U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., announced early today he will not be a candidate for president in 2008.His decision was made public in a statement released to The Indianapolis Star.
"As you know I have been exploring helping the people of my state and our country in a different capacity," he wrote. "After talking with family and friends over the past several days, I have decided that this is not the year for me to run for President and I will not be a candidate for the presidency in 2008.
"It wasn't an easy decision but it was the right one for my family, my friends and my state. I have always prided myself on putting my public responsibilities ahead of my own ambitions."
He conceded the odds were against him, describing himself as a "relatively unknown candidate."
Comments
Who's next? (drmontoya - 12/16/2006 4:11:56 AM)Feingold, Warner, Bayh.. Clark?Looks like Hillary and Barack Obama may duke it out till the end.. with Denny Kucinich tagging along for the party?
Don't count out Edwards (Politicalhack - 12/16/2006 11:20:48 AM)He's leading in Iowa right now. He's probably announcing next week.No Senator (Gordie - 12/16/2006 8:24:34 AM)There are far more reason then being unknown that you are not a good candidate. Glad you could see the light.Stay with it Dennis. Keep the others on their toes.
God forbid the man think for himself (DanG - 12/16/2006 5:51:43 PM)So he broke party line a few times on certain issues and was able to win election in 2004 by a stronger margin than Bush in a Red State. That, in my opinion, is the light. A Democrat who wins in a Red State. Because do the numbers Gordie, there are more Red States than Blue. Ask John Kerry. Bayh was about as Moderate as Mark Warner or Tim Kaine, yet you haven't criticized them much?As for Dennis, I assume you mean Kucinich? No offense, Gordie, but Bayh has a better chance of changing his mind, running for President, winning the election, bombing England and becoming King than Dennis has of even placing fourth or fifth.
Bayh came to the same conclusion as Mark Warner and Russ Feingold, and others will probably join them: Not going to beat Hillary. That's the question. Who out there can stop Hillary?
This is sorta depressing... (James Martin - 12/16/2006 10:20:11 AM)He was by far the most electable candidate.Very suprised (DukieDem - 12/16/2006 12:58:39 PM)Bayh had a big warchest, and with Warner out he seemed to have the moderate vote for the taking.I'm really suprised all these guys are bowing out.
Hillary (DanG - 12/16/2006 5:52:24 PM)He came to the same conclusion as Warner and Feingold: None of those guys could beat her.That pretty (JPTERP - 12/16/2006 4:30:58 PM)much leaves Wes Clark as the political outsider with a centrist appeal.This looks more and more like a choice between Hilary and Barak Obama--with Edwards likely making a strong showing in Iowa.
Clark isn't a Centrist (DanG - 12/16/2006 5:55:24 PM)The only true Centrist left is Vilsack, but he's not going to win. He's got the charisma of a carrot (he looks like a nice guy though.) I want to see if Al Gore runs (aids say he's rethinking it), and if he'll the moderate populist Gore from 2000, or the liberal-liberal Gore making commentary recently. Also, I have to admit I'm interested in Edwards.I like Clark, and I'm probably leaning towards supporting him now that Bayh's out, even though he's a liberal who somehow has the reputation of being a centrist. But everybody is starting to think that Hillary will win this thing, and Bayh, Warner, Feingold, and everybody else are just hoping they can nab the VP spot.
Clark's stance (JPTERP - 12/16/2006 9:14:30 PM)Clark may be center-left on social issues, but in what other respects is a liberal?I don't think the conventional wisdom is with Hilary. The conventional wisdom seems to be that she'll lose the general election, which is a serious strike. She'll have the money, but she won't win Iowa or New Hampshire.
I think Obama has to be viewed as a strong front runner. He is on the record as having been opposed to the Iraq invasion before the invasion (made a great speech about this to a crowd of about 2,000).
Edwards is probably poised to win Iowa. If he has the funds he could also make some serious noise.
I dismissed Obama earlier based on experience, but based on some additional reading I think he could be an acceptable candidate. Clark has the military credentials and the economics degree. I think he could be a strong candidate, although he needs to bolster his funding substantially in order to be competitive.
I still have serious reservations about Edwards national security credentials (should be the same with Obama--although once again, if you read his pre-Iraq speech my sense is that this guy is a foreign policy realist).
I also could vote for Hilary, although I am almost 100% certain it would be a quixotic vote during the general election.
I wish he had stayed in for awhile (relawson - 12/16/2006 4:42:19 PM)[b]"I concluded that due to circumstances beyond our control the odds were longer than I felt I could responsibly pursue."[/b]That hasn't stopped Dennis Kucinich!!! (Or Sharpton, Clark, and many others in the past)
I wasn't exactly warming up to Bayh, but I never had a chance to warm up to him. I hate to see candidates dropping out before we have a chance to really consider them. I also hate to see the media deciding our candidates, yet again, for us.
Who cares who the media says is a favorite now!!! We haven't had a chance to meet all the candidates and I don't think they should have these stupid polls until we do.
I am awaiting Edwards to announce. I think of all the people expected to run, he will be my favorite. Clark isn't too far behind. Obama just doesn't have the experience - maybe he will split the Clinton vote in the primary because I really don't want her to be President.
There should be a one family member per average human lifetime rule...I don't want another Bush, Clinton, Kennedy, etc. They had their chance to rule the free world, and this isn't a monarchy. Time for fresh blood!
It's all about the money, baby! (Kindler - 12/16/2006 4:52:23 PM)This sounds very similar to the Warner decision, and I suspect it all comes down to fundraising. Hillary's tying up all the Democratic money, and it'll come down to her and only 1-2 other viable candidates (sorry, Mr. Kucinich, that doesn't include you).It is sad that the big money people, and not the voters, are making these decisions.
Take a look at his cash on hand (Nell - 12/16/2006 10:21:12 PM)Second only to Sen. Clinton, if I recall. And he gave almost nothing to candidates in this fall's campaigns.No, it's not money. It's the boat anchor of having voted for this insane war. There's only room for one Iraq-war-supporting corporate shill in this race -- the one with the name recognition.
Bayh for VP (DanG - 12/17/2006 1:08:18 PM)People are thinking that Bayh is a natural VP choice. Lots of experience, helps in Indiana and Ohio, etc, and lots of money.November '04 (justicat - 12/16/2006 10:18:24 PM)Dean running first...
followed by Gephardt...any polling this early is name recognition and doesnt mean bo...