So If It's Not Bayh...

...then who? Jeralyn at Talk Left has a pretty intriguing theory:

The Vice Presidential candidate speaks at the Democratic Convention on Wednesday night. The theme that night is "Securing America's Future."

So the VP candidate is someone who fits with that theme. Also, according to another report I read elsewhere, military veterans are part of the night's theme.

Could Gen. Wesley Clark be back in the ballgame? His organization is Securing America's Future, the same name as the night's theme. More on that here.

She argues that Wes Clark would actually be a pretty good choice.

Here's Gen. Clark In 2002:

I'm concerned about the lock-up policy, the 3-strikes policy, putting people in jails and the way we've treated people in prison. We've got to look seriously at the American penal system and what it does when it returns people.to the streets." Source: WBUR Public Radio interview Jun 19, 2003

On the Patriot Act in 2004:

I will suspend the portions of the Patriot Act that have to do with search and seizure law, and we'll go back to old way with probable cause and judges and warrants, and then we'll take the whole act back to the Congress for legislative review. We will have all the authority we need to protect the country from terrorists, but you can't win the war on terror by giving up the very freedoms we're fighting to protect. Wes

He's uneasy about the death penalty and at one point supported a moratorium on it.

He's even open to medical marijuana (same link):

When asked about marijuana laws, he said he opposes the use of the illegal drug. However, he added that he has talked with people who use it to ease their chronic pain. “They said smoking marijuana helps,” he said. “We need to look at that and make some allowances one way or another.”

He would have fired Rumsfeld in 2003.

Okay, my mind's made up. I want General Wesley Clark for Vice President. He's got the experience and a better position on issues I care about than every other name mentioned.

I have to say that her argument for Clark is compelling on the surface. It would be very hard for the GOP to say that Clark doesn't have military/national security experience and he's dead correct about the Patriot Act needing to be reigned back in. I've been hoping for Russ Feingold myself, but Wesley Clark would certainly be better than Evan Bayh based on that evidence.

But Clark has his share of problems too, mainly both the GOP and the netroots have already torn him up based on his failed 2004 run, and he clearly has had bad moments.

It's not time for panic about the Clark campaign, or rage about the top-down groundswell behind him, only questions: What was the retired general spending his time on in the last three months, while the world knew he was only his wife's blessing away from declaring his candidacy? Wasn't there a minute to catch up on the Brady Bill, to figure out whether he'd have voted for the Iraq war declaration in Congress last October and exactly why, to research whether or not he voted in 1972 -- "I hope I voted then," he said, "and I would have voted for [Richard] Nixon." And why are party big shots so enamored of this politically untested general who admittedly performed well in CNN studios but doesn't seem ready for the rough and tumble of campaign trail journalism?

It wasn't the political positions Clark stated that were disturbing as much as the apparent lack of thought behind them. His confessing that despite his doubts about the Iraq war he "probably" would have supported the resolution in Congress isn't indefensible -- John Kerry made the same decision for much the same reason (although he's finding the nuances of his choice tough to defend politically). What's disturbing is Clark's appearing to have hardly thought about it much until now, and the vacillating way he defended his position once he took it.

A moment after saying he'd probably have voted for the resolution, he added, "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position -- on balance, I probably would have voted for it." But later, talking about Howard Dean's opposition to the resolution, Clark said, "I think he's right. That in retrospect we should never have gone in there. I didn't want to go in there either."

Granted, Clark has had 4 years to work on his campaign chops since then. But there's a hell of a lot of out of context ammo the GOP can use against him from '04, and there is the rather nasty problem that he endorsed Hillary, not Obama.

Still, the PUMAs will see any choice that's not Hillary as a problem, but as with Bayh and Feingold, a male Veep *will* be seen as a betrayal and rejection of women voters by Obama by the PUMA crowd, and they will exact punishment, the question being only how much. There's a whole lot of evidence that Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius would be the compromise candidate for the PUMAs that Obama is looking for.

Sebelius is among the vice presidential prospects mentioned most often by Obama's key supporters, including many who say that if Obama bypasses Hillary Clinton then he would do well to choose another woman. At 60, Sebelius is a popular two-term governor of a Republican-dominated state, and her reputation as a low-key problem-solver marks a contrast with Clinton.

Her problem is lack of national exposure and foreign policy experience -- opposite problems of Wes Clark -- and there is of course the problem that she will be seen as a direct insult to Hillary...but to be fair, anyone who isn't Hillary will be seen as such.

With Clinton now formally gone from the race, her most fervent female supporters have taken up the cause of putting her on the ticket as the vice president. To snub Clinton in favor of another woman -- Sebelius -- would be a slight that many women might not be able to reconcile themselves to.

Depending on where you stand, Sebelius's gender is either one of her strongest assets or a major argument against her. Seen one way, picking her would reinforce the historic nature of Obama's candidacy and help strengthen his hand among female voters alienated from him after the race against Clinton. Seen another, Sebelius's gender makes her all but unselectable -- a symbolic provocation to the legions of Clinton backers.

General Clark has a lot of things going for him (more than Bayh of course) but there are more than a few strikes against him too. He's preferable to Bayh of course but again, he may not be the best choice. Gov. Sebelius is another strong choice and can bring a lot to the table too, but not the same things Clark can.

As much as I think Russ Feingold would kick ass, he's not in the hunt, and I honestly think Obama's Veep will be either Clark or Sebelius. Either one is far, far better than Bayh. But in the back of my mind the cynic in me can't rule Evan Bayh out...or Hillary Rodham Clinton for that matter. Clinton would be a disasterous selection...but the temptation must surely be there for somebody in the Obama camp to say "You're screwed no matter who you pick, might as well go for her."

It's true what they say: A Veep pick can't help you, but it surely can hurt you. Obama has the most important and most difficult Veep selection in a long, long time.

UPDATE: BooMan points out Clark's not happening and that Virginia Governor Tim Kaine is and that Kathleen Sebelius has indeed earned a speaking slot at the DNC Convention:

Thus, I refer you to fivethirtyeight's analysis and note, in addition, that as far as I know no slot has yet been reserved for Evan Bayh.

UPDATE 2: With the announcement of Virginia's former Governor and Senate candidate Mark Warner as the DNC's keynote speaker, the general consensus is current Virginia Governor Tim Kaine is NOT going to be Obama's pick.