clinton backer, who's now with the Obama campaign. And commenter Alkibiades, who donated to Obama even while grieving for Clinton's loss. But the 25% of Democrats who are now either with McCain or undecided and are likely Clinton supporters, could make a crucial difference to the outcome of this November's election.
I really hope Obama picks Kathleen Sebelius or (even better!) Janet Napolitano as his VP. Folks who think a female VP pick should be Clinton only do a disservice to the many other competent women in this country, or else belong to a cult of (Clintonian) personality - I don't know which is worse.

But whoever the VP pick is, I implore Democrats and Dem-leaning independents to remember all the things that made the past eight years a complete disaster - a rush to war in Iraq, tax-breaks in the time of war, woefully underfunded NCLB, persistently-administration-favoring/anti-civil-rights Justices Alito and Roberts, manipulation of science, pushing of religion under the guise of academic freedom... And the certain guarantee that many, if not all, of these positions and policies, will be continued and even built upon/exceeded, if that is possible, under a McCain administration.
The choice this November is not between the lesser of two evils, as many Naderites thought back in 2000. No - this is a choice between "reasonably right" and "simply wrong."

Coda: (8/21) I just did my bit towards relieving Senator Clinton's primary debt. Despite President Clinton's classically-Clintonian back-handed support of Senator Obama's candidacy and praise for Senator McCain, and hoping that the contribution goes to some small-time vendor, not Mark frakking Penn. And yes, it was legal - I am a permanent resident of the US.

Democratic VP pick

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...

McCain's "experience" strategy against Obama, and on Clinton...

Michael Cohen argues in an op-ed in the NYT that Senator McCain's attacks on Senator Obama on foreign policy, NAFTA, veterans' benefits, habeas corpus and other areas smack of condescension. More importantly, they come off as "curmudgeonly" ("crusty, ill-tempered, usually old man"!), and set the bar for Senator Obama so low that Obama is bound to pass it with flying colors, just as President Reagan did against President Carter, and President Bush did against a sighing Vice President Gore.
That is an excellent point - I have had the feeling that Senator McCain scorns Senator Obama. This is apparent in McCain's recent comments that Obama has done well for "a young man with very little experience." [Does McCain want to point out that Obama is much younger? link, link] Besides, experience doesn't exactly translate to good judgment (see Rumsfeld, Don; Cheney, Dick) or electoral smarts (see Clinton, Hillary); in both cases, Obama did better. And as Alan Ehrenhalt writes in Newsweek, Obama does have experience - just a different kind, in state legislature (something Hillarycrats refused to see, and apparently neither does McCain).

In other news, Rebecca Traister of Salon lists 12 reasons why Hillarycrats are mad. Some of these make sense - #1, 2, 8, 9, 11 (except for Geraldine Ferraro!) Some are just irrational; #6: everybody knew - back in 2007 - that FL/MI would not count, and nobody stopped Clinton from taking on sexism like Obama did racism; blaming Howard Dean makes little sense. #10: with the track record of brokered conventions being that the particular Party's nominee lost, would they rather Clinton maybe get the nomination and for sure, lose?
Thankfully, as Traister writes, many Hillarycrats also like Obama (enough!) to support him; otherwise Obama would be polling at 30% or so, not the 50% or so of current polls.
As for Traister's #3 - Hillarycrats will be mad if Obama picks a woman not-named-Clinton as his VP - that's exactly why I suggest Governor Napolitano.

Senator Obama's VP pick - Senator Clinton or...?

The reasons for an Obama/Clinton ticket are quite strong - both have dedicated and passionate supporters; the "dream ticket" would heal the divisions within the Democratic Party more quickly [though the nuts at Hillaryis44, still stuck with the image of '90s Hillary Clinton, may never be appeased, more rational folks should get on board.] And Senator McCain is unlikely to have a VP as strong as Senator Clinton - Condoleezza Rice would reinforce the "Bush-3" perception; Senator Clinton would shred anybody else (though Alaska Governor Sarah Palin may be a respectable adversary with a strong ethics/reform platform). Effectively, Senator McCain would be running against two opponents.
Of course, there are problems - Senator Clinton's own remarks are already being used in GOP ads; some Independents as well as some Democrats may vote against a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton train. I consider the first the more serious problem.

So a question is - if not Senator Clinton, then who? Any woman VP would be seen as a "not-Hillary" attempt at wooing women voters. So there has to be good reason to choose a woman VP. I thought Kansas Governor Kathleen Sibelius would be a good choice - but Kansas may be too red. On the other hand - two-term Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano? 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.

Coda: Here are some interesting reads, all via RCP:

Amy Sullivan at Time says Senator Clinton's candidacy (likely) failed because she did not win over 60% of the female vote. The over-65 crowd voted overwhelmingly for Senator Clinton; younger women went for Senator Obama; but the tie-breaker, middle-aged women, split evenly. She describes "optimist feminists" and "pessimist feminists" - the former not having to prove anything to others (a la Senator Amy Klobuchar), while the latter still feel sexism is all-pervasive, and figure that if Geraldine Ferraro ran in 1984 and Senator Clinton in 2008, the next serious female candidate will take another full generation. Senator Klobuchar backed Senator Obama.

Peggy Noonan, formerly a speech-writer for President Reagan and currently a columnist at WSJ, says Senator Clinton "lacked the grace to congratulate the victor" in her Tuesday night speech following the last primaries. Noonan also says America "dodged a bullet" by not having to put a Clinton back in the White House, as "Mrs. Clinton would have been a disaster as president... Mr Obama may lie, and Mr McCain may lie, but she would lie." Etc.

Hendrik Hertzberg of The New Yorker was at Baruch College during the afore-mentioned Tuesday night speech, and says in that setting, the speech did not come off as badly as some bloggers and commentators have made it out to be. He writes:
"I’m sure that this speech looked confrontational and intransigent on television in ways that it just didn’t in the hall, inside the bubble. In the hall, you don’t see the speaker in closeup. You see her in the distance, in the midst of a crowd. The effect is communal, not egotistic. There are no replays of selected highlights, no panels of experts. You’re left with a mood, and the mood was calm.
So I felt a certain relief, as did other Obama supporters in the room with whom I spoke."
But he also points out that on later reflection, Senator Clinton's congratulatory words for Senator Obama could just as well have been said by the victor for the loser, even though Senator Obama had won the primary race. He also does some math (in hindsight) that shows Senator Clinton was conflating the popular vote tally to give the appearance that she had won far more popular votes than Senator Obama; at best, Hertzberg says, the popular vote race is a tie.

Finally, Clinton advisor Gene Sperling says Senator McCain is the "Master Economic Flip-Flopper."

[I must admit I did not watch Senator Clinton's speech; I was out grocery-shopping and barely made it for Senator Obama's speech.]