Bayh would be the practical best choice. He's young and attractive, but not the silk pony. He has an attractive family as well. He has been elected and re-elected easily in a red state whose Electoral Votes he would carry, and which is the junction of the Midwest and the South. He's the only one I can see who could possibly turn red states blue.
On the other hand, his vaunted appearance at the DNC convention in either 92 or 96 bombed. He was to have been that year's Obama. Also, he has the same Gore handicap of actually growing up the son of a senator in DC and, I think, attending St. Albans.
I see no other Dem on the horizon who has his assets for appealing to the general public.
OR we could try to have him switch parties. Other than family tradition, I've never figured out why he's a Dem anyway.
"Other than family tradition, I've never figured out why he's a Dem anyway."
What I can't figure out is why people think that Bayh is conservative. His lifetime ACU rating is only a 22, not much higher than John Edwards (12) and nowhere near that of Democrats Ben Nelson of Nebraska (51) or Zell Miller of Georgia (65). Bayh's voting record is consistently pro-abortion; while he has voted in favor of final passage of the partial-birth abortion ban, he did so only after voting in favor of the sham substitute amendment that wouldn't have banned any abortions because it exempted cases in which the "health" of the mother (including mental health) was threatened, making him no more "moderate" on the issue than Tom Daschle and Patrick Kennedy. He has voted for some tax cuts, but for the most part he likes to tax and spend. Bayh also voted to filibuster many of President Bush's judicial nominees. Frankly, the guy is a liberal with good public relations, and there is no way that we should try to get him to switch.
But I agree with you that he would be a strong presidential candidate for the Democrats, even though he wouldn't have come close to beating Bush in Indiana.